By the way, who would want to do all that damage at once? I want to actually fight the dragon. Not kill it in 2 seconds.
Well, that was if you chose to play him as The Perfect Guy/Girl.
A lot of us chose to play our Wardens making mistakes.
Because the Golden Ending is less important than RPGing.
It shouldn't be up to the player purposely playing suboptimally to get an interesting story. Bioware have always said they wanted Dragon to hard decisions, but for every choice there is a easy third way out in Origins.
It's also not just about how your character acts, but how people react to them.
I thought it was really poignant it happen, especially considering all the sly nudging about the original Inquisition laying down their weapons as soon as their mission was finished.
This has really started to bother me the more I think about it. The original Inquisition absolutely did *not* lay down their arms. They just split up into Seekers and Templars and instead used their arms on behalf of the Chantry. It's a great lie that Mother Giselle tells but that's all it is....a lie.
The Trespasser ending had the opposite effect on me.
Now I'm really interested in seeing where DA4 goes with the conflict between my Inquisitor and Solas.
I won't speak for the others but I got that. My response may not have been clear though, so I'll try to do better. This is not a problem. Bio was under no obligation to give your PC an option to be an idiot and commit suicide in the endgame. Joining Solas would have been a nice thing to have for the 0.5% of PCs who would consider it, but I don't see it as being worth the wordcount.
Also.... you'd find an Inquisitor who wants to destroy the world more relatable? Really?
Edit: actually, I was unduly dismissive there about the suicide option. Bio's house style has a few flaws, and one of them is that they don't really make a space for PCs who are cowardly and/or weak. As a matter of RP you do have a right to play a PC who is so cowardly and weak that he just can't man up and deal with the situation. I'm still not convinced that it's a reasonable use of dev time, but it's not wrong to want it.
A summary of your post is in my last post a shame you didn't quote it: "Now, I'm fully aware that a lot of people relate to Bioware's decisions for their characters. There are even those that decided for all players that Bioware's decisions are the only good, right and logical ones (dictator much?)"
So if there is a right choice, a right way, there is no choice at all. It is like those people who say that god allow people to choose, but if they choose wrong they go to hell. Right. Well at least it is better than Bioware's choice, because in Bioware's case it is more like "I choose hell", then they say on the ending "on your way to hell an angel raptured you and took you to heaven to continue your journey..."
For all the complaints about Shepard I absolutely LOVED Mass Effect 3 endings a lot more than Trespasser's because they listened to people and allowed choice, so in the version I played, the "revised" version there was an ending more in line with my character. In Trespasser the idea of choosing to disband the Inquisition or not is also a good one, I always do, I never liked or even accepted the Inquisition in first place so disbanding it was my main priority since Cassandra declared it stabilished, but not siding with Solas and living missing a member is something that should be big enough for people to be able to choose.
As for "dev time", ok, so devs should focus on what most players will choose right? Except when it deals with things you like, funny isn't it? It is just the billioneth time you post like as if you could decide what is worthy or not. In fact while all I post about is offering more options there is always someone saying "I like the current ones so why bother with more?". The answer is I don't think you should, but what amazes me is the "astonishing ability" to not understand that not all people think alike, that the more epic the game becomes for standard frustrated people who want to pretend to be superheroes the less interesting the game becomes for people who understand like in a more, let's say, chromatic way. Again, it should not be a concern, except that the franchises preach about these differences like questioning whether blood magic is evil or not, whether some villains are villains or not, so in a sense I'd say they tease us with the possibility to be different and think different only to, in the end, force your character to behave like a paladin of justice.
I'm sure you will post again about "Bioware's decisions are the only good, right and logical ones", it works for you, so they must be right, right? Because it is very logic and obvious to make a franchise where everything is grey, it is not black and white, nothing is good or bad, not even demons, but in the end, there is one thing that walks in a straight line doing the only right thing, your character. THis complaint is of course about Inquisition, because back in DAO I could do all the things I wanted and despite Witch Hunt being an awful DLC the ending allowed you to CHOOSE, something not that popular these days. Also it is unfair to not mention DA2, it was small and failed but I could state that I support Anders and side with the mages or I could side with templars and kill Anders, or support mages but kill Anders, I could not really choose a side to support as in helping Orsino but compared to DAI I felt a lot more free to choose.
Perhaps Bioware should advertise their games better: "Forget the possibilities and wonders, now you can follow the straight line of righteousness and save the world in many different but equally righteous and heroic ways!" Who should I blame? Marvel? Now everyone wants to be the superhero? Sad times, saddest of times indeed!
If you can'ts save the world having sex with demons, doing blood magic and killing innocents anymore then perhaps it is time they stop making games about saving the world. DAI is the first time a DA game became a bible verse for me, one that summarizes my whole disappointment with the game: "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" - Matthew 16:26 according to google. This is Inquisition, an epic journey where you become incredibly powerful, head of giant organization, many epic friends, many epic places but you are not yourself aymore (again, I understand there is a lot of people who like Bioware's boring and childish hero stories and they like Marvel's and so on). Between druffalos, fairies and rainbows present in Inquisition and the possibility to make a character I could really relate to (like in Bioware's previous RPGs), yeah, I miss my soul.
I'm personally lukewarm on the Trespasser events and ending itself, since the whole DLC was just a means to end the Inquisition. I don't have any reason to care about it, but I don't dislike it. really like the missing arm though, since it's Bioware telling players to prepare themselves for a new protagonist. What I actually dislike is The Inquisitor learning about Solas' goals, since it's giving people unreasonable expectations about "dual protagonists" and other nonsense.
Frankly, I got bored with your post before I got that far. Still, my bad.A summary of your post is in my last post a shame you didn't quote it: "Now, I'm fully aware that a lot of people relate to Bioware's decisions for their characters. There are even those that decided for all players that Bioware's decisions are the only good, right and logical ones (dictator much?)"
Wait a second. You just asked for Bio to let the Inquisitor be a coward and die because he can't face living without his hand. How is that any different from choosing wrong and going to hell? Except that you know in advance that you're failing with that choice, of course.So if there is a right choice, a right way, there is no choice at all. It is like those people who say that god allow people to choose, but if they choose wrong they go to hell.
Don't be silly. There are plenty of things I'd love to see Bio implement that would be utterly impractical for them to implement. For example, I'd have loved it if the main quests were timed. Spend too long stumbling around, for instance, ME1's UNC missions, and Saren gets to the Conduit first and you lose. You don't see me plugging those ideas because I'm neither a hypocrite nor an idiot. I don't suggest that Bio should do something unless I think that Bio really should do that thing. The current generation of RPG fans is too weak to accept such a design, and Bio shouldn't consider it.As for "dev time", ok, so devs should focus on what most players will choose right? Except when it deals with things you like, funny isn't it?
I never said anything even close to that.I don't think that Bio has the only good ideas. I just think the two ideas you're pushing in this thread are not worth doing..I'm sure you will post again about "Bioware's decisions are the only good, right and logical ones", it works for you, so they must be right, right?
[snip]
This post is a hazard to one's health. I damn near severed my optic nerve rolling my eyes.
As for throwing in with Solas, I didn't mean to make it sound like that was a bad thing to want. I like having more RP options too. But very few Inquisitors are evil traitors who want to destroy the world, and implementing this would impose large costs on DA4. I don't see how this can possibly be said to be worth the dev time.
It's not true that you don't get the option. A female elf Inquisitor who romanced him can offer to go along with Solas - he refuses. I suppose Bioware could have extended that choice to other races/genders, even if they didn't see it really making sense, but just because you can offer doesn't mean Solas has to accept.
Retour en haut