390 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

I know it's not going to happen, but we could always just.... not have romance.

[nightscrawl]

Sounds good. But how would they break up the relationship? Via runner or raven? They would have to have some screen time for each DAI potential LI and tell them, "we are done"?

Concept could work but that's a hell of alot resources poured into breaking off the relationship and useless for single IQs. Voice acting for DAI characters, models, timing in story... or cheaply have a codex reference of it and how would the new LI react to that depending on each new LI.

Just too much money to spend on that versus new content. It's not impossible but I..think that's too much for little return.

A codex assumes that it takes place off-camera, which would necessarily be the devs forcing a breakup on the player. I really don't see that happening, especially as there are marriages. And then you have the issue of Dorian possibly being in the next game as well (nothing is guaranteed, after all), so how would that be handled? Everyone gets a "Dear John/Jane" except the Dorian-mancers who have to break up with him for whatever contrived reason, or even worse, he breaks up with you?

 

Hell, even with the Warden gallivanting off who knows where, and being separated from their LI most of the time, it's still assumed that they are together 10+ years later by pretty much everyone, even the devs. See remarks by Warden Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan for proof.

The whole thing is so unlikely its not really even worth considering. I doubt they would spend the resources for that. I haven't played the ME games, but at least with those you still had mostly the same crew, right? So those NPCs were still around. But that wouldn't be the case with most of the DAI LIs.

[ComedicSociopathy]

I know it's not going to happen, but we could always just.... not have romance.

 

Easily. Just don't initiate one. Problem solved. 

[Abyss108]

Easily. Just don't initiate one. Problem solved. 

 

I'm not sure how me choosing not to play a romance in one game, would solve the problem of Bioware carrying romances on in any sequels... 

[ComedicSociopathy]

I'm not sure how me choosing not to play a romance in one game, would solve the problem of Bioware carrying romances on in any sequels... 

 

You don't have to deal with them if you don't want to. That's the point. Romances aren't forced upon you and if you didn't have one from a previous game it won't be carried over to the sequel. 

[Abyss108]

You don't have to deal with them if you don't want to. That's the point. Romances aren't forced upon you and if you didn't have one from a previous game it won't be carried over to the sequel. 

 

Continuing romances isn't a problem for me. It's a problem for Bioware. I was just pointing out Bioware could simply not have romance in a game. It worked in awakening. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

Continuing romances isn't a problem for me. It's a problem for Bioware. I was just pointing out Bioware could simply not have romance in a game. It worked in awakening. 

 

A lot of Nathaniel and Sigrun fans would disagree with you.

 

Anyways, I see your point, but to me romances in Bioware games are most of the times interesting side-content that you either enjoy or ignore. The only time a romance actually bothered me is with Solas where you only find out about the slave vallaslin if you're romancing him. And judging from Awakenings I doubt that Bioware would be willing add more non-romance character material if romances were removed. 

[vbibbi]

I don't get the dislike for a one-armed character - why would having a prosthetic be a super magical replacement for the Anchor? It just means they have the use of another limb again. Prosthetics aren't gimmicks. I don't mean to be confrontational, but your use of 'normal person' in this context just made me wince. Do you mean 'normal person' as in they don't have a magical advantage yet again? Because if not, then if Bioware choose to not use the Inquisitor for the reason that then Inquisitor is disabled in some way, it's an appalling departure from their previous attempts to be as inclusive as possible - something they, in general, do very well compared to their competitors.

How did you get me discriminating against the disabled by saying I would prefer the Inquisitor to remain with only one arm rather than a magical prosthesis? not wanting the Inquisitor as the PC is not a statement about their disabled status in any way.

The fact is that so far in the universe we have not seen a form of prosthetic, so if the Inquisitor gets one, especially a magical one or some Bianca prototype, we will regain the status of special snowflake, the only person in the world with such a device. It's substituting the Anchor for a new gimmick.

Also to redeem or stop Solas is personal. Bioware made it that way. If you cannot control the Inquisitor who should be heavily involved in that arc, then the story loses all meaning. There's no consistency. There's no way a new protagonist can replicate that relationship given Solas is presumably hiding/running away (unless you become his closest confidante and then turn on him in Bull style - the only scenario I can think of that gives meaningful interaction). So no, no scenario for me unless the Inquisitor is a playable character.

Yes we lose the personal connection, but that's not the same as having no reason to the story. He is trying to bring down the Veil, everyone will be concerned with that whether they know Solas as a friend or lover or stranger. His goal is what any reasonable person would fight against.

Honestly, there have been multiple reasons in this post why it's not likely the Inquisitor will be the prime PC (if we do get dual protagonists) and you seem to be willfully ignoring them. I get that you have a personal connection to the Solas story, but that's not going to be enough to counter all of the points for a new PC.

[Abyss108]

Honestly, there have been multiple reasons in this post why it's not likely the Inquisitor will be the prime PC (if we do get dual protagonists) and you seem to be willfully ignoring them. I get that you have a personal connection to the Solas story, but that's not going to be enough to counter all of the points for a new PC.

 

There are also plenty of posts about why the Inquisitor should be the protagonist, that we could claim you were "ignoring" in the same way. I don't think either side is ignoring the other though. There are pros and cons to both options, it's just which matter to you more, and how you interpret some very open lines of dialogue.

[hoechlbear]

To those that just hate the inquisitor as a character and find them boring, do you think that having a new character will suddenly mean that varied roleplaying options will be brought back? You don't think a new protagonist will be just as restricted?

 

Actually I don't. One of the biggest complaints about DAI was how boring the Inquisitor was and how they couldn't have an actual personality because they were so damn diplomatic all the time. It's understandable, since they are an important person, a leader and couldn't exactly behave like the warden could, but I don't think we will play a character with such power again in DA4.

 

Yes, I find the Inquisitor boring and bland but that's not even the main reason why I don't want to see them as the main protagonist in DA4. We are going to a new place and I want Bioware to take advantage of that. I don't want DA4 to be all about hunting down Solas and I believe it won't be. I think there will be other things going on and quite possibly other main villains... or at least that's what I'm hoping for. Kind of like DAO, where you had the archdemon (which could be Solas in DA4; a huge threat but it's kind of in the background for the most part, mentioned here and there, but you only face it/him in the end) and then you have Loghain, Howe, etc. I want to play a new character that is connected to those new villains, the places we are going to and the story that is going to happen there. The last thing I want is to have the Inquisitor mixed up with things that doesn't concern them and which they have no connection to. There is so much potential for Bioware to give us a more personal story to a new character that has a proper background this time around.

I do think we will face Solas at some point and that's when I think the Inquisitor should come in. Much like how we took control of Ciri in TW3. That to me would be the best approach for DA4, dual protagonists where the new character takes up most of game but when we have to make important decisions concerning Solas and when we finally face him, we should take control of the Inquisitor. I don't think it should be all about the new protagonist but I certainly don't think it should be all about the Inquisitor either. I have never felt a connection to my Inquisitor in DAI and I don't think a whole game focused on them hunting Solas down will change that, to be quite honest.  

 

Also, I really don't like the idea of playing as the Inquisitor while ignoring all past companions/romances and get new shiny ones, which is exactly what Bioware will do if the Inquisitor comes back. There's no way they will bring back not even half of the companions of DAI and cater to all the romances you could have in DAI, and I wouldn't want them to do that either. I was never a fan of companions returning in future games because 1) Bioware almost always ruin them for me (Anders, Varric, Leliana) and 2) I want to meet new characters, get to know their background, their motivations, it's a lot more interesting than seeing a character that you already know but pretend that you don't and hear all about their story again. But if the Inquisitor is the protagonist, it makes no sense to me why they would get a new set of companions (and possibly romances!) while the previous ones, their friends, would all just disappear when they need them the most, specially the person who they are potentially married to.

 

Then there's the little things. I really wanted to have an American accent for my female character but the one in DAI was absolutely terrible and completely stripped out of emotions. The British voice was ok for the most part, but overall it was just "meh" for me. Maybe it was because the lines were so terribly boring, not even the best voice in the world would sound good to me. But basically, I really want new voice actors. Also, I'm really curious what would people call the Inquisitor in DA4. I'm tired of my character being called by some annoying high and mighty title. I'm hoping that, if there's a new character, they will have some sort of nickname or a catchy last name like Hawke, or maybe a more informal title (like the warden) because having your companions, which are supposed to be your friends, call you Inquisitor all the time is just depressing. But the Inquisitor will no longer be the Inquisitor in DA4, being the main protagonist or not.

 

Plus:

 

Controversial, but I don't want to deal with a magical or mechanical device to replace IQ's arm. I don't mind if it happens and the Inquisitor is an NPC, but to me, having the PC have a unique and powerful arm is just replacing the special snowflake of the Anchor with another one. 

 

Agreed but I actually think this would be fun if we could take control of the Inquisitor at some point. Then I wouldn't mind if they had an OP arm. Much like Ciri's powers which were ridiculously strong but a lot of fun in those brief moments we got to play as her.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

A codex assumes that it takes place off-camera, which would necessarily be the devs forcing a breakup on the player. I really don't see that happening, especially as there are marriages. And then you have the issue of Dorian possibly being in the next game as well (nothing is guaranteed, after all), so how would that be handled? Everyone gets a "Dear John/Jane" except the Dorian-mancers who have to break up with him for whatever contrived reason, or even worse, he breaks up with you?

Hell, even with the Warden gallivanting off who knows where, and being separated from their LI most of the time, it's still assumed that they are together 10+ years later by pretty much everyone, even the devs. See remarks by Warden Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan for proof.

The whole thing is so unlikely its not really even worth considering. I doubt they would spend the resources for that. I haven't played the ME games, but at least with those you still had mostly the same crew, right? So those NPCs were still around. But that wouldn't be the case with most of the DAI LIs.

Exactly. ME benefits from a recurring cast and added characters so it didn't seem that much of an issue. Also, a set protagonist for the trilogy helped the team build around it.

The IQ losing an arm isn't a big deal at all, though. They could always develop some strange way of getting a new one (prosthetic or organic). Then again, it defeats the whole point of losing it in the first place.

I know I'm bouncing ideas against it, but I would play it regardless. I love playing new protagonist in each game in one universe. It's a fresh perspective of the world each time. I wouldn't mind the IQ showing up as an NPC but that's resources of CC, four voice actors, (part of) upset player base feeling IQ defilement. This is BW's chance to get the hell out of dodge and leave no strings attached in the north...it makes the Keep almost irrelevant, but ah well. You win something, you lose something.

Bringing the IQ north would bring a lot of baggage.

[vbibbi]

There are also plenty of posts about why the Inquisitor should be the protagonist, that we could claim you were "ignoring" in the same way. I don't think either side is ignoring the other though. There are pros and cons to both options, it's just which matter to you more, and how you interpret some very open lines of dialogue.

I'm not ignoring points, I have shifted my stance from firmly new PC only to open to the idea of dual PCs. I'm annoyed when people seem to intentionally misinterpret my posts to try to discredit my arguments and make me look like I'm discriminating against disabled people.

[demonicdivas]

How did you get me discriminating against the disabled by saying I would prefer the Inquisitor to remain with only one arm rather than a magical prosthesis? not wanting the Inquisitor as the PC is not a statement about their disabled status in any way.
The fact is that so far in the universe we have not seen a form of prosthetic, so if the Inquisitor gets one, especially a magical one or some Bianca prototype, we will regain the status of special snowflake, the only person in the world with such a device. It's substituting the Anchor for a new gimmick.

Yes we lose the personal connection, but that's not the same as having no reason to the story. He is trying to bring down the Veil, everyone will be concerned with that whether they know Solas as a friend or lover or stranger. His goal is what any reasonable person would fight against.
Honestly, there have been multiple reasons in this post why it's not likely the Inquisitor will be the prime PC (if we do get dual protagonists) and you seem to be willfully ignoring them. I get that you have a personal connection to the Solas story, but that's not going to be enough to counter all of the points for a new PC.

  

I'm not ignoring points, I have shifted my stance from firmly new PC only to open to the idea of dual PCs. I'm annoyed when people seem to intentionally misinterpret my posts to try to discredit my arguments and make me look like I'm discriminating against disabled people.

I explained politely in my earlier post that I was asking for clarification. The fact that you stated you wanted a 'normal' protagonist in the next game and your view on one armed protagonists was 'controversial' indicated pretty clearly to me that there may be something wrong with having a playable character who has one limb missing. I then also continued on and said I wasn't sure if that was your intention. Hence why I also asked if you meant the fact that magic or some other special device would elevate the Inquisitor to super status. Simply attaching a prosthetic limb does not give anyone extra abilities and I fail to understand what the problem is with a one armed protagonist no matter the game.

I make no apology for querying a statement I thought was potentially discriminatory. Which you haven't actually yet responded to properly.

As for the Inquisitor retuning - I've stated numerous times that I'm all for a dual protagonist. That will make for potentially one of the most compelling games if they get it right (and that's the route they go down). I've also stated numerous times that I well understand both sides of the argument. From my perspective the positives for a new protagonist aren't as good as the arguments for keeping the Inquisitor. Yet that means I'm wilfully ignoring it because my view differs to yours?

I play for the story only and yes, it is personal to me in ways I am not about to go into on a public forum. If the storytelling consistency I'm expecting/hoping for is not met in the next game then I won't buy it.

[vbibbi]

I explained politely in my earlier post that I was asking for clarification. The fact that you stated you wanted a 'normal' protagonist in the next game and your view on one armed protagonists was 'controversial' indicated pretty clearly to me that there may be something wrong with having a playable character who has one limb missing. I then also continued on and said I wasn't sure if that was your intention. Hence why I also asked if you meant the fact that magic or some other special device would elevate the Inquisitor to super status. Simply attaching a prosthetic limb does not give anyone extra abilities and I fail to understand what the problem is with a one armed protagonist no matter the game.
I make no apology for querying a statement I thought was potentially discriminatory. Which you haven't actually yet responded to properly.
As for the Inquisitor retuning - I've stated numerous times that I'm all for a dual protagonist. That will make for potentially one of the most compelling games if they get it right (and that's the route they go down). I've also stated numerous times that I well understand both sides of the argument. From my perspective the positives for a new protagonist aren't as good as the arguments for keeping the Inquisitor. Yet that means I'm wilfully ignoring it because my view differs to yours?
I play for the story only and yes, it is personal to me in ways I am not about to go into on a public forum. If the storytelling consistency I'm expecting/hoping for is not met in the next game then I won't buy it.

Controversial because anytime the Inquisitor's disabled status is brought up, people assume that if someone doesn't want them as the PC it's because of their disabled status. And that having a magic prosthetic is a good solution to that.

Yes normal as in not having the Anchor or a one of a kind prosthesis. Just the Inquisitor with no special powers unique to them, regardless of if they have one or both hands.

The fact that you "winced" at my post indicates that you had already made an assumption about my intentions and assumed it was discriminatory until proven otherwise.

[Nefla]

Ermagersh guys, I've got a lot of replying to do so I will add my replies to the quotes in this color

Spoiler

Yeah that's my fear with Tevinter, as well. Or else it will swing back in response to feedback and the majority of the game will occur in Minrathous and we don't see any other setting.
Dear BioWare, PLEASE stop overcorrecting!
 
To me, having either dual PCs or having the Inquisitor reappear as a mentor/adviser would keep the game from being solely the new PC's story. Since the Keep imports whether we want to redeem or stop Solas, the Inquisitor-as-NPC can customize their attitude toward the hunt for Solas and can provide the most substantial and significant link to the past game. Realistically, we will need some form of exposition to catch new players up to the plot, since it would be hard to summarize Solas and his plans briefly. If we have multiple acts, each act the Inquisitor could reveal more information and give a new player (or someone who only played DAO, etc.) a connection to the antagonist that you and I already have.
Honestly I'd rather they just have killed the inquisitor at the end of the base game like during the battle with Corypheus or something than purposefully maim them in order to make them "helpless" and force them into an NPC/questgiver role.
 
It would be very difficult to have this exposition if we're already playing as the Inquisitor. Why would they need to catch the player up on Solas? They already know everything. Maybe if they go the dual PC route, we could even have flashbacks of the Inquisitor interacting with Solas, as a way to establish what kind of relationships we had with him (since much of that is not captured in the Keep).I dunno about needing a lot of exposition, a lot can be learned through context. I also think that bringing a new player up to speed on a continued story (because it IS a continued story even if it's not continued by the original protagonist) shouldn't be the priority. Making a great story should. People aren't stupid (despite what EA seems to think) and a great story will make a new player want to go back and buy the previous games as well. Besides, I think a second exposition/introduction on Solas is such a waste of time, resources, and story when you already have that set up from the previous game.
 
I think Bioware needs to step up their game and make DA4 a memorable game.
Definitely!
 
I think DAI was successful for them but not a blockbuster or a significant demonstration of their abilities as a game developer. It's too polarizing a game. So having a more interactive dual PC system would make it stand out more and rework how plots and characters can be imported between games. And TBH, EA would be happy if they're copying some game element from TW3 and theoretically riding those coattails. I liked the dual protagonist thing for TW3 since it fit well with that particular game. You had two set characters with a strong pre-existing relationship (father/daughter) and the plot of the game was the father trying to retrace his daughter's footsteps and save her. The former inquisitor and the random new protagonist don't have the same kind of connection. I'm skeptical of this method for DA4 but I'm not completely closed off to it like I am to a single new protagonist vs Solas.
 
I guess my response question to you is: is there no scenario where we have a new PC but the Inquisitor remains a major player that would satisfy your wishes?
Sadly no. The only thing that would come even remotely close is if the game was set decades later and we played as either Solas' child or the inquisitor's child (grown up of course) but it still wouldn't be as good like I've said before, I want to cut all ties and have an all new adventure with all new companions, new location, new antagonist, etc..OR I want to continue the story set up by Trespasser with the same protagonist, same antagonist, same conflict that was set up, etc...

 
 

Spoiler

Bioware doesn't make mistakes.  Bioware simply has confused and sad players.  
Weren't you hating on ME2 and the Inquisitor earlier...?
 
At any rate, the same things that were in Mass Effect would be in Dragon Age if they kept the same protagonist.  Said protagonist will be separated from most/all of the old companions.  WIll lose their power base.  WIll lose their LIs (in order to introduce new ones) All for the sake of new players not familiar with the series, and to make sure everyone starts out in the same place.  
It worked for Awakening (and ME2 was my favorite out of the series :3 ).
 
Everything you got attached to besides the Inquisitor him/herself will be gone.  So in the end, what's the point?
It makes for a better and more personal story to us.

 
 

Spoiler

The biggest potential is you're playing without the baggage of previous games.
By "baggage" do you mean character development, relationships, relevance, history, etc...? Because if so then I will gladly keep the baggage.
 
 There won't be a need to remind the player at every turn that you are "the Herald of Andraste" or "Inquisitor".  Playing a new character opens up so many more stories and RP opportunities.  You are someone else.  You are telling a different story.  THis won't be "Dragon AGe Inquisiton Part 2 any more than DAI was Dragon Age 2, Part 2.  Or even Dragon Age 2 being Dragon Age Origins, Part 2.
There's so much potential for the inquisitor to go undercover to stop Solas's plans. It could be a great story with a lot of character development, a fall from grace, emotional ups and downs due to losing your special status, losing your position, and even losing your arm. It could also be an opportunity to establish a shadow organization that persists through the ages. Remember when the devs said we would get to do something like "found the jedi order?" this could be it.

 
 

Spoiler

There's no Inquisitor vs. Solas story. For that story to exist, the Inquisitor would have to be more than a blip on his radar. And that's just not true.
That's a ridiculous statement. If the inquisitor isn't on his radar, why is he actively spying on the inquisitor? Why did he lure the inquisitor into getting rid of the Qunari for him? Why does he tell a friendly inquisitor that he wants them to prove him wrong and that this world is worth saving? Why does he spare an antagonistic inquisitor stating that their death will lead to panic and suffering among the populace?
 
You fail in every meaningful way at even opposing Solas. DAI ends with Solas saving your life even if he actively hates you, because your just THAT irrelevant a figure (or saves you due to friendship). In what way did the inquisitor fail at opposing Solas? They only knew about Solas at the last second when they were about to die from their arm exploding. Do you mean they failed to kill him right then and there and end the plotline before it began? Remember when Shepard failed at killing Sovereign when he first saw it on Eden Prime? What about when the Warden first saw Loghain or the Spirit Monk first saw Master Li? A story wouldn't be worth anything if the hero just easily curbstomps the villain when they first meet. That confrontation and reveal with Solas is a clear beginning to a story between the two characters.

But the relationship is personal. The Inquisitor is just a background character in Solas' plot. At this point Morrigan has more of a connection as the heir to Mythal.
lol no.

The Inquisitor had a story: stop the breach, find out who caused it. That story wrapped up. It just so happened that it didn't end with the Inquisitor winning.
The story with Corypheus ended, but Trespasser began a new story, introduced a personal grudge, and forced every single player into a state where the inquisitor is alive, has sworn to stop or redeem Solas, and is working in secret to that end.

Just because the Inquisitor is really sore about things at the end of Trespasser doesn't make this a versus situation.
You're right. What makes it a "versus situation" is the dialogue between the two that spells it out for you as well as the actions I listed above.

 
 

Spoiler

No, it didn't. If I declared Paul McCartney my mortal nemesis right now, it doesn't make me his antagonist. It makes me a wacko. It's not that different with the Inquisitor. Shaking a fist and the heavens and yelling "I'll get you next time, Solas!" doesn't make you anything.
I assume you and Paul McCartney don't know each other, have never met, and have nothing to do with one another. Of course you'd be a wacko for declaring some guy you've never met your nemesis for no reason. That's not equivalent at all.

Solas doesn't underestimate you. He just doesn't value you. He doesn't care if you try and stop him. He says as much, if you're very openly antagonist (though it varies if you're friends or not). Solas overestimates himself and his judgement. Remember how well it worked out for him in the past? Creating the veil totally saved his people right? Oh wait...they all died. But then using the ancient magister to unlock his orb was a sound plan, said magister didn't go on a rampage and break the orb anyway...wait...Solas is extremely arrogant and it's been his downfall time and again. If he THINKS nobody will be able to stop him, he's in for a rude awakening. PS: If Solas doesn't think the inquisitor can stop him, he's not going to think some random lv 1 former slave or mage apprentice will be able to stop him either.

Solas uses the Inquisition as a vehicle to achieve every one of his plots. You're the instrument for his rise to godhood, and he infiltrated your entire organisation from day 1. He tells you as much. He is one of the architects behind your rise as Inquisitor (he is the one who tells you about Skyhold and then has you prophetically lead the survivors of Haven there) and then uses you to stabilise the breach, stop Corypheus, and recover the Anchor.
Which gives you a personal grudge and a motivation against him that a new protagonist wouldn't have. Much better than the generic "oh no some evil elf wizard is destroying the world, lets stop him!" that a new hero would inevitably get.

You're left neutered and broken at the end of Trespasser. Declaring yourself to still be relevant doesn't make you relevant.
I'm a lady.

There's nothing stopping Bioware from making the Inquisitor the DA4 protagonist. It's easy to see how that story goes on. But there's nothing in DAI that requires it, because all throughout the Inquisitor is a dupe who loses in the end without even realising it. That's how completely Solas wins.
What has Solas won exactly?

 
 

Spoiler

And I wanted a different ME3 ending.  We all have our disappointments.
I could have sworn you said BioWare didn't make mistakes. Anyway, just because they have done crappy and disappointing things before doesn't mean they should do the same thing again by throwing away the plotline they set up in Trespasser and doing another "mage templar war".
 
I'm pretty sure they didn't only told half the story they wanted; they only implemented half the stuff they planned for the game.  ANd the rest ended up on the cutting room floor.  As often happens.  Things like the Red Templars attacking Crestwood.
It was both. They cut things like the Crestwood sidequest but they also had to split their story.
 
Sorry, the story wasn't the Inquisitor vs Solas.   It was the Inquisitor vs Corypheus.  That story ended when the Inquisitor turned Cory inside out and shoved him into the Fade.  Trespasser was epilogue, no more.
Epilogues end stories, they don't start new ones which is what Trespasser did. Trespasser sequel baited us to the max.
 
"Baggage" is everything connected to the character:  friendships, romances, policies, decisions made both major and minor.  Everything that Bioware would have to account for to continue the story.  THings that would restrict the story that could be told because not everyone married Cullen.  Not everyone played a qunari Inquisitor.  Not everyone befriended Dorian, not everyone drank from the Well, and so on.

 
 

Spoiler

How did you get me discriminating against the disabled by saying I would prefer the Inquisitor to remain with only one arm rather than a magical prosthesis? not wanting the Inquisitor as the PC is not a statement about their disabled status in any way. The fact is that so far in the universe we have not seen a form of prosthetic, so if the Inquisitor gets one, especially a magical one or some Bianca prototype, we will regain the status of special snowflake, the only person in the world with such a device. It's substituting the Anchor for a new gimmick.
I definitely don't want a magically regrown arm or a Golem arm or something like that. What I want is a practical prosthetic. Something like a dagger or buckler attachment or something. It wouldn't be a special snowflake thing in that it would be better and more powerful than everyone else. it would help us have the ability to fight again while still giving us some emotional moments and maybe story moments such as the arm malfunctioning and costing the characters a battle, getting them captured, etc...or something more lighthearted where the former inquisitor is shot or stabbed in that arm only to realize it's not a real arm.
 

Yes we lose the personal connection, but that's not the same as having no reason to the story. He is trying to bring down the Veil, everyone will be concerned with that whether they know Solas as a friend or lover or stranger. His goal is what any reasonable person would fight against.
This kind of motivation is just not compelling to me at all. It's so generic and detached, I hate this kind of thing (the same thing I hated about DA:I itself was the generic plot and villain that didn't make me care). I definitely see BW as doing something boring like this again, it was Trespasser that gave me a glimmer of hope for something more.


Honestly, there have been multiple reasons in this post why it's not likely the Inquisitor will be the prime PC (if we do get dual protagonists) and you seem to be willfully ignoring them. I get that you have a personal connection to the Solas story, but that's not going to be enough to counter all of the points for a new PC. I know this wasn't to me, but I'm responding anyway I know you're probably right about DA4 having a new PC, the chance of having the inquisitor again seems really small but I can dream T_T

 
 

Spoiler

Actually I don't. One of the biggest complaints about DAI was how boring the Inquisitor was and how they couldn't have an actual personality because they were so damn diplomatic all the time. It's understandable, since they are an important person, a leader and couldn't exactly behave like the warden could, but I don't think we will play a character with such power again in DA4. The inquisitor won't have the same power and responsibilities as they did before so they won't have the same restrictions either. Think of the possibilities!
 
Yes, I find the Inquisitor boring and bland but that's not even the main reason why I don't want to see them as the main protagonist in DA4. We are going to a new place and I want Bioware to take advantage of that. I don't want DA4 to be all about hunting down Solas and I believe it won't be. I think there will be other things going on and quite possibly other main villains... or at least that's what I'm hoping for. Kind of like DAO, where you had the archdemon (which could be Solas in DA4; a huge threat but it's kind of in the background for the most part, mentioned here and there, but you only face it/him in the end) and then you have Loghain, Howe, etc. I want to play a new character that is connected to those new villains, the places we are going to and the story that is going to happen there. The last thing I want is to have the Inquisitor mixed up with things that doesn't concern them and which they have no connection to. There is so much potential for Bioware to give us a more personal story to a new character that has a proper background this time around.
I feel like that ship sailed then they decided to hype Solas up so much, make him so powerful, make him so legendary and important, give the inquisitor a personal grudge against him, etc...They could have easily left DA:I as it was with Solas becoming the mysterious Flemeth-like figure that wouldn't come up again until later and the next game could have been a smaller and more personal local story NOT about saving the world yet again but with a better game world and a more cohesive plot than DA2 but they didn't .They trotted out another legendary world killer, dragged the inquisitor back into it, and made it personal.
 
I do think we will face Solas at some point and that's when I think the Inquisitor should come in. Much like how we took control of Ciri in TW3. That to me would be the best approach for DA4, dual protagonists where the new character takes up most of game but when we have to make important decisions concerning Solas and when we finally face him, we should take control of the Inquisitor. I don't think it should be all about the new protagonist but I certainly don't think it should be all about the Inquisitor either. I have never felt a connection to my Inquisitor in DAI and I don't think a whole game focused on them hunting Solas down will change that, to be quite honest.  
To each their own. I would either want everything new, or the inquisitor as sole protagonist V Solas.
 
Also, I really don't like the idea of playing as the Inquisitor while ignoring all past companions/romances and get new shiny ones, which is exactly what Bioware will do if the Inquisitor comes back. There's no way they will bring back not even half of the companions of DAI and cater to all the romances you could have in DAI, and I wouldn't want them to do that either. I was never a fan of companions returning in future games because 1) Bioware almost always ruin them for me (Anders, Varric, Leliana) and 2) I want to meet new characters, get to know their background, their motivations, it's a lot more interesting than seeing a character that you already know but pretend that you don't and hear all about their story again. But if the Inquisitor is the protagonist, it makes no sense to me why they would get a new set of companions (and possibly romances!) while the previous ones, their friends, would all just disappear when they need them the most, specially the person who they are potentially married to.
Romances are the one factor I'd be missing out on with my preferred Inquisitor led DA4, but I'd sacrifice the ability to have a new romance or interact with the previous ones (though DA:A style letters would be nice) for a better story.
 
Then there's the little things. I really wanted to have an American accent for my female character but the one in DAI was absolutely terrible and completely stripped out of emotions. The British voice was ok for the most part, but overall it was just "meh" for me. Maybe it was because the lines were so terribly boring, not even the best voice in the world would sound good to me. But basically, I really want new voice actors.

Fair enough.

 

Also, I'm really curious what would people call the Inquisitor in DA4. I'm tired of my character being called by some annoying high and mighty title. I'm hoping that, if there's a new character, they will have some sort of nickname or a catchy last name like Hawke, or maybe a more informal title (like the warden) because having your companions, which are supposed to be your friends, call you Inquisitor all the time is just depressing. But the Inquisitor will no longer be the Inquisitor in DA4, being the main protagonist or not.
Go undercover and get a code name

[BansheeOwnage]

 

So when I romanced Cullen on *cough* every other runthrough afterwards, I was really surprised that there were no consequences as a result of what should have been such a big deal for the Inquisitor was literally nothing. I wasn't disappointed at all with the romance itself (Cullen's ruined me for life, to be honest  ) but that it had no impact on the game itself aside from the odd mention across the War Table was a big let down.

I don't need romances to have world-shattering consequences, or even consequences beyond the romance itself (except for cases where it makes sense like Bull or Solas or potentially Morrigan), but I really would have liked there to be more of a reaction to your romance, mostly from your friends. I mean, aside from a couple of (admittedly funny) random NPCs in Skyhold, who don't actually talk to you, just about you, the only time anyone commented on my relationship with Cullen was Vivienne in Trespasser. In a DLC! Ugh, that makes me sad. There was that small War Table thing too, but again, you weren't actually part of the conversation. Anyway...

 

 I'm not going to say I absolutely would hate for the inquisitor to return, I just find it unlikely. I do think a new protag would be a better choice because

 

1) It doesn't rely on the players having played and completed the previous game (and especially the final DLC, which isn't going to be everyone who bought the base game)

 

My thoughts on the Inquisitor being boring are more because of the quest system structure. We weren't allowed to decline side quests, we just walked away and didn't fulfill them. We weren't often allowed multiple solutions to achieve an objective or complete a quest. It made replaying a chore sometimes, because we would be doing the exact same thing every time, except in the few times when a companion interjects or we use a racial/perk dialogue option.

 

So the Inquisitor was the same across most playthroughs and became indistinguishable. Maybe I wasn't headcanoning enough to make them distinct, but I don't think that burden should be on the player.

About number 1: I've always heavily disagreed with the idea that a story needs to make sense for someone who hasn't played/read/seen the previous installments. I think they should be out-of-luck, it's their own fault. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a bit of exposition summing up a previous installment, in theory*. But other than that, I don't think a sequel should devote any time/change its nature to account for people new to the series.

 

I don't know how much EA cares about those things, but it's very clear that people will still see/read/play things they aren't up-to-date on, as evidenced by sequels often generating more income than originals, so I don't think they would see a returning protagonist as any sort of financial risk.

 

*I say in theory, because sometimes it works, but a lot of the time I find the summation of previous events to be fairly shoehorned. For example, usually the characters doing the summation all know what happened anyway, so it makes it obvious it's for the viewer, and mildly breaks immersion for me.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree. The quest system that usually didn't let you accept or decline a quest nor have variable outcomes nor even let you comment on the ongoing quest much past the occasional autodialogue is a big reason the Inquisitor can't be as interesting as other protagonists, in my opinion. Sidequests are usually a huge part of roleplaying, since they take up most of a game and since main story missions don't always allow the same leeway in terms of outcomes, which like you said, can make playthroughs indistinguishable. And I also agree 100% that the player shouldn't be need to headcanon to make their RPG character unique and interesting. Headcanon doesn't do much for me, since I know I'd just be making it up. It wouldn't feel real.

 

 

I guess my response question to you is: is there no scenario where we have a new PC but the Inquisitor remains a major player that would satisfy your wishes?

The short answer is no, if by "major character" you mean "non-playable". Because I think we'd need to control the Inquisitor, much more than Hawke, if they are going to make sense and not be out-of-character in DA4. For instance, the Keep decision of whether you intend to redeem or kill Solas is a binary choice, yes, but the possible reasons for doing each can vary greatly. Maybe you want to kill him because you don't want to risk anything less. Maybe it's purely for revenge! Without being able to control the Inquisitor's dialogue, I fear Bioware will assume our reasons for choosing each, and ruin our characters. Sort of like how you can have different reasons for leashing the Templars/mages or recruiting them. Binary decision, non-binary reasoning.

 

So if the Inquisitor isn't playable at all, no, I will not be satisfied. But I could live with dual-protagonists, even if the Inquisitor was only playable for say,  25% of the game, doing mostly non-fighting things. I've always liked missions that weren't focused on combat anyway. But choosing their dialogue, and confronting Solas are must-haves for me.

 

 

And there's also the fact that if the Inquisitor doesn't get to finish her story, why would I get attached to a new protagonist who also may not ever get an ending. If Bioware introduces a new protagonist and asks me to care when you introduce a villain who harms her, I won't. Because the chances are, she won't ever get to confront that villain.

Not totally related, but this is part of the reason I like recurring protagonists in general. In Dragon Age, I feel like just when I've finally connected to my character, fleshed them out - just when I've gotten to know my companions, become their friend, it's all over and I need to (wait 3 years and) start again.

 

There's no Inquisitor vs. Solas story.

Just because the Inquisitor is really sore about things at the end of Trespasser doesn't make this a versus situation.

I'm sorry, I usually like your posts, but this time, all can say is...
 

 

This is exactly a versus situation. Both characters know that at the end of the scene. That's what it is. Others have already explained it in more detail.

 

 

@Nefla: Took me a minute to get your "I'm a lady" joke Though technically, according to google, "neutered" means castrated or spayed. We've been left spayed and broken! Oh no!

[greenbrownblue]

Continuing romances isn't a problem for me. It's a problem for Bioware. I was just pointing out Bioware could simply not have romance in a game. It worked in awakening. 

Oh no..... Bioware is like the only developer that makes realistic romances. I recently played Fallout 4 and the romancing was so poorly excuted, I thought my eyes were going to rot and fall off.

 

There have to be romances in DA4. At least as good as in DA3.

[nightscrawl]

I'm sorry, I usually like your posts, but this time, all can say is...
 

Spoiler

 
This is exactly a versus situation. Both characters know that at the end of the scene. That's what it is. Others have already explained it in more detail.

Yeah... I have to agree with this. Calling the Inquisitor "sore" is a bit of an understatement. Regardless of your relationship with Solas, he is threatening the entire world. It's kinda like with the Blight in DAO. Sure, you can be only out for yourself (certainly a valid RP choice), but you are part of the world too, and its destruction will mean yours as well.
 
 

Oh no..... Bioware is like the only developer that makes realistic romances. I recently played Fallout 4 and the romancing was so poorly excuted, I thought my eyes were going to rot and fall off.
 
There have to be romances in DA4. At least as good as in DA3.

(Disclaimer, I haven't played FO4.) Bit of a digression here... but I watched a video of the entire Danse romance and was quite surprised at how one-sided most of the conversation seemed. He just talked and talked and talked, with the PC occasionally interjecting with a couple of lines. I suppose it's better when you play through the actual game and go through their quests and such, but I didn't really get that emotional connection from any of the cutscenes I saw.

But I think this is a first for that series? And they also did all bi (or playersexual?) romances, so that's a bonus. They get points for trying, I think, and perhaps the ones in FO5 will be even better.

[wright1978]

Yeah... I have to agree with this. Calling the Inquisitor "sore" is a bit of an understatement. Regardless of your relationship with Solas, he is threatening the entire world.
 
 

(Disclaimer, I haven't played FO4.) Bit of a digression here... but I watched a video of the entire Danse romance and was quite surprised at how one sided most of the conversation seemed. He just talked and talked and talked, with the PC occasionally interjecting with a couple of lines. I suppose it's better when you play through the actual game and go through their quests and such, but I didn't really get that emotional connection from any of the cutscenes I saw.

But I think this is a first for that series? And they also did all bi (or playersexual?) romances, so that's a bonus. They get points for trying, I think, and perhaps the ones in FO5 will be even better.

I thought FO4 romances added a nice extra element. A definite step in the right direction if not the finished article. I also appreciated that they didn't stick in any needless gating to hinder roleplaying.

[hoechlbear]

The inquisitor won't have the same power and responsibilities as they did before so they won't have the same restrictions either. Think of the possibilities!

 

Yeah, I know, but your question was "You don't think a new protagonist will be just as restricted?" and I don't think they will, which is what is making me hold on to hope that the next protagonist will be able to finally have a decent personality and maybe a background. If I could choose from the Inquisitor or a new protagonist where both have the freedom to behave like they want (self-serving like the warden, purple Hawke, etc.) then I would still choose the new protagonist.

 

 

I feel like that ship sailed then they decided to hype Solas up so much, make him so powerful, make him so legendary and important, give the inquisitor a personal grudge against him, etc...They could have easily left DA:I as it was with Solas becoming the mysterious Flemeth-like figure that wouldn't come up again until later and the next game could have been a smaller and more personal local story NOT about saving the world yet again but with a better game world and a more cohesive plot than DA2 but they didn't .They trotted out another legendary world killer, dragged the inquisitor back into it, and made it personal. 

 

I somewhat agree. But I don't think that implies that the next game will be like DAI, where you are the most important person in Thedas and a special snowflake. I think for one, the character we will get to play won't be someone that important and won't get famous overnight like the Inquisitor did. I believe it will be more gradual like DAO. Sure the warden's story was about saving people from the Blight, but they weren't super famous and didn't have any special power or status like the Inquisitor did. Yet, they became a hero at the end of the game. That's what I'm seeing DA4 being like. The game may be about stopping Solas but there will be other events happening for sure, which will allow Bioware to maybe give us a more personal story.

 

 

To each their own. I would either want everything new, or the inquisitor as sole protagonist V Solas.

 

Of course I would prefer if it was everything new but that's obviously not going to happen. I just think dual protagonists is the best choice because it will try to somewhat please the people who prefer the new protagonist approach and the people who want the Inquisitor to face Solas in the end. Even if we get a new protagonist I can see the Inquisitor being a constant presence in DA4. 

 

 

Romances are the one factor I'd be missing out on with my preferred Inquisitor led DA4, but I'd sacrifice the ability to have a new romance or interact with the previous ones (though DA:A style letters would be nice) for a better story.

 

It's not just the romances. It's the companions as well. Like I said, I don't want to see the same companions returning. I want to experience new characters and go through the process of getting to know them for the first time and learn all about them and their motivations. I just can't cope with the idea of having the Inquisitor having new companions (and new romances, because let's be honest, Bioware would never cut romances from the game, they didn't for ME and they won't for DA) when they had friends back in DAI.

 

 

Go undercover and get a code name

 

I don't know. To me the Inquisitor will always be the Inquisitor, even if there isn't an Inquisition anymore. I honestly can't imagine them as anything else. But I totally get your position. Trespasser basically ruined any chances of a clean cut in DA4, so I understand why people want to play as the Inquisitor again. Personally, I really don't, and even reading all these posts, I'm still not convinced I would enjoy the game as the Inquisitor once again.

[vbibbi]

Ermagersh guys, I've got a lot of replying to do so I will add my replies to the quotes in this color

Man this is getting hard to quote and respond to! Please excuse our mess...
 
 
vb: Yeah that's my fear with Tevinter, as well. Or else it will swing back in response to feedback and the majority of the game will occur in Minrathous and we don't see any other setting.

n: Dear BioWare, PLEASE stop overcorrecting!

vb: Preach. Also, I'm afraid that Bio spent most of its world building on Fereldan, an England expy, and everything else is stretched thin. Do they have more in mind for Tevinter than Minrathous?

 

 

vb: To me, having either dual PCs or having the Inquisitor reappear as a mentor/adviser would keep the game from being solely the new PC's story. Since the Keep imports whether we want to redeem or stop Solas, the Inquisitor-as-NPC can customize their attitude toward the hunt for Solas and can provide the most substantial and significant link to the past game. Realistically, we will need some form of exposition to catch new players up to the plot, since it would be hard to summarize Solas and his plans briefly. If we have multiple acts, each act the Inquisitor could reveal more information and give a new player (or someone who only played DAO, etc.) a connection to the antagonist that you and I already have.

n: Honestly I'd rather they just have killed the inquisitor at the end of the base game like during the battle with Corypheus or something than purposefully maim them in order to make them "helpless" and force them into an NPC/questgiver role.

 

vb: I understand that it's hard to manage player expectations. If Bioware had killed off the Inquisitor there would be some fans who raged over that. And if they're left alive there are fans who want the Inquisitor to be retired and live happily ever after, or be the PC again, or any number of desires. I do wish that there was more of a time leap between games so that they don't feel so reliant on the previous games.

 

 

vb: It would be very difficult to have this exposition if we're already playing as the Inquisitor. Why would they need to catch the player up on Solas? They already know everything. Maybe if they go the dual PC route, we could even have flashbacks of the Inquisitor interacting with Solas, as a way to establish what kind of relationships we had with him (since much of that is not captured in the Keep).

 

n: I dunno about needing a lot of exposition, a lot can be learned through context. I also think that bringing a new player up to speed on a continued story (because it IS a continued story even if it's not continued by the original protagonist) shouldn't be the priority. Making a great story should. People aren't stupid (despite what EA seems to think) and a great story will make a new player want to go back and buy the previous games as well. Besides, I think a second exposition/introduction on Solas is such a waste of time, resources, and story when you already have that set up from the previous game.

 

vb: Very true. I don't think that new players should be catered to, especially in the fourth installment of a franchise. I'm just playing devil's advocate and thinking from an EA perspective on trying to gain new players and make the game as easy to understand as possible without playing previous games.

 

vb: I think DAI was successful for them but not a blockbuster or a significant demonstration of their abilities as a game developer. It's too polarizing a game. So having a more interactive dual PC system would make it stand out more and rework how plots and characters can be imported between games. And TBH, EA would be happy if they're copying some game element from TW3 and theoretically riding those coattails.

 

n: I liked the dual protagonist thing for TW3 since it fit well with that particular game. You had two set characters with a strong pre-existing relationship (father/daughter) and the plot of the game was the father trying to retrace his daughter's footsteps and save her. The former inquisitor and the random new protagonist don't have the same kind of connection. I'm skeptical of this method for DA4 but I'm not completely closed off to it like I am to a single new protagonist vs Solas.

 

vb: Well if a new PC ends up being an agent the Inquisitor recruits, there would be a mentor relationship that we could customize. Are we being blackmailed to help the Inquisition or else they'll turn us in to Tevinter templars? Have we been freed from slavery and are grateful and are happy to join the Inquisition's mission? Are we from the dwarven ambassadoria and Orzammar tasked us to track down Shaper Valta, and we need to work with the last person who saw her alive? I think there are multiple ways that we could have a strong relationship with a dual PC and it wouldn't have to be restricted to "underling happy to obey Inquisitor's orders." I realize this is very optimistic and probably more complicated than is realistic to implement.

 

 

vb: I guess my response question to you is: is there no scenario where we have a new PC but the Inquisitor remains a major player that would satisfy your wishes?

 

n: Sadly no. The only thing that would come even remotely close is if the game was set decades later and we played as either Solas' child or the inquisitor's child (grown up of course) but it still wouldn't be as good like I've said before, I want to cut all ties and have an all new adventure with all new companions, new location, new antagonist, etc..OR I want to continue the story set up by Trespasser with the same protagonist, same antagonist, same conflict that was set up, etc...
 

vb: Well hopefully DA4 will find a way to satisfy fans of the Inquisitor and new PCs (and/or dual PCs)
 
 
vb: How did you get me discriminating against the disabled by saying I would prefer the Inquisitor to remain with only one arm rather than a magical prosthesis? not wanting the Inquisitor as the PC is not a statement about their disabled status in any way. The fact is that so far in the universe we have not seen a form of prosthetic, so if the Inquisitor gets one, especially a magical one or some Bianca prototype, we will regain the status of special snowflake, the only person in the world with such a device. It's substituting the Anchor for a new gimmick.

 

n: I definitely don't want a magically regrown arm or a Golem arm or something like that. What I want is a practical prosthetic. Something like a dagger or buckler attachment or something. It wouldn't be a special snowflake thing in that it would be better and more powerful than everyone else. it would help us have the ability to fight again while still giving us some emotional moments and maybe story moments such as the arm malfunctioning and costing the characters a battle, getting them captured, etc...or something more lighthearted where the former inquisitor is shot or stabbed in that arm only to realize it's not a real arm.

 

vb: If we do have Inquisitor as a PC, I would prefer a normal prosthetic instead of a magical construct or...shudder...Bianca's invention. Maybe there can be a subplot where we find upgrades to it, but honestly I'd prefer it just to be mundane and the Inquisitor has to learn to adapt to this new status.

 

 

 

vb: Yes we lose the personal connection, but that's not the same as having no reason to the story. He is trying to bring down the Veil, everyone will be concerned with that whether they know Solas as a friend or lover or stranger. His goal is what any reasonable person would fight against.

 

n: This kind of motivation is just not compelling to me at all. It's so generic and detached, I hate this kind of thing (the same thing I hated about DA:I itself was the generic plot and villain that didn't make me care). I definitely see BW as doing something boring like this again, it was Trespasser that gave me a glimmer of hope for something more.

 

vb: True, it does loose a lot of the emotional connection, and Trespasser is polarizing and troubling in introducing this. I understand that Bio felt the need to wrap up the loose end of Solas' disappearance with the Inquisitor, and there wouldn't be an easy way to do so without a confrontation of his plans, or else Trespasser would be Witch Hunt 2.0. I am glad that we've learned more of his plans, I would have been p!ssed if he had a vague five minute cameo that didn't reveal anything and the IQ was just "lol k."  But it does introduce the trouble of pulling the Inquisitor into future plots against Solas. I'm not sure how they could have resolved it better.

 

vb: Honestly, there have been multiple reasons in this post why it's not likely the Inquisitor will be the prime PC (if we do get dual protagonists) and you seem to be willfully ignoring them. I get that you have a personal connection to the Solas story, but that's not going to be enough to counter all of the points for a new PC.

 

n: I know this wasn't to me, but I'm responding anyway I know you're probably right about DA4 having a new PC, the chance of having the inquisitor again seems really small but I can dream T_T

 

vb: Yeah I apologize for p!ssing in everyone's cornflakes and arguing against dissenting opinions, I realize I'm coming into a thread supporting the Inquisitor's return and naysaying it, which is not very positive. I don't disagree with a lot of what has been said here and can see that Trespasser can be interpreted in many ways. My view is what is most logical from a game development perspective, which isn't always going to be the same as most logical from a character and story perspective, unfortunately.

 

I get that people want to close the loop on the Inquisitor-Solas dynamic and will be disappointed if Trespasser isn't adequately followed up. I do hope DA4 finds a way to make the most number of people happy in a realistic and rewarding way. I think with as little information as we have right now, the dual PC idea is the best way to achieve this, but we'll learn more as development of the game increases.

[vbibbi]

About number 1: I've always heavily disagreed with the idea that a story needs to make sense for someone who hasn't played/read/seen the previous installments. I think they should be out-of-luck, it's their own fault. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a bit of exposition summing up a previous installment, in theory*, but other than that, I don't think a sequel should devote any time/change its nature to account for people new to the series.
 
I don't know how much EA cares about those things, but it's very clear that people will still see/read/play things they aren't up-to-date on, as evidenced by sequels often generating more income than originals, so I don't think they would see a returning protagonist as any sort of financial risk.
 
*I say in theory, because sometimes it works, but a lot of the time I find the summation of previous events to be fairly shoehorned. For example, usually the characters doing the summation all know what happened anyway, so it makes it obvious it's for the viewer, and mildly breaks immersion for me.

 
Agreed, I just posted in my previous response that I don't think games should cater to new players when X games into a series. I think EA will want to increase market appeal to new players by not having too much backstory to catch them up on. I have seen people posting that DAI is their first game and that they bought the first two games afterward, so it is a thing.

Now that the console generations have advanced, I do think it's going to be more difficult/risky to hope that new players will go back and buy the older games which don't run on current gen systems. I think it's safer to assume that anyone new to DA4 might play DAI but probably won't play DAO or DA2 unless they're really committed and have multiple generations of consoles or PCs that support all games.
 
Another point in your favor is that DAI has shown that reliance on external materials (comics, novels) to fill in some of the blanks in the game ends up being harmful. They need to remember to make the game as self-contained as possible and not rely on any additional materials. So, ideally, both new and returning players would have all necessary information at their hands within the game.
 

As for the rest of your post, I agree. The quest system that usually didn't let you accept or decline a quest nor have variable outcomes nor even comment on the ongoing quest much past the occasional autodialogue is a big reason the Inquisitor can't be as interesting as other protagonists, in my opinion. Sidequests are usually a huge part of roleplaying, since they take up most of a game and since main story missions don't always allow the same leeway in terms of outcomes, which like you said, can make playthroughs indistinguishable. And I also agree 100% that the player shouldn't be need to headcanon to make their RPG character unique and interesting. Headcanon doesn't do much for me, since I know I'd just be making it up. It wouldn't feel real.

 

Most of my playthroughs of DAI were completionist, so I became bored when accepting every quest/collection, as there was no variation. From what I've seen here, a lot of the players who didn't have as much of a problem with the Inquisitor's personality chose which side quests to perform, so they were developing the Inquisitor's personality by their choice of quests. This is a valid way of playing, but I am by nature a completionist for this type of game (especially Bioware games) so it's hard for me to do so.

 

The short answer is no, if by "major character" you mean "non-playable". Because I think we'd need to control the Inquisitor, much more than Hawke, if they are going to make sense and not be out-of-character in DA4. For instance, the Keep decision of whether you intend to redeem or kill Solas is a binary choice, yes, but the possible reasons for doing each can vary greatly. Maybe you want to kill him because you don't want to risk anything less. Maybe it's purely for revenge! Without being able to control the Inquisitor's dialogue, I fear Bioware will assume our reasons for choosing each, and ruin our characters. Sort of like how you can have different reasons for leashing the Templars/mages or recruiting them. Binary decision, non-binary reasoning.
 
So if the Inquisitor isn't playable at all, no, I will not be satisfied. But I could live with dual-protagonists, even if the Inquisitor was only playable for, say,  25% of the game, doing mostly non-fighting things. I've always liked missions that weren't focused on combat anyway. But choosing their dialogue, and confronting Solas are must-haves for me.

I think dual-PC would be interesting because it would be a first for Bioware and could lead to some interesting gameplay and story elements. If the secondary PC is going to have more screen time than Ciri did in TW3, though, I think the open world formula might pose a design problem. The DA2 Act style would be easiest, since we could switch between PCs for discreet periods of time, but in an open world, it's harder to divide up time passing if we're able to explore all maps at the same time. Maybe they would open up maps sequentially, similar to the pre-Haven and post-Haven maps.
 

[Iakus]

Bioware doesn't make mistakes.  Bioware simply has confused and sad players.  
Weren't you hating on ME2 and the Inquisitor earlier...?

 

ME2, a bit.  I was very disappointed in how they "continued" Shepard's story.

 

I have never hated on the Inquisitor.  

 

 

At any rate, the same things that were in Mass Effect would be in Dragon Age if they kept the same protagonist.  Said protagonist will be separated from most/all of the old companions.  WIll lose their power base.  WIll lose their LIs (in order to introduce new ones) All for the sake of new players not familiar with the series, and to make sure everyone starts out in the same place. 
It worked for Awakening (and ME2 was my favorite out of the series :3 ).

 

Awakening was a DLC.  ME2 was a fine game as long as you didn't care about the story.
 

Everything you got attached to besides the Inquisitor him/herself will be gone.  So in the end, what's the point?
It makes for a better and more personal story to us.

 

How is it a better and more personal story if everything you did to personalize it gets left at the side of the road?

 

The biggest potential is you're playing without the baggage of previous games.
By "baggage" do you mean character development, relationships, relevance, history, etc...? Because if so then I will gladly keep the baggage.

 

 

ANd how about for everyone who played their Inquisitor in any way different from you?  All those details have to be accounted for too.  OR discarded so the writers can actually create something new and original. 

There won't be a need to remind the player at every turn that you are "the Herald of Andraste" or "Inquisitor".  Playing a new character opens up so many more stories and RP opportunities.  You are someone else.  You are telling a different story.  THis won't be "Dragon AGe Inquisiton Part 2 any more than DAI was Dragon Age 2, Part 2.  Or even Dragon Age 2 being Dragon Age Origins, Part 2.
There's so much potential for the inquisitor to go undercover to stop Solas's plans. It could be a great story with a lot of character development, a fall from grace, emotional ups and downs due to losing your special status, losing your position, and even losing your arm. It could also be an opportunity to establish a shadow organization that persists through the ages. Remember when the devs said we would get to do something like "found the jedi order?" this could be it.

 

You know what could also be a great story with lots of character development?  A story about a new character who is sought out by the Inquisition (or even the Inquisitor) to be their instrument in stopping Solas.  

 

We already had the losing your status (sorta) losing an arm, and establishing a shadow organization.  It's called "Trespasser"  The Jedi order has already been founded.  Maybe next game we'll play a Jedi.

 

And I wanted a different ME3 ending.  We all have our disappointments.
I could have sworn you said BioWare didn't make mistakes. Anyway, just because they have done crappy and disappointing things before doesn't mean they should do the same thing again by throwing away the plotline they set up in Trespasser and doing another "mage templar war".

 

 

I was being sarcastic.  Bioware thought the only problem with ME3 was people were confused about the ending and needed "closure" disregarding that maybe they screwed up and delivered a bad product  

 

 

I'm pretty sure they didn't only told half the story they wanted; they only implemented half the stuff they planned for the game.  ANd the rest ended up on the cutting room floor.  As often happens.  Things like the Red Templars attacking Crestwood.
It was both. They cut things like the Crestwood sidequest but they also had to split their story.

 

I'm going to need some citation on that claim
 

Sorry, the story wasn't the Inquisitor vs Solas.   It was the Inquisitor vs Corypheus.  That story ended when the Inquisitor turned Cory inside out and shoved him into the Fade.  Trespasser was epilogue, no more.
Epilogues end stories, they don't start new ones which is what Trespasser did. Trespasser sequel baited us to the max.

 

Of course it was sequel bait.  It's called a "stinger".  Marvel does it all the time with their movies.  Most recently with Ant-Man we got a stinger with Captain America, Falcon, and The Winter Soldier.  You know what?  I'm betting it was for the Next Captain America movie, not the next Ant-Man.

[wright1978]

 

I think dual-PC would be interesting because it would be a first for Bioware and could lead to some interesting gameplay and story elements. If the secondary PC is going to have more screen time than Ciri did in TW3, though, I think the open world formula might pose a design problem. The DA2 Act style would be easiest, since we could switch between PCs for discreet periods of time, but in an open world, it's harder to divide up time passing if we're able to explore all maps at the same time. Maybe they would open up maps sequentially, similar to the pre-Haven and post-Haven maps.
 

 

While from a personal level i hope the inquisitor doesn't appear in a dragon age game again let alone as a protagonist, i can accept the possible use of secondary progagonists(something i hoped might happen with Hawke once i heard he/she was returning). The very large caveat would be that they are being used very much for isolated incidents. A new protagonisy would need the time and space to breath, rather than being suffocated to accommodate a larger role for the inquisitor. Ciri works well because her moments aren't so large that they fatally damage the main protagonist but instead act as a complement.

[vbibbi]

While from a personal level i hope the inquisitor doesn't appear in a dragon age game again let alone as a protagonist, i can accept the possible use of secondary progagonists(something i hoped might happen with Hawke once i heard he/she was returning). The very large caveat would be that they are being used very much for isolated incidents. A new protagonisy would need the time and space to breath, rather than being suffocated to accommodate a larger role for the inquisitor. Ciri works well because her moments aren't so large that they fatally damage the main protagonist but instead act as a complement.

I would personally like an Inquisitor as the secondary PC and have his/her role primarily information gathering, strategy sessions, more of the leadership role we should have had in DAI instead of just another adventuring squad. Maybe the new PC needs some information that is only available to those In The Know or who can call in favors...enter the Inquisitor to track this down and allow the main PC to continue their work.