36 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

This need to explain comes from the fact that everything points to the story not yet being finished for the Inquisitor.   There may no longer be an Inquisition in terms of what it was in DAI but the former leader is still very invested in the struggle to stop Solas.     It even seems like they are setting you up to return.    You have to make a decision about whether or not you wish to save Solas.    You actually say to him that you are either going to prove him wrong or stop him.    "I will prove you wrong/I will stop you", not "we".     If you take the aggressive disband option, the PC says "Now if you'll excuse me I have the world to save, again."    That doesn't strike me as the words of someone who is going to sit on the side lines.   Then finally you have the meeting when the PC is still leading the planning of what to do next and again stating whether the main impetus is going to be saving Solas or simply stopping him.      This puts a rather odd sort of constraint on a new character if they are going to be told from the beginning what direction they are going to take even though they have no previous history with the antagonist.  

 

Then there is also the information from the former lead writer that DAI consists of only half the content it was originally intended to have.   If this also does mean that we are only half  way through the plot arc with Solas (which it may not), then the story with him is meant to be completed by the same protagonist.    Admittedly the PC does say that there is a need to find new people that Solas doesn't know but that could simply apply to companions or even agents.  

 

Until Trespasser I had no reason to think that the Inquisitor would return in the next game, particularly as we had previously been told there would be a new PC in each episode.    If they had just stuck to you foiling the Qunari and the decision at the Exalted Council, again there was no particular reason to think why the Inquisitor needed to come back.    It is the confrontation with Solas that put a whole different slant on things.    

[nightscrawl]

It only cripples you if you let it.   Both the warrior class and the rogue class are not restricted to being the style they focussed on.   
 
There is actually no reason in game why you shouldn't learn both archery and dual wielding, apart from the fact that it makes you less of a master of one.     The fact that you can't wield two daggers at the same time doesn't mean you will be less effective at using just one.    All the other rogue skills, such as stealth, applying poison to the blade, etc, can still be used.    I'm pretty sure the assassin, tempest and artificer specialisms can still be used, with the possible exception of the focus element for the latter two (but I hardly used the focus skills anyway).
 
Your warrior may have specialised in 2 handed weapons but they can still train in sword and shield if they wish.   Without the arm they just train in using a sword without a shield.   Other skills can still be used, with the exception of things like shield bash.   Again the specialisms should still be useful, with a few adjustments.
 
A mage, of course, would hardly be inconvenienced at all, at least when it comes to spell casting, although using the staff as a weapon might be a bit restricted.
 
So having lost the arm, all the Inquisitor needs to do is take some time adjusting to their new situation and honing their skills accordingly.    If they were to bring back the Inquisitor next game (and I'm not saying I think they should or not), that would be a useful means of explaining why they were suddenly back to low levels at the beginning of the game, because of the need to retrain.

This is more of a real-world mindset, I think. I play a SnS warrior. And yeah, he can fight single-handed without a shield, or do something else, or use a shield prosthetic (which sounds terribly daunting to adjust to). But I chose that style, and Champion spec, and that is what I want to play. I doubt I am alone in this. Being a tank is just as much a part of the character as anything else about him.

[Gervaise]

I understand what you are saying.   I loved playing my Dalish archer, which was a change from previous games when I preferred the dual wield rogue.    In character, he has always seen his bow as an extension of himself, so losing the ability to use it was profoundly traumatic.   However, he could just as easily lost a hand/arm to a wild creature or some other misfortune.   Back in the clan he wouldn't want to be a drain on resources and would still want to contribute to the survival of the clan, so he would have adapted.    It is no different in the present situation.   

 

May be it is a real world mind set but it is a challenge I would be prepared to meet if that is the way the writers took it.   Personally, I don't think they will but will probably have the Inquisitor turn up in a cameo role like Hawke and your previous choices will inform the way they react with the PC.    However, I don't think the loss of the arm is the reason why they won't bring back the Inquisitor as the main PC because it would be a rather lame excuse for the reasons I have given.    In any case, the epilogue, at least with regard to a Dorian romance or a member of the Jennies, shows that they definitely haven't stopped being able to get involved through the loss of the arm.   

 

I still maintain the loss of the hand/arm was necessary because of the need to remove the anchor from the story and we had previously been told that it couldn't be removed from your hand, so the only way to achieve this would be to remove both the hand and the anchor.   

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Relax. Dagna and Bianca could give the Inquisitor a bionic magical arm. Either that or there would be some obscure Tevinter or Dalish mages who can graft hands using pure magic.

[Fredward]

Nah. I like the fact that the plot device that made the Inquisitor who they were, a hero capable of saving the world, did not conveniently depart sans any tangible consequences. It was never presented as exactly benign, useful but not helpful. Of course if there was a way to save the arm the Well would have been the best option to choose, it's already implied you've made a substantial sacrifice if you drank from it but I think the well of an old elven god giving you the knowledge to potentially oppose another elven god is not a plotline they wanna approach... yet. Besides if Solas absorbed Flemthal he might be in control of the Well. Or she might take control of the Quisie eventually, anyway I think it's unresolved for a payload at a later date.

[Ieldra]

I don't mind the loss of the arm so much as the loss of the anchor. The Well might have taught me how to control it, I would've liked that. My main Inquisitors wouldn't have drunk anyway, though, they consider their autonomy more important.

[Carmen_Willow]

Bottom line: we are fighting with swords and daggers. Warriors and Rogues probably lose limbs all the time in Thedas. We just happened to lose ours in a particularly weird way. If this were real life, I'd rather lose my forearm than my life, and I don't think Solas lied about that.

 

And Bioware has consistently said that they did NOT want the same protagonist for each Dragon Age game, so I seriously doubt that the Inquisitor will do much more than be in an advisory role. (I would like a final resolution to the Elf romance, but even that may not be possible.) 

 

I went through all this angst with Origins (I just replayed DA:O for the first time in a long time, and I still got choked up at the end. I loved that game, that story, it was so classic and so darned much fun.) But you know what? I got over it. So bring on the new protagonists.

[ModernAcademic]

The fault in all this can be attributed to a few people in Thedas having too much power and spare time in their hands, but too little intelligence to know how to actually use both.

[congokong]

I went through all this angst with Origins (I just replayed DA:O for the first time in a long time, and I still got choked up at the end. I loved that game, that story, it was so classic and so darned much fun.) But you know what? I got over it. So bring on the new protagonists.

You did the ultimate sacrifice, didn't you? I'd consider doing that for my canon Alistair romance warden if I was playing on PC and could use a mod to knock him out, rather than the stupid alternative of actually leaving him behind when facing the archdemon.

[nightscrawl]

Nah. I like the fact that the plot device that made the Inquisitor who they were, a hero capable of saving the world, did not conveniently depart sans any tangible consequences. It was never presented as exactly benign, useful but not helpful. Of course if there was a way to save the arm the Well would have been the best option to choose, it's already implied you've made a substantial sacrifice if you drank from it but I think the well of an old elven god giving you the knowledge to potentially oppose another elven god is not a plotline they wanna approach... yet. Besides if Solas absorbed Flemthal he might be in control of the Well. Or she might take control of the Quisie eventually, anyway I think it's unresolved for a payload at a later date.

 

While I agree, and think the Well would have made an interesting variable in the arm thing, I think it was ultimately a good decision to have it be a fixed happening. One reason is, of course, the possibility that they might wish to use the Inquisitor again in an actual game. This allows them to have a consistent model regardless of choices.

 

The other is, unfortunately, meta gaming. I think many of us here will say that the devs should not make decisions based on what they think players are apt to do, particularly if it is based on meta information. But I wonder how many people chose the "perfect" solution with Connor in successive plays after learning about it elsewhere? To me, having this specific meta knowledge takes the weight out of the decision. Despite being told that you might not make it back in time and other things, the player knows that they will be successful if they do leave and return with help from the Circle. The NPC warnings are meaningless. Of course, that is what role-play is all about, and you can certainly RP that your character heeds the warnings and acts accordingly by choosing one of the "lesser" outcomes, but the knowledge is still there. I've always maintained that that option should never have been added in the first place. Force the player to make the hard choice. You might say, "Well, going to the Circle and getting help from them isn't exactly a walk in the park," but you would have gone there eventually anyway as part of the game, this decision takes you there via a different path.

 

The same is true for the Well choice as it relates to the potential loss of the arm. If it became known that drinking from the well somehow saved you from losing your arm, I guarantee many players would choose to drink for that reason alone, disregarding whatever other RP aspects they might have had against drinking before. So again, it takes the weight out of the decision for the player. We already have some of the weight reduced in knowing that the decision really has no impact on anything in the game, other than the ability to skip a few fights (however annoying they are) in the Trespasser DLC.

 

None of the above applies to everyone, but I do think it would apply to a decent chunk of players.

[congokong]

The other is, unfortunately, meta gaming. I think many of us here will say that the devs should not make decisions based on what they think players are apt to do, particularly if it is based on meta information. But I wonder how many people chose the "perfect" solution with Connor in successive plays after learning about it elsewhere? To me, having this specific meta knowledge takes the weight out of the decision. Despite being told that you might not make it back in time and other things, the player knows that they will be successful if they do leave and return with help from the Circle. The NPC warnings are meaningless. Of course, that is what role-play is all about, and you can certainly RP that your character heeds the warnings and acts accordingly by choosing one of the "lesser" outcomes, but the knowledge is still there. I've always maintained that that option should never have been added in the first place. Force the player to make the hard choice. You might say, "Well, going to the Circle and getting help from them isn't exactly a walk in the park," but you would have gone there eventually anyway as part of the game, this decision takes you there via a different path.

I've said many times on these boards, including this very thread, how players naturally want to avoid all bad scenarios. Sometimes they twist things to make it seem like a reasonable choice and/or create a character who would make these choices so they're still technically role-playing, yet the truth is they just don't want to have bad things happen. Sometimes people aren't even aware of this aversion. And then you have the people who think you're evil for intentionally choosing to have bad things happen when you know you can avoid them with a bit of meta-gaming.

 

Regarding Connor, I bet people would suddenly not be so inclined to foolishly run back to the Circle tower for like a week overall, leaving demon-Connor to do as he wishes, and during a blight where every delay costs lives, if everyone in Redcliffe was dead upon your return; much like if you abandon the village. All this to possibly save one far-from-blameless boy. If this scenario happened then suddenly these "save both Connor and Isolde" players would start explaining why dealing with Connor right away made more sense, which it does. Almost no one would take the Circle path anymore.

 

Note: Despite being aware of the "paragon = instant win" option I did indeed sacrifice Isolde for my canon. Killing Connor to me makes the most sense, but the blood ritual still is vastly more logical than going to the Circle, and quite dramatic.

[Shechinah]

...

 

In my primary worldstate, the Warden decided to kill Connor despite dearly not wanting to but not being willing to risk the lives of the Redcliffe people should the demon take control of Connor in her absence. It was simply the best course of action she could think of in that moment. She also did it herself because she thought it was only right to do it herself when she had been the one to decide the course of action and did not allow Isolde to do it because she thought no mother should have to do something like that; she'd rather Isolde hate her than herself.

 

The whole venture basically provided a very good oppertunity for character developement that showed rather than told that she was willing to do what she believed was necessary even if she hated not only the decision but also herself for deciding it.

 

I could imaging a headcanon reasoning of how you left a mage behind to keep the demon at bay while you ventured to the tower or found a means to keep Connor under but I would not have minded an outcome in which you take no precuations when you journey to the tower or took to long while away from Redcliffe and return to find it is desolated with no one left alive because the demon regained control of Connor.