408 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't think the "Final Boss" on the cosmology we learn so far will be elven. Remember, when we read about Gelduran (or however that's spelled) there is a suggestion that the Forgotten Ones may not even be compatriots or contemporaries of the Evanuris. Recall the codex entry from JOH:

 

There are no gods. There is only the subject and the object, the actor and the acted upon. Those with will to earn dominance over others gain title not by nature but by deed.

 

I am Geldauran, and I refuse those who would exert will upon me. Let Andruil's bow crack, let June's fire grow cold. Let them build temples and lure the faithful with promises. Their pride will consume them, and I, forgotten, will claim power of my own, apart from them until I strike in mastery.

 

I wonder if the Forgotten Ones aren't simply contemporaries with Solas, who is, I think, not a contemporary of the Evanuris himself.

Another possibility is the Forbidden Ones, particularly the Formless One who is said to be the strongest of the Forbidden Ones. The Forbidden Ones are ancient, dating to at least the time of the ancient elves. Plus they were also the ones who revealed many truths about the world and powers like blood magic to the ancient magisters, whom then destroyed and assimilated what was left of the ancient elves.

 

In Trespasser there is this Codex about them. 

"For abandoning the People in their time of greatest need, for casting aside form to flee to where the Earth could not reach, we declare Xebenkeck and others of her ilk exiled from the lands of the Evanuris. Beware! Their familiarity with shape allows them to travel paths unaided. They may be bound, but only the protection of your gods will fully shield you from their malice. They are Forbidden from the Earth that is our right."

 

So the Evanuris are saying that only someone as powerful as them can truly repel the Forbidden Ones. Note they only say shield, meaning while they can defend they apparently can't destroy. 

[AresKeith]

The way to handle it properly is to simply increase the surreal nature of the setting. Most games fail to work their villain hierarchy because they make their villains worse without changing their setting. But DA:I has made it work, I think, by showing that the only reason Solas is a threat at all is because of how much he wants to fundamentally change reality. And the other threats are quite literally - from the POV of modern, post-Veil Thedas - Eldritch abominations from another dimension. 

 

The one threat I feel was a sore missed opportunity since DAO are the Forbidden Ones  

[Mistic]

The one threat I feel was a sore missed opportunity since DAO are the Forbidden Ones  

 

Gaxkang, Imshael and company? They all seemed just powerful demons. Or are you talking about the Forgotten Ones?

[In Exile]

Another possibility is the Forbidden Ones, particularly the Formless One who is said to be the strongest of the Forbidden Ones. The Forbidden Ones are ancient, dating to at least the time of the ancient elves. Plus they were also the ones who revealed many truths about the world and powers like blood magic to the ancient magisters, whom then destroyed and assimilated what was left of the ancient elves.

 

In Trespasser there is this Codex about them. 

"For abandoning the People in their time of greatest need, for casting aside form to flee to where the Earth could not reach, we declare Xebenkeck and others of her ilk exiled from the lands of the Evanuris. Beware! Their familiarity with shape allows them to travel paths unaided. They may be bound, but only the protection of your gods will fully shield you from their malice. They are Forbidden from the Earth that is our right."

 

So the Evanuris are saying that only someone as powerful as them can truly repel the Forbidden Ones. Note they only say shield, meaning while they can defend they apparently can't destroy. 

 

I read that passage differently. I don't think it suggests the Forbidden Ones are equals to the Evanuris - rather, I think it's essentially a writ that exiles them for failing to fight the Titans. I think we'll find that they're lesser beings, not greater ones. In any event, my reading: 

 

1. The line "in their time of greatest and" and "flee where the Earth could not reach" suggests that this occurred during the time that the Evanuris warred with the Titans. Note the past tense, as well. 

 

2. The line "the Earth that is our right" is a reference to, I think, modern Thedas. Apart from lending credibility to the theory that Thedas is just an amalgam of Titans, it provides context on the "lands of the Evanuris" line in the antecedent sentence. 

 

3. The line "Their familiarity with shape allows them to travel paths unaided" is interesting, because I actually think it's a reference to the Eluvians. I'd wager that not all elves required Eluvians to dimension hop. 

 

4. The line "only the protection of your gods will fully shield you from their malice" I think may well be partly propaganda - not the malice part, but rather the "only the protection of your gods" part. 

[BansheeOwnage]

If they wanted to avoid the kerfuffle of people thinking they handicapped the inquisitor to sideline them because they think no one would expect or want to play someone with any kind of disability and they had planned on having the inquisitor as the protagonist of the next game then they could just say "if we do make a DA4 the inquisitor will be the protagonist" the way they said "if there is a DA4 it will deal with Solas plotline" and if the game gets canceled or something then it gets canceled. If they don't plan to use the inquisitor as the protagonist again then why not just say "we don't plan to have the inquisitor as the protagonist anymore but they will have a role" or something? Why the secrecy?

It seems almost all devs have gotten really secretive as the years go on and the gaming industry changes. I admit I find it frustrating and miss the old days where devs were excited to talk about their projects with their fanbase. Now it seems developers can barely even talk about a map pack even after it's gone gold

 

It's odd too, since knowing some features is usually better hype than... not knowing features.

[Nefla]

It seems almost all devs have gotten really secretive as the years go on and the gaming industry changes. I admit I find it frustrating and miss the old days where devs were excited to talk about their projects with their fanbase. Now it seems developers can barely even talk about a map pack even after it's gone gold

 

It's odd too, since knowing some features is usually better hype than... not knowing features.

I can see them not wanting to announce peripheral things that might get cut or changed like the capturing and defending of keeps with dialogue and cutscenes, etc...that footage being shown and cut from the game did not go over well, yikes! But something essential that you'd have to plan the game around like if there's a new protagonist or not is very unlikely to change, so why not tell us?

[Smudjygirl]

I can see them not wanting to announce peripheral things that might get cut or changed like the capturing and defending of keeps with dialogue and cutscenes, etc...that footage being shown and cut from the game did not go over well, yikes! But something essential that you'd have to plan the game around like if there's a new protagonist or not is very unlikely to change, so why not tell us?

 

But we have had some glimpses of what Weekes has in mind. Obviously it's not anything set in stone, but they are clues.

 

1- Solas' story will conclude in the next game if there is one

2- Solas and Lavellen will get some closure

3- Solas and Lavellen's romance could be seen "as a hopeful one"

4- A fan tweeted in cypher that Solas has been wrong a lot and they hope he can realise before it's too late, which he favourited.

 

Also i read Laidlaw say in an interview that "Dragon Age is set in chapters" and that Trespasser was supposed to "bring an end to the Inquisitions chapter".

 

So i don't think they're being tight lipped to be cruel. I think they just don't have anything concrete to show yet, so don't want to shoot themselves in the foot if what they have planned now isn't what they have later.

[In Exile]

I can see them not wanting to announce peripheral things that might get cut or changed like the capturing and defending of keeps with dialogue and cutscenes, etc...that footage being shown and cut from the game did not go over well, yikes! But something essential that you'd have to plan the game around like if there's a new protagonist or not is very unlikely to change, so why not tell us?

 

Because that totally changes. The plot of DA:O changed all the time, see e.g. Loghain being mind-controlled, the D/R vs. the magic anti-AD sword, the elimination of e.g. concept features like personal nemeses to the origins, in DA:I we have things like In Your Heart Shall Burn being the last thing added to the game, etc.

 

Story content doesn't get finalized anywhere near as fast as you think. 

[Nefla]

But we have had some glimpses of what Weekes has in mind. Obviously it's not anything set in stone, but they are clues.

 

1- Solas' story will conclude in the next game if there is one

2- Solas and Lavellen will get some closure

3- Solas and Lavellen's romance could be seen "as a hopeful one"

4- A fan tweeted in cypher that Solas has been wrong a lot and they hope he can realise before it's too late, which he favourited.

 

Also i read Laidlaw say in an interview that "Dragon Age is set in chapters" and that Trespasser was supposed to "bring an end to the Inquisitions chapter".

 

So i don't think they're being tight lipped to be cruel. I think they just don't have anything concrete to show yet, so don't want to shoot themselves in the foot if what they have planned now isn't what they have later.

Why couldn't they have just killed the inquisitor at the end of the vanilla game or destroyed the mark when the orb was destroyed, never made Trespasser and spared me the misery?

[Iakus]

Why couldn't they have just killed the inquisitor at the end of the vanilla game or destroyed the mark when the orb was destroyed, never made Trespasser and spared me the misery?

Because forcing the death of the inquisitor would have caused a repeat of ME3.

 

And they couldn't get rid of the mark because there may still be open rifts about.  With the two year time jump between the vanilla game and Trespasser, we can assume the remaining rifts were closed offscreen.

[Dai Grepher]

I can see them not wanting to announce peripheral things that might get cut or changed like the capturing and defending of keeps with dialogue and cutscenes, etc...that footage being shown and cut from the game did not go over well, yikes! But something essential that you'd have to plan the game around like if there's a new protagonist or not is very unlikely to change, so why not tell us?

Because EA has not requested a new game yet.

It's going to have a new protagonist. I think that's a given. It's also a given that the (ex)Inquisitor will be featured. How is the only real unknown.

[Smudjygirl]

Why couldn't they have just killed the inquisitor at the end of the vanilla game or destroyed the mark when the orb was destroyed, never made Trespasser and spared me the misery?

 

As others have said, it is best that they didn't. Otherwise there would be many "Bioware can't write a good story, they just kill their PC's" threads.

 

When i replayed Trespasser, after the novelty had worn off, i can't help but think that if they had left it at the part where the Inquisitor is staring off into the distance and her friends walk off (symbolic) it would have left less of an impact, even with the "i will stop you/show you the world has value" part. But that combined with the "We will find him" , "we will stop him". It gave off the effect of continuation, because they used an exclusive "we". All you can do is wait, sweetie. All any of us can do is wait.

[BansheeOwnage]

Because forcing the death of the inquisitor would have caused a repeat of ME3.

 

And they couldn't get rid of the mark because there may still be open rifts about.  With the two year time jump between the vanilla game and Trespasser, we can assume the remaining rifts were closed offscreen.

I'm pretty sure it was directly said in Trespasser that Quizzy indeed closed all the rifts during that timeskip. But yeah, if they killed the Inquisitor under absolutely all circumstances, I would have just flat-out given up on Bioware. I could never get emotionally invested again.

[Abyss108]

I'd be fine if the Inquisitor had died. It would have made sense for the plot they were telling, and wouldn't have felt cheap to me. It makes sense there would be a price to pay.

 

Not every story gets to have a happy ending...

[Smudjygirl]

I'd be fine if the Inquisitor had died. It would have made sense for the plot they were telling, and wouldn't have felt cheap to me. It makes sense there would be a price to pay.

 

Not every story gets to have a happy ending...

 

That's true. But the fact they are kept alive, even though we are told throughout Trespasser they may die, suggests they are needed alive. Weekes said that killing a character is difficult because if they die, it limits what they can do in the future. The fact the Inquisitor doesn't die suggests they are needed for some sort of role in the future. (which everyone pretty much knows already)

[greenbrownblue]

Why couldn't they have just killed the inquisitor at the end of the vanilla game or destroyed the mark when the orb was destroyed, never made Trespasser and spared me the misery?

And my 1 week of depression :v !

[BansheeOwnage]

I'd be fine if the Inquisitor had died. It would have made sense for the plot they were telling, and wouldn't have felt cheap to me. It makes sense there would be a price to pay.

 

Not every story gets to have a happy ending...

I don't think every story ever in fiction has to absolutely have a happy ending, but if in both of Bioware's franchises, they effectively gave my character no choice but to die, I'd be pissed. Like I said, I could never get invested in my Bioware PCs again, and if I'm not invested, there is no point playing. And there are other (sometimes more interesting) ways to pay a price.

 

It's just so much different in an RPG than other genres, party because the character can always be more of your own, no matter how you play them, and also because of the sheer amount of time you have with them compared to more linear stories. You can have interesting linear stories with set protagonists who die, but I don't think I would personally ever like it in an RPG. Again, I don't mind if you can die, just if you have to. That's just me.

[Nefla]

I'm just being dramatic(so out of character for me, really...) like Orsino saying "why don't they just drown us as infants?" He doesn't want people to drown mages as infants but to say "if things are going to turn out so crappy, what's the point?"

[Abyss108]

I don't think every story ever in fiction has to absolutely have a happy ending, but if in both of Bioware's franchises, they effectively gave my character no choice but to die, I'd be pissed. Like I said, I could never get invested in my Bioware PCs again, and if I'm not invested, there is no point playing. And there are other (sometimes more interesting) ways to pay a price.

 

It's just so much different in an RPG than other genres, party because the character can always be more of your own, no matter how you play them, and also because of the sheer amount of time you have with them compared to more linear stories. You can have interesting linear stories with set protagonists who die, but I don't think I would personally ever like it in an RPG. Again, I don't mind if you can die, just if you have to. That's just me.

 

I definitely understand what you mean about it being different in an RPG than in other formats - I am a lot more attached to my characters in the games I play, than characters in any other form (assuming the writing is well done of course). But for me, part of being attached to these characters is being being worried about them, and the hope that they will get through things OK. If it's changed so the protagonist is never really threatened unless you specifically choose it, it loses something for me.

 

It would have to be done very carefully though. I didn't like it in Mass Effect, I felt like it was done just for effect, not because it worked narratively. Nothing in that ending really made sense or fit the tone of the rest of the series. There would also be the issue where if they had done it at the end of Inquisition, after doing the same thing in Mass Effect, it starts to feel like there's little point in playing the games, as you will always die no matter what. It's certainly not something you can do often.

 

So, basically, I'm OK with my character dying, as long as it's done very very carefully.

[BansheeOwnage]

I'm just being dramatic(so out of character for me, really...) like Orsino saying "why don't they just drown us as infants?" He doesn't want people to drown mages as infants but to say "if things are going to turn out so crappy, what's the point?"

Yeah, I understand what you mean

 

I definitely understand what you mean about it being different in an RPG than in other formats - I am a lot more attached to my characters in the games I play, than characters in any other form (assuming the writing is well done of course). But for me, part of being attached to these characters is being being worried about them, and the hope that they will get through things OK. If it's changed so the protagonist is never really threatened unless you specifically choose it, it loses something for me.

 

It would have to be done very carefully though. I didn't like it in Mass Effect, I felt like it was done just for effect, not because it worked narratively. Nothing in that ending really made sense or fit the tone of the rest of the series. There would also be the issue where if they had done it at the end of Inquisition, after doing the same thing in Mass Effect, it starts to feel like there's little point in playing the games, as you will always die no matter what. It's certainly not something you can do often.

 

So, basically, I'm OK with my character dying, as long as it's done very very carefully.

That's a good point. You care because you're worried. You worry because you care. If I'm playing a Bethesda game, I'm never too worried, for instance, because the story usually goes on after the main quest (although if I'm wrong about some games, don't bother telling me ). So yeah, the threat of death adds to the game too. It was killing me (forgive the pun) in Trespasser for instance, because I didn't know if they'd really do it.

 

I agree completely about ME. It wasn't well done and nothing in those 10 minutes was consistent with the rest of the trilogy. So, yeah... it has to be very carefully done.

 

This discussion also made me think about unintentional (or sloppy) spoilers. DA:I actually has a lot of them. One fairly egregious one was the mission description of Doom Upon All The World. It basically said "This is the final mission, you'll be locked out of certain content after, but you can still play the game after." Uh... thanks for spoiling that!    It guarantees that that's the last mission, guarantees that there won't be any significant narrative twists, guarantees that you'll be successful and defeat the boss, and guarantees that you live. Wow. Way to make the last mission as much of an anti-climax as possible, regardless of the actual content of the mission (which also turned out to be anticlimactic)

[In Exile]

I don't see the issue with them telling you its the point of no return. DAO did that too and it followed it up with the DR/US bombshell.

[BansheeOwnage]

I don't see the issue with them telling you its the point of no return. DAO did that too and it followed it up with the DR/US bombshell.

But I elaborated on it. It wasn't "This is the point-of-no-return" that was the problem, it was also telling you you could continue afterwards (because it largely isn't a PoNR), which makes certain aspects of what you're about to experience be foregone conclusions.

 

Like you said, Origins still had important stuff happen afterwards. So did ME3, even if that stuff sucked. And in both of those, you could die. But DA:I did it much worse, because it outright told you you'd win and would live to tell about it.

[GoldenGail3]

Oh yay. We know something *claps hands*

[Abyss108]

But I elaborated on it. It wasn't "This is the point-of-no-return" that was the problem, it was also telling you you could continue afterwards (because it largely isn't a PoNR), which makes certain aspects of what you're about to experience be foregone conclusions.

 

Like you said, Origins still have important stuff happen afterwards. So did ME3, even if that stuff sucked. And in both of those, you could die. But DA:I did it much worse, because it outright told you you'd win and would live to tell about it.

 

Some games let you continue playing after you beat the end, but what they actually do is just teleport you back to before the final battle instead of actually being post finale.  So it doesn't always mean you have to live.

 

I'd still prefer they didn't do it, since it does still tell you certain things about the plot being about to wrap up.

 

I think people complain when they don't do it though...

[rapscallioness]

Personally, I always felt like the end of Trespasser did tie off the Inquisitor. That was my perception after playing it. Solas' story is opening, but the Inquisitor's involvement has closed off--maybe some letters we get from them. I hope there is not a NPC cameo simply because I do not like PC's to NPC's in my game. I really just do not like it. I didn't like it with Hawke; even when I first heard BW wanted to do that I was against it.

 

I think the taking of the arm had more to do with showing some kind of consequence for the Inquisitor. I was surprised it did not kill us. I also see the Quizzy/Solas relationship as wrapped up, too. He left you. For the third time if you romanced him. He's done with the Inquisition and the Inquisitor. He got the Anchor, and he's gone. He's gone to do what he was planning to do the whole time.

 

I think they did not want to kill off the Inquisitor because it should not be necessary to move forth. Annnd I think the ME3 ending..kerfuffle.. had BW doing whatever they could not to kill the PC. I mean, you can see this in DAI, this fear of pizzing off the player. They were game devving scared. They wanted to make everything shiny, happy with little to no struggle, or consequence for anything. 

 

It seems to me that BW has the idea that people upset about the ME3 ending were only upset because Shep died. There were some fans with that view, but there were quite a few other things mixed up in it all. In DA2 people were ticked because Hawke was not powerful enough. Or did not have enough agency. So, BW gave us all the power we could possibly want in DAI--with a friggin castle to boot.

 

I don't think they took the hand to show that the Inquisitor was no longer capable because they only have one hand now. I think they took the hand to show a very plausible consequence of having this Mark. To see the taking of the hand as an effort to sideline the Inquisitor because now they're supposedly handicapped, is to assume BW had plans to do anything with the Inquisitor in the first place.

 

I have no idea what to expect from a new PC. All the PC's in DA have been very different from each other.