430 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Just because he dosen't usua;lly write something dosen't necessarily mean they wouldn't. Anyway we'll find out when the next game comes. Besides the Inqusitor themselves say that their adventuring days are done at the end of Trespasser. So it's more likely that if the Inquisitor does reappear again it's more likely as an advisor than as the main protagonist regardless of what happens

First, not all Inquisitors say that. The Inquisitor can also say they're going to save the world again. 

Second, when they do say that they may be over, not are over, which leaves it ambiguous since may implies uncertainty. 

[Abyss108]

Just because he dosen't usua;lly write something dosen't necessarily mean they wouldn't. Anyway we'll find out when the next game comes. Besides the Inqusitor themselves say that their adventuring days are done at the end of Trespasser. So it's more likely that if the Inquisitor does reappear again it's more likely as an advisor than as the main protagonist regardless of what happens

 

You mean if you pick a specific dialogue choice they do, when they are equally as likely to say "I'm off to save the world again".

 

And as opposed to how every single Inquisitor says they will be the one to stop/save/kill Solas.

[Jason1990]

I hope for a return of the Inquisitor as well, but not as a playable character.
I am wondering how they wil implent him though, since you get the option to either disband or keep the inquisition.

How will you be involved if the inquisition has been disbanded? And even if you kept it.. What makes you so special that you get to meet the great inquisitor. Since the orb is destroyed, i can't imagine a new mark. Or enough magic power to destroy a god.

Maybe the hero of fereldan returns?

What im trying to say is: they kind of made it hard on themselves this time, to make the story believable. I somehow have a bad feeling about DA4, i feel like they are going to ruin the game.

But my idea is that since we are now dealing with gods, that more gods will make an appeance. So far we met Fen'harel and Mythal. Maybe an actual herald of andraste this time? More dragon gods?Someone is going to have to save mankind.. and one thing is for sure.. i wont be sealing any rifts in DA4...

I can keep typing forever about this.. so i will stop.

[Heimdall]

Not all Inquisitors say that. The Inquisitor can also say they're going to save the world again. 

Which does not contradict the idea that the Inquisitor won't be on the front lines anymore.  Generals rarely lead from the front line of battle, but that doesn't mean they aren't fighting a war.

[Abyss108]

Which does not contradict the idea that the Inquisitor won't be on the front lines anymore.  Generals rarely lead from the front line of battle, but that doesn't mean they aren't fighting a war.

 

In the same way that saying they aren't going adventuring doesn't mean they aren't going to Tevinter to fight on the front lines to take down an Elvhen God.

[Heimdall]

In the same way that saying they aren't going adventuring doesn't mean they aren't going to Tevinter to fight on the front lines to take down an Elvhen God.

Ridiculous, adventuring days clearly refers to the Inquisitor's role in taking to the field personally, which is why that line is followed by "But the Inquisition will go on", clearly indicating that the Inquisition will continue to pursue its mission but the Inquisitor's role has changed.  It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to take away from this that the inquisitor will still be leading from the front as before.

 

Both lines indicate that the Inquisitor will be involved in hunting down Solas, neither indicates that the Inquisitor will be on the front lines and this one clearly indicates that Inquisitor will not be going into the field as before.

[Abyss108]

Ridiculous, adventuring days clearly refers to the Inquisitor's role in taking to the field personally, which is why that line is followed by "But the Inquisition will go on", clearly indicating that the Inquisition will continue to pursue its mission but the Inquisitor's role has changed.  It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to take away from this that the inquisitor will still be leading from the front as before.

 

Both lines indicate that the Inquisitor will be involved in hunting down Solas, neither indicates that the Inquisitor will be on the front lines and this one clearly indicates that Inquisitor will not be going into the field as before.

 

I disagree. I can't imagine a person ever describing fighting a war against an Elvhen God as "adventuring". May as well describe it as going on a picnic.

[Heimdall]

I disagree. I can't imagine a person ever describing fighting a war against an Elvhen God as "adventuring". May as well describe it as going on a picnic.

"Adventuring" is a vague term that has traditionally referred to engaging in hazardous and exciting activity, particularly in exploring unfamiliar territory, and has been generally applied to the standard activities of RPG protagonists since DnD, whether they're fighting gods or looking for a missing hat.

 

It doesn't refer to lighthearted frolicking in meadows.

 

Though more to the point, the Inquisitor's use of the term clearly indicates that they view their previous activities as adventuring, you know, combating a self proclaimed god trying to remake the world.

[Abyss108]

"Adventuring" is a vague term that has traditionally referred to engaging in hazardous and exciting activity, particularly in exploring unfamiliar territory, and has been generally applied to the standard activities of RPG protagonists since DnD, whether they're fighting gods or looking for a missing hat.

 

It doesn't refer to lighthearted frolicking in meadows.

 

Though more to the point, the Inquisitor's use of the term clearly indicates that they view their previous activities as adventuring, you know, combating a self proclaimed god trying to remake the world.

 

Dragon Age isn't DnD. And its usually referred to as adventuring by game creators/ players, not by actual characters. 

 

I can see the writors referring to it as adventuring. I can't see a character referring to it as adventuring unless they are being snarky/ joking around. Certainly not to an entire council of nobles. 

 

Saying their adventuring days are over suggests they are not fighting Solas as much as the opposing line "I'm off to save the world again" suggests they are. I'm also not going to put more faith in a line that only specific Inquisitors say, when there are many other lines that suggest the exact opposite.

[Heimdall]

Dragon Age isn't DnD. And its usually referred to as adventuring by game creators/ players, not by actual characters. 

 

I can see the writors referring to it as adventuring. I can't see a character referring to it as adventuring unless they are being snarky/ joking around. Certainly not to an entire council of nobles. 

 

Saying their adventuring days are over suggests they are not fighting Solas as much as the opposing line "I'm off to save the world again" suggests they are. I'm also not going to put more faith in a line that only specific Inquisitors say, when there are many other lines that suggest the exact opposite.

Dragon Age was created by the makers of Baldur's Gate because they wanted a traditional fantasy setting without being bound by a license.  They're not so distant.  We actually have seen it used in the games, there's a band of self-described adventurers in a DAO random encounter that is on their way to report of maleficarum to the Chantry.

 

You're imposing an arbitrary restriction on the use of the word that doesn't even make sense in context.

 

Why would the Inquisitor be talking about adventuring in that context?  All the "adventuring" they did previously was in routing out Corypheus' forces and ruining his plans in various regions of interest.  Why would that be out of the question now?  All your narrow definition accomplishes is to make the line meaningless and nonsensical.

 

There aren't "many lines", there's one line that says nothing of the sort.

[BansheeOwnage]

That was, in fact, a shot at ME3 and Shepard's fate, yes 

 

Though I should point out that by the end of DAI, both the Warden and Hawke can be dead.

 

The Inquisitor's story is now, for all intents and purposes, over.  He or she may play a role in the next story.  But ultimately it will be someone else's story.

To me though, the "new story" is the same story, and therefore, the Inquisitor's. The relationship with Solas, and how he influenced the main story in DA:I make Trespasser and DA4 a continuation of the same story. They could have ended the Inquisitor's story in the main game, and simply not had Solas tell you his plan in Trespasser. Then it would be done. But they didn't do that, and it's not done.

 

Just because he dosen't usua;lly write something dosen't necessarily mean they wouldn't. Anyway we'll find out when the next game comes. Besides the Inqusitor themselves say that their adventuring days are done at the end of Trespasser. So it's more likely that if the Inquisitor does reappear again it's more likely as an advisor than as the main protagonist regardless of what happens

Remember, for ever person who brings up "My adventuring days may be over", someone (in this case me) will bring up "I'm going to save the world. Again." That's why I think Bioware wrote it to keep their options open.

 

Food for thought though: No matter which dialogue you choose, you're still in the basement, plotting, at the end. You're still going to save the world, so I don't put as much stock into the "Adventuring" line.

 

Edit: Turns out someone already brought it up

[Christalllena]

I really want to play as my Inquisitor again.

[Heimdall]

Food for thought though: No matter which dialogue you choose, you're still in the basement, plotting, at the end. You're still going to save the world, so I don't put as much stock into the "Adventuring" line.

Edit: Turns out someone already brought it up

I don't think anyone contests that the Inquisitor is going to save the world, the argument is over how: leading from the front like Inquisition? Or as a Chessmaster with a less visible role?

[Dancing_Dolphin]

I'll have to agree. I'm more invested into my lavellan than any DA character I've created. Their him coming back would be amazing. However I know how BW works so I'm really not going to get my hopes up.

This sums up my opinion.

[BansheeOwnage]

I don't think anyone contests that the Inquisitor is going to save the world, the argument is over how: leading from the front like Inquisition? Or as a Chessmaster with a less visible role?

I've seen some people contest that.

[Heimdall]

I've seen some people contest that.

For the most part, they still think the Inquisitor is going to be involved to some lesser extent.

The ending of Trespasser undisputably indicates that much.

[BansheeOwnage]

For the most part, they still think the Inquisitor is going to be involved to some lesser extent.

The ending of Trespasser undisputably indicates that much.

As long as they're controllable, I can live with it.

 

If not...

 

[Gambit458]

Yes they did... a few years ago. Maybe they'll stick to that, maybe not. As they love to keep reminding us: "Plans change". DA4 hasn't even been greenlit yet, which means its plot is nowhere near set in stone even now.

 

If they do decide to keep having new protagonists, so be it, but I sure hope they don't do that just because "that's how they've always done it". They should do whatever they think is best for the story, and I hope they still have enough sense to see how much potential there would be if they had they Inquisitor star in another game - they made that potential! If not, I think my faith in them will be just about non-existent.

Nah I can see them sticking to the new protagonist bit, as each game they've been making has had a different character. There was potential for the Grey Warden yet they didn't use him/her again. Way I see it, your feelings you have for the Inquisitor will be the same you'd have for the new protagonist as that's how the process has gone. People loved their Grey Warden, people loved their Inquisitor..Bioware's shown that they're good at developing a new protagonist even when we're skeptical about it. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Nah I can see them sticking to the new protagonist bit, as each game they've been making has had a different character. There was potential for the Grey Warden yet they didn't use him/her again. Way I see it, your feelings you have for the Inquisitor will be the same you'd have for the new protagonist as that's how the process has gone. People loved their Grey Warden, people loved their Inquisitor..Bioware's shown that they're good at developing a new protagonist even when we're skeptical about it. 

They originally were going to have Hawke be the protagonist, but the negative reaction at DA2 deterred them from that and instead made the Inquisitor. So I don't think they're as stringent to that rule as those who want a new protagonist every game claim. DAI had a much more positive reception, particularly the Trespasser DLC, so that among the other reasons may have them keep on the course and stick with the Inquisitor for the second half of the story.

 

They didn't use the Grey Warden again because the Grey Warden could be dead and they didn't know if Dragon Age would even get sequels, hence the Epilogue slides in DAO that they had to make non-canon. 

 

And no, the feelings won't be the same. Playing the Inquisitor will have a different feel with the plot than a new protagonist would because of the connection between the Inquisitor and Solas. 

[Nefla]

Ridiculous, adventuring days clearly refers to the Inquisitor's role in taking to the field personally, which is why that line is followed by "But the Inquisition will go on", clearly indicating that the Inquisition will continue to pursue its mission but the Inquisitor's role has changed.  It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to take away from this that the inquisitor will still be leading from the front as before.

 

Both lines indicate that the Inquisitor will be involved in hunting down Solas, neither indicates that the Inquisitor will be on the front lines and this one clearly indicates that Inquisitor will not be going into the field as before.

It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that the inquisitor is likely lying to the council about retiring. The inquisitor only says "my adventuring days may be over" if you decide to keep the inquisition, the option that is vulnerable to Solas' spies. Logically you'd want to go out of your way throw off any suspicion that you will indeed be working to stop Solas. Then of course you still have the same vow to stop/redeem Solas that the disband inquisitors have and the same scene plotting in the basement.

 

Nah I can see them sticking to the new protagonist bit, as each game they've been making has had a different character. There was potential for the Grey Warden yet they didn't use him/her again. Way I see it, your feelings you have for the Inquisitor will be the same you'd have for the new protagonist as that's how the process has gone. People loved their Grey Warden, people loved their Inquisitor..Bioware's shown that they're good at developing a new protagonist even when we're skeptical about it. 

Technically they did continue the Warden's story in Awakening but putting that aside, the reason those of us who want the inquisitor back as the next protagonist isn't because we were super attached to them as a character (personally I felt very little for them in the vanilla game). We want the inquisitor back because their story isn't done. Solas is the inquisitor's rival/lover/friend, not the rival/lover/friend of some random shopkeeper from Tevinter. The warden's storyline ended with DA:O, you didn't have Alistair at the end of DA:O declare that he had been manipulating the warden the whole time and that he had become super powerful and would destroy the world. If that had been the case, would it have made any sense whatsoever for the warden to be like "oh, ok" and just wanders off while a new person rises up to cast down Alistair as the villain of the next game? That would be a horrible decision storywise as it's a horrible decision in the case of the Inquisitor vs Solas. If they're going to make a new protagonist each game, they can't keep carrying on the storylines, companions, and NPCs from the previous games that were relevant to the previous protagonist. Either finish a character's story with that character or start a NEW character with a new story, new companions, new NPCs and so on.

[ModernAcademic]

T'would be more interesting if your Inquisitor could become an antagonist in DA 4 depending on the choices you made in DA:I.

 

Example:

 

- Sided with Templars.

- Vivienne became Divine.

- Gaspard became emperor.

- Formed alliance with Qunari.

 

If your PC in DA 4 was an elf, a pro-mage and pro-Solas, then the Inquisitor would be considered a military threat.

[BansheeOwnage]

Nah I can see them sticking to the new protagonist bit, as each game they've been making has had a different character. There was potential for the Grey Warden yet they didn't use him/her again. Way I see it, your feelings you have for the Inquisitor will be the same you'd have for the new protagonist as that's how the process has gone. People loved their Grey Warden, people loved their Inquisitor..Bioware's shown that they're good at developing a new protagonist even when we're skeptical about it. 

Sort of repeating what others have said, but hey, it's a team effort:

 

I can also see them doing a new protagonist, I just don't think it's a good idea. To me, it would show that they're more interested in keeping a pointless gimmick than making a once-in-a-series'-lifetime compelling narrative. But as others have said, Bioware may not even be as serious about the "New game, new protagonist" deal as we thought, because of Hawke, etc. It's not that that was always the plan, it's just that their original plans were derailed, and they decided to say "Oh, that was always how we meant to do Dragon Age!" simply to save face and present themselves as doing something somewhat unique at the same time. That's just a guess though.

 

As for the second part, as others have said, it's not just about being attached to the Inquisitor, and for some, it's really not about that at all. I liked Hawke and my Warden more than my Inquisitor, but I want Quizzy back because it makes sense for the story. It's not about emotional attachment in this case.

 

The warden's storyline ended with DA:O, you didn't have Alistair at the end of DA:O declare that he had been manipulating the warden the whole time and that he had become super powerful and would destroy the world.

Ha, you made me chuckle   Alistair, Destroyer of Worlds:

[Valerius]

Just thought about the fact that if we play as the quizzy again I don't be able to play a blood mage tevinter magister who romances yavana (whom I pray that bioware puts in da4) so I'm not sure if I still want to play my quizzy. Maybe having him as an important npc will be good enough

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Just thought about the fact that if we play as the quizzy again I don't be able to play a blood mage tevinter magister who romances yavana (whom I pray that bioware puts in da4) so I'm not sure if I still want to play my quizzy. Maybe having him as an important npc will be good enough

Or they can just add more specializations like they did with Dragon Age: Awakening. 

[Nefla]

Or they can just add more specializations like they did with Dragon Age: Awakening. 

Plus not being the leader of this huge political organization anymore takes away a lot of restrictions that they would have previously had (needing to be diplomatic, gain allies, save face, etc...) and opens up the door for the 'Quiz to be more ruthless. Plus all the stuff they've gone through has the potential to take them in a much darker direction if that's how the player wants to do it.