390 réponses à ce sujet

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

 

No prosthetic will do every (x)Inqz justice, and a generic one will not function properly to where each character can fight. My Inquisitor for example is a Rift Mage, and I fully expect him to conjure a Stonefist version of a functioning arm and hand from the Fade. Mages need that wrist action. If he's back in DA4 with a non-functioning hunk of material hanging off his elbow, or if he doesn't have anything there at all and never uses what I described, then I will be disappointed and angry.

 

There are other options than "fade stone hand" or "non-functional hunk of metal". I think permanently conjuring a stone arm from the fade isn't very likely. I'd imagine that's downright exhausting to maintain. They can easily just have Thedosian automail, movable via dwarven ingenuity and rune magic.

 

And when it comes to the technical side of things, any prosthetic is likely going to be just a texture. Heck, in most armors currently in DAI, you don't even see the forearm. They could get away with just accounting for the prosthetic in the casual clothing in Skyhold, and that's *if* the Inquisitor wears clothing that shows off their arm, which they might not. A sleeve or glove over the prosthetic could look just like a sleeve or glove over the other arm. So different modeling wouldn't even be required except for certain instances.

[Dai Grepher]

There are other options than "fade stone hand" or "non-functional hunk of metal". I think permanently conjuring a stone arm from the fade isn't very likely. I'd imagine that's downright exhausting to maintain. They can easily just have Thedosian automail, movable via dwarven ingenuity and rune magic.

 

And when it comes to the technical side of things, any prosthetic is likely going to be just a texture. Heck, in most armors currently in DAI, you don't even see the forearm. They could get away with just accounting for the prosthetic in the casual clothing in Skyhold, and that's *if* the Inquisitor wears clothing that shows off their arm, which they might not. A sleeve or glove over the prosthetic could look just like a sleeve or glove over the other arm. So different modeling wouldn't even be required except for certain instances.

 

I didn't write that it would be permanent. It would be mostly just for battle. And even then he wouldn't lead off with it. This would be a trick he would keep up his sleeve.

 

That's a viable option as far as cosmetics are concerned. Not for combat though.

 

If such technology existed, I think there would be better weapons to make in the game. And if it replicates all arm and hand movements, then what was the point of having the arm be lost in the first place?

 

I think rune-powered prosthetics would be a little to Fullmetal Alchemisty.

[almasy87]

I'm just gonna leave this here for the lols:

Spoiler

We could have a Hook-uisitor!     

[Hanako Ikezawa]

If such technology existed, I think there would be better weapons to make in the game. And if it replicates all arm and hand movements, then what was the point of having the arm be lost in the first place?

 

I think rune-powered prosthetics would be a little to Fullmetal Alchemisty.

Again, there can be story aspects around the loss of the arm. 

 

It's Fullmetal Alchemy, not Alchemistry. Also, the automail in FMA doesn't run on runes.

[NKnight7]

Also don't forget Jaime Lannister. Missing a hand but still a strong character.

 

[vbibbi]

Also don't forget Jaime Lannister. Missing a hand but still a strong character.

 

Isn't a major character plot for him that he is no longer an able swordsman and he has lost a big chunk of his identity? He has to relearn using a sword in his off-hand, and isn't very good with it.

 

Not that he isn't a good character, but I don't think he supports the "Inquisitor can still perform the strenuous physical activities required to be an RPG PC with only one hand" argument.

[NKnight7]

Isn't a major character plot for him that he is no longer an able swordsman and he has lost a big chunk of his identity? He has to relearn using a sword in his off-hand, and isn't very good with it.

 

Not that he isn't a good character, but I don't think he supports the "Inquisitor can still perform the strenuous physical activities required to be an RPG PC with only one hand" argument.

 

I just think it goes well with the whole 'disabled character' discussion. Anybody missing a body part will need time to adapt, I'm sure the Inquisitor would need time and practice too. Jaime wasn't the best at first, but he's slowly improving.

[Dai Grepher]

Again, there can be story aspects around the loss of the arm. 

 

It's Fullmetal Alchemy, not Alchemistry. Also, the automail in FMA doesn't run on runes.

 

And I hope there are. But those would require BioWare to not be lazy.

 

That is supposed to read as Fullmetal Alchemist-y. I know they don't run on runes in FMA, but I'm saying it would be too much like FMA. Plus, the runes in Dragon Age: Origins and 2 are kind of like the transmutation circles in FMA.

 

If BioWare wants to go the easy route, they could always have the arm restored through healing magic. But again, why have the arm be lost in the first place then?

 

I think they did this to remove the (ex)Inquisitor from an adventuring role. Now they don't have to bring them back in any crucial capacity.

 

The alternative is to have a special circumstance for every class and specialization.

[indorio]

I just think it goes well with the whole 'disabled character' discussion. Anybody missing a body part will need time to adapt, I'm sure the Inquisitor would need time and practice too. Jaime wasn't the best at first, but he's slowly improving.

Yes. This could be done with the inquisitor starting from level 1 again, which would be perfect with a new game and all.. :x

This whole discussion about the arm is quite funny. Before the dlc's people were arguing that inquisitor couldn't be the protag of the next game because of the mark and being too powerful (on level of demi-god). So trespasser effectively solved that issue by removing the mark (and arm).

Generally I feel Bioware were smart with Trespasser. They put things in a state where it could go both ways. If they dont want inqy as protag they could explain it with no arm and that he/she has to operate in the shadows ("need new people statement"). Or if they want inqy back they already dealt with the mark, explaining why inqy starts as level 1 and why he/she has to find new companions and the old ones can't tag along.

If you want one arm to be an issue, sure it can be. If you want it to work, it can too. It's all about imagination and seeing possibilities.

[thats1evildude]

Isn't a major character plot for him that he is no longer an able swordsman and he has lost a big chunk of his identity? He has to relearn using a sword in his off-hand, and isn't very good with it.

 

Yes, though more so in the books than the TV series. And his fake hand is basically useless.

[PCThug]

I am the only one who thinks dual protagonists in this type of game would be a setup for a complete cluster-f***?

[In Exile]

I am the only one who thinks dual protagonists in this type of game would be a setup for a complete cluster-f***?

 

If they go that route - which Laidlaw did suggest was a possibility at one point - it's more likely to be akin to TW3, where there's a main protagonist and the Inquisitor appears on short bursts. 

[nightscrawl]

I honestly think some players' desires to have their Inquisitor retire are going to fall on deaf ears. Regardless of the Inquisitor being the next protag or not, they're not retired. They might have SAID they were retiring, if you played it that way, but they're still plotting in the basement at the end like the rest of us. They still know about the threat Solas presents.

 

You're not going to get a choice about whether your Inquisitor is involved in the upcoming events. They already are, and they will continue to be b/c they're gonna save the world. That's what they do. That's a defined trait that the player has no way to oppose. (And I am fine with that.) The only thing in question is whether we will get to control them or not next game, not whether they'll be involved.

 

I mainly objected to the tone of the post I quoted. Many times it seems like people think that their own PC, whatever they are doing, how they look at the world, takes precedence over everyone else. So when I see someone say something like, "My character is doing great," I just want to respond, "Well good for f-ing you. Mine is NOT."

 

Bioware is going to do whatever they want to do. I will never be one of those "bring back the warden" types that completely disregards developer comments.

 

And I also object to the assumption that they WILL be in the next game. We don't know that. We don't know anything. They could be planning another bridge game like DA2, with some of the backdrop for DA4 being that servants and slaves are disappearing but no one knows why. Maybe they will do Dragon Age: Not This Again and have the sixth Blight, and like DAO, we go to Tevinter, Nevarra, Anderfels, Antiva, or Rivian -- all new locations for the series -- in search of allies.

 

Yes, they have plans for the series, ideas of where they want to go, and so on. We saw some VERY strong hints in Trespasser. I don't discount that. But plans can and DO change, and oftentimes that is beyond developer control. David Gaider took a month off after the DA2 expansion got cancelled so he could "cool off" and be in the right frame of mind as they started reworking some of those concepts for DAI.

 

Sometimes plans change for the better, like when DAI got more development time and we got two extra romances out of it -- including the tragic fan favorite Solas romance! -- and additional races.

 

The point is that nothing is guaranteed.

 

 

The arm thing isn't really a technical obstacle to overcome to bring the Inquisitor back. They'll very likely have some kind of prostethic, so its just a matter of texturing the left arm accordingly. And, if they were the protag, making all armor models with the prosthetic in mind. The armor will have to be modeled and rendered anyway as part of the game's development. If anything, rending one less forearm might be slightly less work. lol

 

It would likely be more work if they stick with their current development model of using the same body for all races and genders because they won't be able to use their current shortcuts. With all DA games to date, the body models for each gender and race are interchangeable (within each combination). When you put on armor, you're actually putting on a body. However, it can be even more limited than that in that some models and textures are only designed for human males and have been squished into shape like so much Play-Doh for all of the other options, which is why some of them look awkward. If they did decide to go this route, I find it likely that the Inquisitor would be limited to a smallish selection of armor, and possibly unique armor to that character, like DAI Hawke was. There are also animations to consider as well.

 

There are a lot of things to consider, for both story AND game development. Sometimes certain things have to be sacrificed in order to have something else. In a recent DG interview, when asked why we didn't have a mabari/dog companion as we have in the two previous games, his answer was, "I think the short answer is: because you have a horse." So the devs never really know until they get there, and sometimes we the fans will never know unless they tell us about cut content. And in all honesty, I wish that they never did, unless it is something inconsequential like the dog/horse dilemma.

 

 

So, for the Inquisitor's reappearance, I'm not betting either way for the moment.

[robertthebard]

Ok. There is a simple solution. Make Inquisitor the protagonist and you just dont play DA4 ^^. Wait for DA5.

You know, spam is defined as multiple topics about the same subject. I wonder if these count, and if maybe we should have started reporting them as such and ignoring the posters way back when it was Warden Tuesday. Hey, BioWare, are you paying attention? This is why you should just kill these protagonists off. Let them have their whine fest and move on. They are never going to let it rest, they don't know how. Ironically, while I'm not going to go look, I'd bet more than a few were all over how it should have been the Warden as the PC both here, and in DA 2, timeline be damned.

That's right OP. Some of the people that you have waving your flag of bringbacktheInquisitor are those same people that honestly believed that the Warden could have been the PC in DA 2. It's a fine bunch of people you have gathering to your "flag". Oh, wait, I hope you weren't one of them, I wouldn't want to offend you...

[vbibbi]

I mainly objected to the tone of the post I quoted. Many times it seems like people think that their own PC, whatever they are doing, how they look at the world, takes precedence over everyone else. So when I see someone say something like, "My character is doing great," I just want to respond, "Well good for f-ing you. Mine is NOT."
 
Bioware is going to do whatever they want to do. I will never be one of those "bring back the warden" types that completely disregards developer comments.
 
And I also object to the assumption that they WILL be in the next game. We don't know that. We don't know anything. They could be planning another bridge game like DA2, with some of the backdrop for DA4 being that servants and slaves are disappearing but no one knows why. Maybe they will do Dragon Age: Not This Again and have the sixth Blight, and like DAO, we go to Tevinter, Nevarra, Anderfels, Antiva, or Rivian -- all new locations for the series -- in search of allies.
 
Yes, they have plans for the series, ideas of where they want to go, and so on. We saw some VERY strong hints in Trespasser. I don't discount that. But plans can and DO change, and oftentimes that is beyond developer control. David Gaider took a month off after the DA2 expansion got cancelled so he could "cool off" and be in the right frame of mind as they started reworking some of those concepts for DAI.
 
Sometimes plans change for the better, like when DAI got more development time and we got two extra romances out of it -- including the tragic fan favorite Solas romance! -- and additional races.
 
The point is that nothing is guaranteed.
 
 

 
It would likely be more work if they stick with their current development model of using the same body for all races and genders because they won't be able to use their current shortcuts. With all DA games to date, the body models for each gender and race are interchangeable (within each combination). When you put on armor, you're actually putting on a body. However, it can be even more limited than that in that some models and textures are only designed for human males and have been squished into shape like so much Play-Doh for all of the other options, which is why some of them look awkward. If they did decide to go this route, I find it likely that the Inquisitor would be limited to a smallish selection of armor, and possibly unique armor to that character, like DAI Hawke was. There are also animations to consider as well.
 
There are a lot of things to consider, for both story AND game development. Sometimes certain things have to be sacrificed in order to have something else. In a recent DG interview, when asked why we didn't have a mabari/dog companion as we have in the two previous games, his answer was, "I think the short answer is: because you have a horse." So the devs never really know until they get there, and sometimes we the fans will never know unless they tell us about cut content. And in all honesty, I wish that they never did, unless it is something inconsequential like the dog/horse dilemma.
 
 
So, for the Inquisitor's reappearance, I'm not betting either way for the moment.

This.

[d1ta]

snip This is why you should just kill these protagonists off. Let them have their whine fest and move on. They are never going to let it rest, they don't know how. snip

And people will shout for another 'Project Lazarus' to bring their loved protags back

There's no denying that some people are just THAT much attached to their protags or some just wanted said protag to return because of 'X' reason. I call that a testament to BW's writting.

After all that's said and done, best we can do is just sit back and wait for BW to work their magic on the next installment. Let BW do what ever it is what BW wants to do. You can give them suggestions and they do listen to feed back, but ultimately everything is in their hands. And you can only veto'd the end product with your wallet.

Doesn't make much different for me if my favourite girl return/not return back on screen come DA4 or not (though I'd rather not and I'm more attached to her than my Shep. And that's saying a lot).

I'm in the dual protag's camp because I think it's a nice compromise on either side. Or just have Inquis have a role of hawk, but expand it a bit.

My Lass has her 'happily ever after' already. I'm very satisfied in how her story is being wrapped up at the end of DAI.
See? Even if my lass ends her story in DAI with a happy note, I'm not clamoring that she possitively must and cannot not return!

[Abyss108]

Most people who want the Inquisitor back don't want the warden back. They don't want the Inquisitor back because they are attached to her, they want her back to finish the story she started, and are perfectly to happy to have a new protagonist after we get the second half of the story. (The devs admitted this was only half the story they had planned for the Inquisitor)

 

You don't end a story by having the protagonist swear they are going to stop the villain.

[robertthebard]

Most people who want the Inquisitor back don't want the warden back. They don't want the Inquisitor back because they are attached to her, they want her back to finish the story she started, and are perfectly to happy to have a new protagonist after we get the second half of the story. (The devs admitted this was only half the story they had planned for the Inquisitor)
 
You don't end a story by having the protagonist swear they are going to stop the villain.

You also don't leave out half the dialog in the ending because it doesn't fit with "See, they're coming back", unless you're hoping that everyone forgot what was said at the very end, just before the credits.

[Abyss108]

You also don't leave out half the dialog in the ending because it doesn't fit with "See, they're coming back", unless you're hoping that everyone forgot what was said at the very end, just before the credits.

 

I haven't?

 

The two lines that people talking about when they say this are -

 

1) "my adventuring days are over" - I don't think the Inquisitor should be adventuring. They should be leading an army. Also, a lot of Inquisitors never say this, and if I have to choose between conflicting lines, but one of them is said by all Inquisitors no matter what, multiple times, but the other one is only said if you make a specific choice, I know which one I'm going to think is more important.

 

2) "have to find other people" - need to find new companions, or we are getting a duel protagonist.

 

You can interpret these lines in other ways as well, but they don't contradict my own interpretation of the ending.

[Darkly Tranquil]

There are a lot of things to consider, for both story AND game development. Sometimes certain things have to be sacrificed in order to have something else. In a recent DG interview, when asked why we didn't have a mabari/dog companion as we have in the two previous games, his answer was, "I think the short answer is: because you have a horse." So the devs never really know until they get there, and sometimes we the fans will never know unless they tell us about cut content. And in all honesty, I wish that they never did, unless it is something inconsequential like the dog/horse dilemma.

I would have gladly traded the horse, halla, dracolisk, Bog Unicorn, Giant Nug, etc. and Sera in heartbeat to have Dog back.

[vbibbi]

I haven't?

 

The two lines that people talking about when they say this are -

 

1) "my adventuring days are over" - I don't think the Inquisitor should be adventuring. They should be leading an army. Also, a lot of Inquisitors never say this, and if I have to choose between conflicting lines, but one of them is said by all Inquisitors no matter what, multiple times, but the other one is only said if you make a specific choice, I know which one I'm going to think is more important.

 

2) "have to find other people" - need to find new companions, or we are getting a duel protagonist.

 

You can interpret these lines in other ways as well, but they don't contradict my own interpretation of the ending.

No offense but this really seems like confirmation bias.

[Al Foley]

Also don't forget Jaime Lannister. Missing a hand but still a strong character.

 

In Jamie's case though he is nowhere near the swordsman he once was, as been pointed out several times, he kind of sucks now.  Sure strong character, but front line action hero? not so much. 

[KaiserShep]

In Jamie's case though he is nowhere near the swordsman he once was, as been pointed out several times, he kind of sucks now.  Sure strong character, but front line action hero? not so much.

This does leave the question open for the mage though. My K-E Quizzy could probably still fry a legion of rampaging qunari with a lightning storm with one arm tied behind her back.

[Abyss108]

No offense but this really seems like confirmation bias.

 

Not really. That's how I interpreted the lines when I first heard them. Other people's interpretations are equally valid. 

 

To the people who say Jamie isn't a great action hero anymore - what about Furiosa?

[Dai Grepher]

Jamie Lannister was never that good of a swordsman to begin with.