217 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

Yup, he was too weak to do it before.

 

He probably could have done it after the normal game epilogue, but he didn't have any reason to until it started killing you.

[Lady Luminous]

I would be alright with it, but one of my favourite parts of Dragon Age is creating new characters; I love my inquisitors, but I've been through a lot with them and I'm ready to experience Thedas through someone else's eyes.

[Anvos]

While I think its a strong possibility that we will end up affiliated with the Inquisition and/or Dorian's Lucenari faction I doubt we'd keep the Inquisitor as the main protag. 

 

The plot arcs directly dealing with Solas might include us similar in a way to Hawke but not likely as main.

[Zafireria]

Yeah I believe so. He needed to absorb Mythal's/Flemeth's powers first.

Otherwise he could have simply removed the Anchor at the beginning of the story when he was "taking care of you" while you slept

 

For all we know he might actually have tried to remove the Anchor at that point. Now I get the feeling that the reason he tagged alone was so he could remove the Anchor when he got a chance and not because he wanted to stop Coryphues and get the orb

 

Yup, he was too weak to do it before.

 

He probably could have done it after the normal game epilogue, but he didn't have any reason to until it started killing you.

 

True, but why did start to react like that? Did Solas "activate" the Anchor somehow or was it just a case off location since the veil is in between the fade and the world. 

[Kezza]

He had already taken the anchor at that point... That's what he does when he grabs your arm or kisses you. Your arm was melting/turning stone/dropping magic-y sparks/whatever at that point because of the loss of the anchor.

He can't have taken the Anchor, it's impossible. The spirit in that fade declares that the Anchor cannot be removed while you still lived.

 

It may be killing you but you're still alive, so in the end you arm gets cut off and the Anchor is left to consume that arm.

[Abyss108]

He can't have taken the Anchor, it's impossible. The spirit in that fade declares that the Anchor cannot be removed while you still lived.

 

It may be killing you but you're still alive, so in the end you arm gets cut off and the Anchor is left to consume that arm.

 

The lead writer stated that Solas removed the anchor.

 

Cory declared the anchor couldn't be removed, but he's not a expert on ancient elvhen magic and doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because he doesnt know how to remove it, doesn't mean the person the magic belonged to couldn't.

[Abyss108]

 

True, but why did start to react like that? Did Solas "activate" the Anchor somehow or was it just a case off location since the veil is in between the fade and the world. 

 

It started acting like that once you got near other ancient Elvhen magic in the fade, so I think it was having a reaction to that. 

 

Whilst Solas definitely wanted the anchor back at the start, and I think he did try to take it from you, he also wants to help and stop Cory. He doesn't want the world to suffer before it ends, and he gains approval every time you help someone.

[Kezza]

The lead writer stated that Solas removed the anchor.

 

Cory declared the anchor couldn't be removed, but he's not a expert on ancient elvhen magic and doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because he doesnt know how to remove it, doesn't mean the person the magic belonged to couldn't.

Where did he say that? Removing it is very different from taking it.

[In Exile]

He can't have taken the Anchor, it's impossible. The spirit in that fade declares that the Anchor cannot be removed while you still lived.

It may be killing you but you're still alive, so in the end you arm gets cut off and the Anchor is left to consume that arm.

Solas did it, because he made it. The Anchor is clearly an important part of the building (and now the dismantling) of the Veil. Whether it was always removable or became removable because it started going out of control, we don't know.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Technically, the anchor is "removed" from the Inquisitor's person by it being quarantined off and then allowed to consume the part of the arm its stuck in. I think Weekes' point in that tweet where he said it was removed was that the anchor wasn't still lingering and going to kill the Inquisitor in the future. I don't have the tweet in front of me (ask the twitter thread) but I remember that the question he was responding to was asking if the Inquisitor was actually saved now or if the Anchor was still going to kill them eventually cus it wasn't gone.

[Zafireria]

It started acting like that once you got near other ancient Elvhen magic in the fade, so I think it was having a reaction to that. 

 

Whilst Solas definitely wanted the anchor back at the start, and I think he did try to take it from you, he also wants to help and stop Cory. He doesn't want the world to suffer before it ends, and he gains approval every time you help someone.

 

Good point. But Morrigan takes you to the called Crossword where there is a lot of Eluvian (magic mirror) just like the place in Trespasser. Why didn't the Anchor react there?

 

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to disprove you or anything. In fact I am trying to gain some insight in how Dragon age work as a world and you seem to have a good understanding of it  

[Abyss108]

Where did he say that? Removing it is very different from taking it.

 

I meant removed. Whether Solas received it after he removed it or not wouldn't have any reason to affect whether you died or not.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

 

It started acting like that once you got near other ancient Elvhen magic in the fade, so I think it was having a reaction to that. 

 

I am fairly certain that, while the Anchor might be going a bit haywire on its own, Solas can also induce it. I think whether he was doing so the entire DLC or not might depend on your approval level with him. You just have to watch a clip of someone choosing to attack him, or the "hidden dialogue" version of the Solas conversation, to see it. Its no coincidence that the mark flares up and brings you to your knees when you do. Solas may not be causing every flare, but he definitely causes that one. Timing is too convenient otherwise.

 

Case in point:

 

[Abyss108]

Good point. But Morrigan takes you to the called Crossword where there is a lot of Eluvian (magic mirror) just like the place in Trespasser. Why didn't the Anchor react there?

 

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to disprove you or anything. In fact I am trying to gain some insight in how Dragon age work as a world and you seem to have a good understanding of it

 

Well nobody really knows any of this stuff, this is just the explanation that makes sense to me. 

 

I don't think any of the magic was active where you went with Morrigan. I could be mistaken but I thought the first few times the anchor started acting up was when you went near some other green-glowy magic stuff. I could be remembering that incorrectly though, I haven't played it since it came out!

 

 

 

 

 

I am fairly certain that, while the Anchor might be going a bit haywire on its own, Solas can also induce it. I think whether he was doing so the entire DLC or not might depend on your approval level with him. You just have to watch a clip of someone choosing to attack him, or the "hidden dialogue" version of the Solas conversation, to see it. Its no coincidence that the mark flares up and brings you to your knees when you do. Solas may not be causing every flare, but he definitely causes that one. Timing is too convenient otherwise.

 

Case in point:

 

 

 

Yeah Solas definitely causes that, but he isn't causing it the other times. He would never randomly torture someone for no reason, even if he hated them. He only does it in self defense if you choose to attack him. He doesn't do it otherwise, no matter how much you made him hate you.

[Zafireria]

 

 

 

Hahah I love FluffyNinjaLama's videos, that one had me cracked up, even the video picture XD

 

Well nobody really knows any of this stuff, this is just the explanation that makes sense to me. 

 

I don't think any of the magic was active where you went with Morrigan. I could be mistaken but I thought the first few times the anchor started acting up was when you went near some other green-glowy magic stuff. I could be remembering that incorrectly though, I haven't played it since it came out!

 

Still nice to hear another perspective. 

 

Now you mention it, I think I remember it going nuts near one of those circle trees, they were there with Morrigan as well, but that one I believe was active. I remember something green glowing from a tree, but if that was the moment it started acting up I can't remember.

[almasy87]

In the same video, he says

"Ultimately none but I could have borne the Mark and survived".

The way I see it, he's talking in the past form, so it means that the Mark is useless now - which would make sense with what Corypheus said to the Inquisitor when they met in Haven, that Quizzy spoiled the Anchor with his/her stumbling.
I don't think others would have been able to use it - not even Solas.

Or he would have said something like "Only I can use the Mark" and that would mean he was going to take it from you. But he doesn't.. so imho he just removed it to save you but he didn't take it back.

I think the Anchor "corrupted" (if  you want to call it so) the quizzy's arm and that it was by that time the only thing keeping the arm alive - removed that, the arm just crumbles cause it's already dead. So Solas decided to cut the arm or it would have spread to the entire body, effectively killing the Inquisitor.

Just my opinion though

[robertthebard]

Where did he say that? Removing it is very different from taking it.

Say what? If I remove something from you, I took it. How are they any different, other than "I need this to be true so I can hold on to my dream" inner monologue?

For all of you solasmancers that seem to believe he took it because he loves you and didn't want you to die: He takes it from everyone, even if you punch him. His motivation is the same, across the board, he took it because he wanted it, and he could.

[Lady Luminous]

Say what? If I remove something from you, I took it. How are they any different, other than "I need this to be true so I can hold on to my dream" inner monologue?

For all of you solasmancers that seem to believe he took it because he loves you and didn't want you to die: He takes it from everyone, even if you punch him. His motivation is the same, across the board, he took it because he wanted it, and he could.

You don't think he might have different motivations even if his actions are the same, if his feelings differ for the inquisitor?

[nightscrawl]

Say what? If I remove something from you, I took it. How are they any different, other than "I need this to be true so I can hold on to my dream" inner monologue?

For all of you solasmancers that seem to believe he took it because he loves you and didn't want you to die: He takes it from everyone, even if you punch him. His motivation is the same, across the board, he took it because he wanted it, and he could.

 
Not necessarily. He could have removed it even if the Anchor was useless to him after that point, for whatever motivation. The word "take" implies that he wants it and that it is still useful in some fashion. And I'm not even a Solasmancer.

 

Technically, the anchor is "removed" from the Inquisitor's person by it being quarantined off and then allowed to consume the part of the arm its stuck in. I think Weekes' point in that tweet where he said it was removed was that the anchor wasn't still lingering and going to kill the Inquisitor in the future. I don't have the tweet in front of me (ask the twitter thread) but I remember that the question he was responding to was asking if the Inquisitor was actually saved now or if the Anchor was still going to kill them eventually cus it wasn't gone.

In this tweet [use rot13 to read it], Patrick Weekes says only that, "He removed the Anchor. Your hand was too far gone at that point to save, though," which to me is still ambiguous enough that a player can head-canon it any way they want. All the player sees is that Solas does a thing and walks away, but we don't know what happens immediately after that. It's not conclusive from what we are shown in the game. So your hand could blow away, become black and desiccated and require removal, or whatever else. As far as I know, the only facts that we have are that the Anchor is gone, and the hand is now gone.
 
Unless you are referencing some other Weekes comment that I'm not familiar with. And sorry if this sounds pissy, but you are the one citing a developer source and using it in your argument. It's not up to the person you are trying to convince to find the proof for you.

[Kezza]

Say what? If I remove something from you, I took it. How are they any different, other than "I need this to be true so I can hold on to my dream" inner monologue?

Remove it: it is gotten rid of

Taking it: I am taking it off you and using it myself

 

Simple.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

 
Not necessarily. He could have removed it even if the Anchor was useless to him after that point, for whatever motivation. The word "take" implies that he wants it and that it is still useful in some fashion. And I'm not even a Solasmancer.

 

In this tweet [use rot13 to read it], Patrick Weekes says only that, "He removed the Anchor. Your hand was too far gone at that point to save, though," which to me is still ambiguous enough that a player can head-canon it any way they want. All the player sees is that Solas does a thing and walks away, but we don't know what happens immediately after that. It's not conclusive from what we are shown in the game. So your hand could blow away, become black and desiccated and require removal, or whatever else. As far as I know, the only facts that we have are that the Anchor is gone, and the hand is now gone.
 
Unless you are referencing some other Weekes comment that I'm not familiar with. And sorry if this sounds pissy, but you are the one citing a developer source and using it in your argument. It's not up to the person you are trying to convince to find the proof for you.

 

That was the tweet I was referencing. I thought the question being asked of him was a different one. My mistake. Thank you for finding the tweet.

 

And I wasn't intending to demand other people find the proof for me. I was simply iterating that I didn't have the exact wording at hand and the twitter thread was the place to look for it, even though I couldn't at the time. You do sound a bit "pissy", but you seem to have interpreted my sentence as some kind of demand on you, so I suppose I understand. No worries.

[Former_Fiend]

I've said this a few times before in a few different threads; if the Inquisitor is the protagonist of the next DA game, then I won't be purchasing the game. 

[robertthebard]

Not necessarily. He could have removed it even if the Anchor was useless to him after that point, for whatever motivation. The word "take" implies that he wants it and that it is still useful in some fashion. And I'm not even a Solasmancer.

 

In this tweet [use rot13 to read it], Patrick Weekes says only that, "He removed the Anchor. Your hand was too far gone at that point to save, though," which to me is still ambiguous enough that a player can head-canon it any way they want. All the player sees is that Solas does a thing and walks away, but we don't know what happens immediately after that. It's not conclusive from what we are shown in the game. So your hand could blow away, become black and desiccated and require removal, or whatever else. As far as I know, the only facts that we have are that the Anchor is gone, and the hand is now gone.
 
Unless you are referencing some other Weekes comment that I'm not familiar with. And sorry if this sounds pissy, but you are the one citing a developer source and using it in your argument. It's not up to the person you are trying to convince to find the proof for you.

He does want it. He wanted Cory to create it, he just didn't think he'd survive the process. Of course, the fact that he even tells you all of this must be disregarded because it doesn't fit, right? You can play around with the semantics all you like, but riddle me this: Does your Inquisitor still have the anchor?

[Abyss108]

I've said this a few times before in a few different threads; if the Inquisitor is the protagonist of the next DA game, then I won't be purchasing the game. 

 

Honestly, if the Inquisitor isn't the protagonist of the next game, I probably won't buy it. 

 

It would be the mage-templar conflict all over again. Spend a hundred hours building up to a massive conflict, then drop it in favor of another plot. That's... Not how writing is supposed to work.

 

I really don't have any reason to get involved in whatever the next plotline will be, if theres is a 2/3 chance it won't be concluded, or will be concluded off screen, or with a completely different character.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I've said this a few times before in a few different threads; if the Inquisitor is the protagonist of the next DA game, then I won't be purchasing the game.

I don't feel quite that against it, but I will definitely wait for a price drop before buying if they do go with the Inquisitor again.