I suppose heterosexual guys would get some combination of 'first world problems' or 'check your privilege.'
In a medieval game plot? More likely, it will be like those teacher taking advantage of student reactions - the reaction will turn on whether or not the potential spouse is attractive.
I suppose heterosexual guys would get some combination of 'first world problems' or 'check your privilege.'
Nobody would say that in a fantasy game, and I do think people would be sympathetic to a heterosexual man being forced to marry a woman he doesn't love (IMO forcing Alistair to marry Anora is horrible). That being said, in a medieval-influenced game we are reminded of similar times throughout our real history. Back then women were basically property.
I prefer to have new protagonists each game, mainly so I can experience roleplaying different characters, different races/genders each game. The variety of having new protagonists from new backgrounds keeps the story fresh and more interesting for me. I like my worldstates in the keep to contain contradictary characters, so I can roleplay a pro-mage warden and hawke, but also have a pro-templar Inquisitor (in the same world as each other). That is merely an example, but for me, it just enables me to spice up the world more, having protaganists who are very different and not completely on the same spot on a moral compass, but are in the same world. I feel like having the same protagonist, I would lose the freedom to roleplay in this way, and I would have to play every game in a similar way, because frankly I am not creative enough to develop my character to change so deeply over the course of many games 
Also, out of all the games I play the majority seem to keep the same protaganist over many games, for good reasons... but I prefer to come and play dragon age and always be somebody different 
There is clearly no right or wrong way, because I see both sides have people who have very valid reasons to prefer whatever they prefer
No, they were not. Did women have as much control over their lives or as many rights as many men? Not at all, but that's not the same as being property or lacking any rights or protections altogether.Nobody would say that in a fantasy game, and I do think people would be sympathetic to a heterosexual man being forced to marry a woman he doesn't love (IMO forcing Alistair to marry Anora is horrible). That being said, in a medieval-influenced game we are reminded of similar times throughout our real history. Back then women were basically property.
No, they were not. Did women have as much control over their lives or as many rights as many men? Not at all, but that's not the same as being property or lacking any rights or protections altogether.
Can't really speak for other countries, but in the UK it was certainly the case that women were considered property. It was written into the laws and demonstrated in society. They were simply a tool for fathers to improve their business prospects and used for children by their husbands. They had no say in anything that happened to them. No one cared if they were raped or beaten, because it was the husbands right to do as he please with his wife.
"In this male-centered society, women were held at a lesser status, and always had to answer to her father. A man had complete control over his family; they were considered his property to do with as he pleased. His sons inherited this lands and titles, but his daughters were sold off to live in another man’s household when they married. Boys were educated to take over for their fathers, girls were taught skills to help then run their own households and please their husbands. Fathers chose their daughter’s husbands for them, which usually had nothing to do with love, the concept on which marriage is based on today"
http://www2.cedarcre...ers/KMartin.htm
https://www.coursehe...-Most-laws-did/
And here's one for America https://www.gilderle...omen-1776–1830
(further reading of this one makes it seem women had more freedom)
Though if you believe that it was never the case, i doubt i could convince you other wise.
Though i'm getting off topic here, so feel free to ignore me.
I accounted for all of this. So I will ignore you.Can't really speak for other countries, but in the UK it was certainly the case that women were considered property. It was written into the laws and demonstrated in society. They were simply a tool for fathers to improve their business prospects and used for children by their husbands. They had no say in anything that happened to them. No one cared if they were raped or beaten, because it was the husbands right to do as he please with his wife.
"In this male-centered society, women were held at a lesser status, and always had to answer to her father. A man had complete control over his family; they were considered his property to do with as he pleased. His sons inherited this lands and titles, but his daughters were sold off to live in another man’s household when they married. Boys were educated to take over for their fathers, girls were taught skills to help then run their own households and please their husbands. Fathers chose their daughter’s husbands for them, which usually had nothing to do with love, the concept on which marriage is based on today"
http://www2.cedarcre...ers/KMartin.htm
https://www.coursehe...-Most-laws-did/
And here's one for America https://www.gilderle...women-1776–1830
Though if you believe that it was never the case, i doubt i could convince you other wise.
Though i'm getting off topic here, so feel free to ignore me.
I accounted for all of this. So I will ignore you.
The assertions that "women were basically property" in the medieval era remains a vast oversimplification.
Without a clear definition of what "basically property" means, I don't see how either of you are gonna win this one.
Well, I'd probably go with "Limited rights, limited autonomy, limited career prospects, limited social influence (lack of a vote) etc." Some combination of the above has been the case in many cultures, for most of history.
But I suppose we should probably get back on topic.
Well, I'd probably go with "Limited rights, limited autonomy, limited career prospects, limited social influence (lack of a vote) etc." Some combination of the above has been the case in many cultures, for most of history.
Sure, but that's not the same as being property. Because the contrast is slavery, where people were actually treated like chattel property. Like racism, sexism historically was rooted in more than just law, and the most insidious parts were the result of a myriad of legal, social and political factors.
When I hear "basically property", I hear "chattel", but that's the last I'll say on the topic.
Well, I'd probably go with "Limited rights, limited autonomy, limited career prospects, limited social influence (lack of a vote) etc." Some combination of the above has been the case in many cultures, for most of history.
But I suppose we should probably get back on topic.
Why is it that whenever there's a beehive I just HAVE to poke it?
Why is it that whenever there's a beehive I just HAVE to poke it?
Meh, it's bound to happen when you get loads of different people talking in one place. But that's what makes discussions interesting
I like having a blank new character set for each game. Lets me have a different persona, personality, looks, gender, sexuality, etc. for each new storyline.
I prefer to have new protagonists each game, mainly so I can experience roleplaying different characters, different races/genders each game. The variety of having new protagonists from new backgrounds keeps the story fresh and more interesting for me. I like my worldstates in the keep to contain contradictary characters, so I can roleplay a pro-mage warden and hawke, but also have a pro-templar Inquisitor (in the same world as each other). That is merely an example, but for me, it just enables me to spice up the world more, having protaganists who are very different and not completely on the same spot on a moral compass, but are in the same world. I feel like having the same protagonist, I would lose the freedom to roleplay in this way, and I would have to play every game in a similar way, because frankly I am not creative enough to develop my character to change so deeply over the course of many games
I meant to quite but accidentally un-liked. That was a first. Also was a bit distracted by the other conversation.
I just wanted to touch on what was quoted, and would like to point out that having the same character would not necessitate them to carry over the same opinions. Say our Warden was our only hero. They saw what happened in the Circle Tower, which could have made them feel sympathetic for the "prisoners" of the tower or made them sure the Templars were doing the right thing. In DA2, the Warden would have seen the suffering of the mages in the Kirkwall circle, which may have made a pro-templar character question the rule of the templars, or support it more. A pro-mage would have seen the weaknesses if the mages and either have become more cautious and untrusting of them, or blame it all on the Templars. In the Inquisition they would have seen exactly how weak both the mages and templars truly are, and so could have had a complete change of opinion of either side, preferring one over the other, becoming neutral or vehemently hating both sides. (i know you said you're not creative enough, but i think the events of the games shake your loyalty and opinions enough to not need to be creative to do it yourself)
The difference is really seeing things with a fresh pair of eyes (new PC) or building on already established opinions. For me the big difference is the fact my Warden (just because i used them as an example) would have had massive amounts of characterisation over the course of the games.
But as you say, there is truly no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. It is purely based on opinions and personal preferences. I just hope we hear something pretty soon haha
I would like to see one of the main characters become an antagonist.
I would like to see one of the main characters become an antagonist.
But since we have been given the hint from Weekes that Solas' story will conclude in the next DA (assuming there is one, as he said)
But you raise interesting ideas.
The Qunari have been an "imminent threat" since Origins, though. But i would vastly prefer to be a Tevinter PC to deal with that mess.
But just to touch upon the involvement with the Inquisition aspect you think of. Most people hated being an agent of the Inquisition in Inquisition, so i wonder why there are people who want to use that in the next game. How would you see such a thing working?
Ah, I hadn't heard about that tweet from Weekes, It would really depend on where the story goes (for whether or not the Inquisitor is the PC in the next game or not). After Trespasser i envisioned a rough idea of where the overall story may be going, i assumed - given the highly likely connection between the blights and the Elven 'gods' - that the Dragon age endgame would involve the Elven Gods getting out (though somehow without tearing down the veil and killing everyone), and the final 2 Archdemons rising. We'd leave the series having defeated the blights once and for all, and having defeated the manacle Evenuris, thus wrapping up most of the plot threads that they've been building since Origins. I assumed this rough structure would play out over the next 2 or 3 games (6 games feels like a good number to end the series on).
If this were the case, it would seem fitting for Solas' fate to be resolved in the final game with him helping defeat the Evenuris in the final game, OR for him to die releasing the Evenuris in the penultimate game, be it 4 or 5 (we'd then deal with the Evenuris in the final game). Personally i can't see him going out any other way. If we're able to stop him releasing the gods, we'd need to go about killing them, otherwise it would be an incredible anti-climax, they'd still be waiting and the issue would really be resolved. If this were the case for the 4th game out of 5, then i guess i'd be happier to have the Inq as the PC, but then that would still leave the final game for the Evenuris to be defeated - and as i can't see Bioware doing 3 DA games with the same PC - then it would likely be a new PC, and that would just feel bizarre, having a totally new character take on ancient gods (unless it was the warden......but nevertheless the Inq still has the greatest personal connection to the Evenuris story line and would be the most fitting character to resolve it. Which is why i'd love to have a duel protagonist system with the Warden and the Inq for the final game, if we're dealing with the gods and the Archdemons that is)
I know i'm debating the plot structure of an entirely made up idea of what the future games will be like - and i'm likely 95% wrong about it all - but that's what i'm basing my feelings off of, in regards to the 'new PC or not' issue. 
If i were correct and we're looking at a 6 game series overall, and the next game will be roughly the ideas i suggested in the previous post (qun war, Tevinter politics, grey warden civil war, Solas in the background etc. ) and just above about the endgame of the series, then i'd say it's the logical time to deal with the Qunari threat they've been building up for the last 3 games, seeing as (in my scenario) the final game would deal with the Evenuris, Solas, The Titans and the final Archdemons, then throwing in a full on Qunari invasion would just make the whole thing overstuffed. Admittedly it could happen in the 5th game, if we are to have 6, but the next game is almost certainly going to take place in Tevinter+ The Anderfells (given the stabbing off it on the map at the end of trespasser, the new Magekiller comic, Hawke going to Weisshaupt, hints at a growing Warden civil war. and the fact that so many fans have been begging to visit Tevinter for years now), the prelude to their new invasion in Trespasser, and the fact that the slides after Trespasser say the Qunari launched a new aggressive attack on Tevinter that could threaten the rest of Thedas, and so it would seem the most likely time for us to resolve the Qunari threat once and for all rather than spend another game building it. And i agree with you, i would much prefer a Tevinter PC for the 4th game (provided we resolve Solas and the Evenuris with the Inq, though if that if happening in the 4th game then i'd say that a Inq PC takes precedence given the larger story).
And finally, when i said 'we could operate as an agent of the Inquisition' in the next game, i didn't mean to imply i wanted that to be the case, more that i could see that being a way to thrust the new PC into the larger story, as - disbanded or not - the inquisition is heading to Tevinter, and the Inquisitor even says at the end that as Solas knows all their agents and methods, that they'll need to get new ones to go after him. I took this as foreshadowing for the next protagonists role, they'll be contacted by the Inquisition and get involved in the overall story, then you as the player could choose whether to go it alone with your followers or to work with the Inquisition.
Many apologies for my overuse of brackets, and if structurally this is a bit all over the place, it's very early and i have yet to have my morning coffee 
--
Thanks for the detailed response.
I see what you mean. Provided Solas' plan doesn't backfire on him completely, or he is stopped, it does seem like such a story would be perfect for an final finale. Considering he would plunge the world into utter chaos, kill almost everyone and every other potential consequence to his actions, there is pretty much nothing that could one up him in terms of potential consequences.
About the Evanuirs, we don't even know if they are still trapped, truly. They probably are, but if what Solas said about them is true, they are in every way his equal. If they were no longer trapped and escaped due to the Breach, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they would be able to hide themselves from him. Though it sounds more likely that they would just kill him. There is also the theory that the Old Gods are the Elven Gods, which i don't think has ever been shown to be true or false.
If you were right about six games, my personal preference would be dealing with Solas in the next (and stopping him in any of the ways we have been given, as the Inquisitor), defeating the Qunari once and for all in the 5 and defeating the last 2 Archdemons in the final. I say that as last because we would either need 2 Wardens or 2 Morrigans in order to defeat them AND have a happy ending, and i think it would be fitting to end the series where it started. I honestly think dealing with the Evanuris in the next game would be a good way to keep the Inquisitor from having to touch anything to do with Tevinter, as i would prefer a Tevinter PC to do that. And provided the Old Gods aren't the Evanuris, it perfectly reasonable for the Inquisitor to deal with them. Because, as you say, they are the only PC with a personal connection to the Elven Gods.
On a final note, the agent of the Inquisition thing also does not work if you take what is said at the end of Trespasser at face value, in my opinion. If someone he knows finds someone he doesn't know, he will know about the someone found that he doesn't know. He is going to keep tabs on the Inquisitor, who he sees as the greatest threat to his plans. They would not be able to keep any new people secret, no matter how they tried. And Solas and his agents are good at their jobs, they would find out all about the potential new PC easily. Especially if Dorian is involved as heavily as people suspect. Solas will be able to stick agents in Tevinter, in literally ever crevice, and no one will give them a second look. He has near omniscience right now. If Solas knows the Inquisitor to the point people assume, he will know they will try to find other people. Keeping or getting rid of the Inquisition doesn't matter, as both choices suggest he still has spies in there. The spies will tell him of any contact the Inquisitor has with anyone. The frequent contact with the New PC will bring Solas' attention to them, and then he will know everything he needs to about the new PC in a matter of days. I guess we may need to look for someone he doesn't know at least 5 times in that game. (But this is just my opinion)
[Snip]
People make too much of a big deal about the Blight. The AD is a red herring as a phenomenon, the more we learn about it. I'm sure that - in usual fashion - Solas will **** up whatever it is he's planning, and go 3 for 3 on accidentally starting an apocalypse for all living things while trying to save the Elvhen. Solas basically exists solely for the purpose of fulfilling this trope. He will almost guaranteed release the Evanuris.
We'll certainly get to explore the true nature of the Blight, but I wager that the ADs are not going to make a comeback as an antagonist (even if the Blight does recur, which it did in DA:I, remember, as red lyrium). We're far more likely to continue exploring the truly supernatural elements of Thedas - look at JOH, Descent and Trespasser.
Well, you win New Protagonist people.
*suffocates self with pillow*
...
Hmm, interesting. It would be an interesting turn of events if the Evenuris had already escaped somehow and were simply regaining their strength before revealing themselves to Solas and trying to regain what they'd lost. Though how exactly they'd escape from their sleep 'behind a mirror' due to the breach eludes me. I assumed from cole/solas banter that they had been trapped behind one of the Eluvians that lead to somewhere in the fade (i would assume The Golden City), and that it would be far harder to escape from than just having a rip in the fade.
If that's one of your theories, what are your ideas about how that would come to pass?
As for the old gods/evenuris connection, I've no clue exactly how they are connected, and i wouldn't go as far as to say that they are the physical forms of the old gods, but i do think that there is absolutely some connection. There are 7 trapped Evenuris and 7 old gods, Solas being so incredibly adverse to Archdemon destruction, the blight seemingly coming from the fade/golden city (where i would argue the Evenuris are trapped, and even if they're not, the fade was a huge part of the Elven world). This is why i imagine their destruction will be intertwined with the release/defeat of the evenuris, and that the Evenuris are the larger threat, thus final game material, rather than the archdemons who - while still a world ending threat - seem to pale in comparison to beings who were about as close to gods as anything gets in the DA universe. I mean if Solas can blink and turn Qunari into stone - even with Mythals soul aiding his power - imagine how much more powerful someone like the vicious Elgar'nan could be, even weakened with the veil and from years of sleep.
I've seen some interesting theories here on BSN that suggest the Archdemons could be some sort of seals Solas created to hold back the Evenuris or keep the veil up or something - AKA The Seven Seals Of The Apocalypse - and that from the Golden City the Evenuris reached out to the magisters dreams and either tried to have them free them, or knew that they would be corrupted and begin the blights, leading to their eventual freedom.
Not sure i totally buy into the theory and it certainly has a lot of blank spaces that we'd need more knowledge to fill in, but what it suggests is certainly interesting, and would explain the links between them and the Evenuris, and Solas' desire to not destroy them. Then with a 5th game having us kill them in some sort of double blight or a preemptive strike by the Wardens, this could lead into the Evenuris being the threat in the final game. As much as i think it would be a nice way to end the series with us ending the blights once and for all, i feel it would have to be done in either the prior game or the same game we defeat the Evenuris, otherwise the true impact might be lost, seeing as we just saved the world from the most powerful beings it's ever seen.
I totally agree that a Tevinter PC should be the one to deal with the Qunari, tevinter politics issues etc, and i think in order to have steady pacing for the series, that the 4th game should deal with those, while Solas and the Inq are operating in the background, present, but not front and center, with Solas preparing to enact his plan and the Inq trying to stop him, and that playing into the closing hours of the 4th game as well. I'd reiterate what i was saying above about dealing with the archdemons. i think the Tevinter issues would just feel underwhelming if they were done after we've just stopped Solas and defeated the Evenuris in the 4th game, and with so much indication that we're heading to Tevinter in the next game i'd be surprised if they were to stay there for 2 consecutive games when there's still so much more of Thedas to see. Really it does all depend on the twists and turns the overall story takes, but this is all just me going off personal predictions for where the series will roughly go.
The spies in the Inquisition are likely the whole reason they would try to secretly recruit the potential new PC in DA4. They'd be hamstrung by Solas' spy network knowing most of their moves so the only real option they have is to try and recruit operatives without many people knowing about it and have them work with them, reporting to a representative of the Inquisition who would meet them in secret or something. Admittedly I haven't really given too much thought to the specifics of it all because ideally i'd rather play as a returning PC, but it's certainly a way i can see them connecting a new PC to the Solas plot while still allowing them to not be so involved in it that they could get involved in other issues. I'm only really anti Inq for the next game because of my ideas of where the plot is going, and Bioware's attitude with the Dragon Age franchise in regards to having new PC's in every game, so i'd much rather they be in a game defeating the Evenuris which i think will likely be the final game. I can see them potentially having the Inquisitor in a 2nd game, but not a 3rd or 4th one.
In a perfect world for me i'd have Hawke playable in the 4th game and then have the Inq and the Warden share screentime via some duel-protagonist system in the 5th and 6th. But realistically i can't see them ever doing that lol.
People make too much of a big deal about the Blight. The AD is a red herring as a phenomenon, the more we learn about it. I'm sure that - in usual fashion - Solas will **** up whatever it is he's planning, and go 3 for 3 on accidentally starting an apocalypse for all living things while trying to save the Elvhen. Solas basically exists solely for the purpose of fulfilling this trope. He will almost guaranteed release the Evanuris.
We'll certainly get to explore the true nature of the Blight, but I wager that the ADs are not going to make a comeback as an antagonist (even if the Blight does recur, which it did in DA:I, remember, as red lyrium). We're far more likely to continue exploring the truly supernatural elements of Thedas - look at JOH, Descent and Trespasser.
I agree with you pretty much in every way (my bad if my post indicated otherwise, i was very tired writing it). But i do think that there is a connection between them and the Evenuris. I've seen theories here on BSN that suggest the Archdemons could be some sort of seals Solas created to hold back the Evenuris or keep the veil up or something - AKA The Seven Seals Of The Apocalypse - and that from the Golden City the Evenuris reached out to the magisters dreams and either tried to have them free them, or knew that they would be corrupted and begin the blights, leading to their eventual freedom.
Can't say i 100% buy into that, but it's certainly interesting.
I think the Evenuris are the endgame threat and will be the main focus going forward, but the archdemons certainly seem to be connected and i can't see them ending the series without defeating the final archdemons/resolving the blights. So i do think they will play into the future of the series, just not as the Big Bad of the final game.
To the people who say Bioware removed the Inquisitor's arm as a way of saying they won't return - https://twitter.com/...588579274522625
Confirmed by the lead that this was not the case.
Inquisitor still may or may not return, but it certainly won't be because of the arm loss - plenty of amputee heroes!
Hawke was the most fun, but they explored PC mechanics with them that I enjoyed. The Warden was boring af.
The Inquisitor was okay, but there needed to be some sort of struggle. The opinion you could express about being/not being "Herald" was too tame.
I'm okay with new protagonists, but I hope they bring back the personality experimentation while keeping the race/origin references I enjoyed in O and I
Retour en haut
