408 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Thinking on it more I think everyone is misreading "tie off" (including me). Before Trespasser the Inquisitor had a really open ended fate, like the HOF. That leads to things like people asking for the PC back because there's no reason he or she wouldn't be involved whereas some people say their character would do anything but get involved (just see all the reactions to the Calling cure for the HOF.

Tie off, I think, means funnel the character to a state that is really easy to write around for the future. The Inquisitor has a clear goal and role, a choice of two philosophies (save or don't save Solas) and a choice of two endgames (renegade without the Inquisition or institutional servant of the Chantry). That's tied off the near infinite possibility that came from the end of DAI

[Nefla]

It wouldn't be like that for everyone though. Not everyone who played DA:I was invested in Solas. Some may have never taken him as part of the party or cared about his stories on the fade. Bioware should not presume that everyone cared about Solas by incorporating it into the next as part of the larger picture. 

It doesn't matter that not everyone was successfully invested in Solas as a character, what matters is that BioWare wanted you to be invested in him and assumed you were invested. Their story points to the Inquisitor being invested in him (regardless of what the player thinks). If you think they failed at that then it's just one more storytelling weakness on their part. Not a good sign for future games.

 

I really hope they don't do a "Support Tevinter or Support Qun" choice and that choice meaning that you have to agree with them entirely.

I'm hoping for the opportunity to bring down both. 

I honestly don't care what they do for the next game if the inquisitor isn't the protagonist. They can make a set generic human straight-white-guy-with-dark-hair-and-stubble warrior with no customization and no dialogue options, they can make every single character in the game a returning character or cameo from previous games, books, etc...they can make it a pay-to-win mobile or facebook game, whatever.

 

Personally, I would have liked to see how we could develop the Inquisitor in another game now that they are not a figurehead, have more agency, and a more personal story. What could have been, and all that.

Same here. I thought as a figurehead the inquisitor was way too restricted in their actions and behaviors, where they could go, what they could do, etc...and then there was the special snowflake magical mark that I hated. Taking all of that away as well as severing their hand, giving them a new goal, and forcing them to work in secret, these elements combined really made me hope for a more interesting game. I would have loved a game where the no-longer-special former inquisitor has to go undercover in Tevinter to figure out how to stop Solas, where he has to learn to live with a missing limb, where he could actually form a "jedi order" type organization (as was said about DA:I before it was released) but in the shadows.  

[Donquijote and 59 others]

In regards to the announcement, I'm a little irritated, cause while their stated intent was to "tie off" and conclude the Inquisitor's story, I feel like they did just the opposite. I finally have a vested interest in fighting an antagonist through my Inquisitor. All that great development pretty much goes out the window, cause now that Solas is the next big threat, my DA4 character won't have as much a history and reason to fight Solas as my Inquisitor did. And that's a shame, cause they set up DA4 so well in regards to giving me an antagonist that I actually give a damn about.

You say that as if you're 100% sure that Solas is the DA4 antagonist

[Lazarillo]

Is this new info, really?  I could swear this is the exact same thing they've been saying since they announced Trespasser in the first place?  Or am I missing something?

[Donquijote and 59 others]

Is this new info, really?  I could swear this is the exact same thing they've been saying since they announced Trespasser in the first place?  Or am I missing something?

No Bsn missed it

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You say that as if you're 100% sure that Solas is the DA4 antagonist

He plans to destroy the world and Patrick Weekes stated the next game will conclude his story, thus Solas will be the or at least an antagonist in DA4.

[Gervaise]

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else regarding the first aim.   If they were trying to show why the Inquisitor was not going to be carrying forward as the PC in the next game, then it was pretty much an epic fail.   Whilst one of the dialogue options has you saying how your adventuring days are over, another one has you saying (on the disband option) "now .... I have to save the world again."    Those are not the words of someone who is going to sit back and let someone else do the dirty work.   Plus there were the epilogue screens.   If you are part of the Jennies, it makes it clear that the claim to be retired is just a cover story but you are as active as ever (with a crossbow arm).    If you are Dorian's lover, you pop up in Minrathous helping your Amatus.  Let us not forget the fact that a romanced Lavellan has Solas haunting their dreams.    You final words to Solas are either "I will prove you wrong" or "I'm going to stop you."    Unless you are a totally apathetic jerk, you are not going to leave someone else to deal with Solas.     This is personal.

 

However, if the aim was merely to show why the Inquisitor no longer had their special magic or the big organisation serving them, then job done.   It did tie up the story of the Inquisition as portrayed in the game and if the former Inquisitor was to return, they would no longer be called the Inquisitor.   So far as my PC was concerned, it was a big relief.    I could have done without losing the arm but that is not an insurmountable problem but I never wanted to be the Herald of Andraste and certainly didn't want to be the running the Divine's private army, so I disband and that leaves me free to concentrate on the only thing really worth worrying about: stopping Solas (plus making sure the Qunari don't take over either).

 

At the very least I think the former Inquisitor has to play a leading role in the capacity of Advisor to the new PC

[Aravasia]

The picture was uploaded by a Twitter user cypheroftir.

 

Tell me what you think. Personally, I am rather shocked. The ending from my perspective indicated that Inquisitor would be the protagonist (either solo or dual). Also... Why dwarves are not mentioned? Will DA5 focus on them?

 

Tell me what you think.

Well, if this means what I think it means, then I am disappointed. 

I would mind less if the next game is dual-protagonist, so long as the Inquisitor is the one to resolve Solas's story.

For a new protagonist to do so instead would be the equivalent of having mad eye moody take over as protagonist in the Deathly Hollows and him being the one to stop Voldemort.

[BansheeOwnage]

Rather, those who did want the Inquisitor back wanted them back because they liked them. I mean, that is a reason.  Trespasser made more people want them back, and confused people on the mid ground by making it feel it could go either way. Heck, even many of those who don't want the Inquisitor back as PC want them back to deal with Solas. It boggles the mind

Yes, you're right, I was just using shorthand to vent. I was actually one of the people who would have preferred to have the Inquisitor return even before Trespasser, but that was because of my opinions about recurring protagonists more than anything else. In other words: I wasn't overly enthralled with my Inquisitor, I just thought I'd get more out of developing her through another game than starting from scratch for the fourth time. In addition, I thought it would be a waste to spend a game building up the Inquisition only to have it become irrelevant in the next game.

 

But I understood that those were personal reasons that not everyone would share. But Trespasser changed everything, because it added what I thought of as solid narrative reasons for the Inquisitor's return, regardless of how much I liked the character. That was the driving reason for my strong feelings. I never made or even participated in any threads about the Inquisitor's return beforehand, not that there were many. I wasn't campaigning for anything until Trespasser.

 

That's proof to me that they failed. The fact that I and so many others went from not having strong feelings about the Inquisitor's return to having strong feelings after Trespasser. The fact that not many people campaigned for their return as a protagonist, yet many people started to after Trespasser. The fact that people who were previously neutral or even against returning protagonists saw the narrative value in their return after Trespasser. And the fact that because of the sequel-hook, many people who never heard Bioware's "new game = new protagonist" line automatically assumed that they would return... after Trespasser.

 

Basically, the fact that interest in the Inquisitor's return/expectations for the Inquisitor's return went up after Trespasser proves that Bioware failed at tying them off. Obviously not everyone had their opinions change, but enough did that it's clear something went spectacularly wrong.

[vbibbi]

Nug confirmed to end slavery in Tevinter?
Or Hawke's 12th cousin, 5 times removed on her right arms side of the family

The standard video game convention of the protagonist being the only person who can fix institutionalized socioeconomic issues that have been entrenched in the culture for centuries.

  

It's kind of a shame there isn't more on a dwarven setup, as some are saying.
 
I don't think dwarves are ever going to be that popular, unless you create the right conditions and stage for them. Build it and they will come. Look at the Hobbit, for example.

If they model more dwarves like Aidan Turner there will be more interest in them.

  

I think this is less a Bioware thing and more of a video game thing. Everything's got to be created from scratch, by committee, on a time and financial budget... quite unlike writing a novel. So yeah, haven't played one video game yet where things aren't simplified and packaged kinda neatly. Until some lightning-fast, cheap, reliable, flexible game-tooling becomes available to the industry, I don't see things changing. 
 
The good news is, when I was a kid I was playing Space Invaders. I killed the aliens before they reached the ground and everything instantly worked out. Now I'm playing Inquisition and Witcher 3. There is progress being made.

It's definitely a video game trope, for sure. But sometimes I think Bioware takes it up to 11. There's usually a clear binary choice with a "better" option that's typically the good/paragon/open palm method. DAI is better in that the major choices we have aren't tied to morality and there's no clear "better" option to most of them.

[Nefla]

I have to wonder why they thought they needed to get rid of the inquisition if the inquisitor isn't going to be the protagonist any more and next game is going to be set in a different country? Why did they think they needed a DLC to get rid of the mark? They could have just made the mark disappear when the orb was destroyed at the end of DA:I.

[Abyss108]

It's not just people that were neutral that had their opinions changed with Trespasser. I was very strongly against any returning protagonists.

 

I hated it in Mass Effect, and one of my favourite things about Dragon Age is the fact that we get a new protagonist every game. But it just fundamentally does not work with what they have done. 

[AresKeith]

I have to wonder why they thought they needed to get rid of the inquisition if the inquisitor isn't going to be the protagonist any more and next game is going to be set in a different country? Why did they think they needed a DLC to get rid of the mark? They could have just made the mark disappear when the orb was destroyed at the end of DA:I.

 

Because people would've been asking where's the Inquisition everytime something comes up in the world of Thedas.

[vbibbi]

I have to wonder why they thought they needed to get rid of the inquisition if the inquisitor isn't going to be the protagonist any more and next game is going to be set in a different country? Why did they think they needed a DLC to get rid of the mark? They could have just made the mark disappear when the orb was destroyed at the end of DA:I.

I guess leaving a world-changing organization open ended, even if we're going north in DA4, was too risky. Considering that they're trying to close most loose ends even though they might not appear again...

Though yeah it's a bit silly that they didn't just address the Anchor by the end of the base game. Why did it take two years to finally threaten our death?

[Nefla]

Yes, you're right, I was just using shorthand to vent. I was actually one of the people who would have preferred to have the Inquisitor return even before Trespasser, but that was because of my opinions about recurring protagonists more than anything else. In other words: I wasn't overly enthralled with the Inquisitor, I just thought I'd get more out of developing her through another game than starting from scratch for the fourth time. In addition, I thought it would be a waste to spend a game building up the Inquisition only to have it become irrelevant in the next game.

 

But I understood that those were personal reasons that not everyone would share. But Trespasser changed everything, because it added what I thought of as solid narrative reasons for the Inquisitor's return, regardless of how much I liked the character. That was the driving reason for my strong feelings. I never made or even participated in any threads about the Inquisitor's return beforehand, not that there were many. I wasn't campaigning for anything until Trespasser.

 

That's proof to me that they failed. The fact that I and so many others went from not having strong feelings about the Inquisitor's return to having strong feelings after Trespasser. The fact that not many people campaigned for their return as a protagonist, yet many people started to after Trespasser. The fact that people who were previously neutral saw that narrative value in their return after Trespasser. And the fact that because of the sequel-hook, many people who never heard Bioware's "new game = new protagonist" line automatically assumed that they would return after Trespasser.

 

Basically, the fact that interest in the Inquisitor's return/expectations for the Inquisitor's return went up after Trespasser prove that Bioware failed at tying them off. Obviously not everyone had their opinions change, but enough did that it's clear something went spectacularly wrong.

I was one of the people who didn't like DA:I much overall and who found the inquisitor pretty boring/restricted as a character. I wouldn't have cared if we never saw them again and I saw their story as being completely finished. Trespasser was what changed my mind.

[Aravasia]

I have to wonder why they thought they needed to get rid of the inquisition if the inquisitor isn't going to be the protagonist any more and next game is going to be set in a different country? Why did they think they needed a DLC to get rid of the mark? They could have just made the mark disappear when the orb was destroyed at the end of DA:I.

I was going to say that it was probably so that the player is not wondering why the Inquisition is not intervening in the next game, but then I remembered that the Inquisition is not always ended, it is just always separated from the Inquisitor, which causes even greater confusion.

I suppose that perhaps tying the Inquisition to the Southern Chantry would be as effective as ending it, for the purpose of disabling it in the next game, considering that we are going to be in Tevinter, and their relationship with the Southern Chantry is rather hostile.

[AresKeith]

I guess leaving a world-changing organization open ended, even if we're going north in DA4, was too risky. Considering that they're trying to close most loose ends even though they might not appear again...

 

I had a feeling at end of the base game they was gonna make a DLC that would heavily nerf the Inquisition 

 

Though yeah it's a bit silly that they didn't just address the Anchor by the end of the base game. Why did it take two years to finally threaten our death?

 

I also thought about this, and I do feel that Bioware probably forgot about it after it got stabilized in the prologue. But it was smart for them to bring it back up in Trespasser 

[Smudjygirl]

Yes, you're right, I was just using shorthand to vent. I was actually one of the people who would have preferred to have the Inquisitor return even before Trespasser, but that was because of my opinions about recurring protagonists more than anything else. In other words: I wasn't overly enthralled with the Inquisitor, I just thought I'd get more out of developing her through another game than starting from scratch for the fourth time. In addition, I thought it would be a waste to spend a game building up the Inquisition only to have it become irrelevant in the next game.

 

But I understood that those were personal reasons that not everyone would share. But Trespasser changed everything, because it added what I thought of as solid narrative reasons for the Inquisitor's return, regardless of how much I liked the character. That was the driving reason for my strong feelings. I never made or even participated in any threads about the Inquisitor's return beforehand, not that there were many. I wasn't campaigning for anything until Trespasser.

 

That's proof to me that they failed. The fact that I and so many others went from not having strong feelings about the Inquisitor's return to having strong feelings after Trespasser. The fact that not many people campaigned for their return as a protagonist, yet many people started to after Trespasser. The fact that people who were previously neutral saw that narrative value in their return after Trespasser. And the fact that because of the sequel-hook, many people who never heard Bioware's "new game = new protagonist" line automatically assumed that they would return after Trespasser.

 

Basically, the fact that interest in the Inquisitor's return/expectations for the Inquisitor's return went up after Trespasser prove that Bioware failed at tying them off. Obviously not everyone had their opinions change, but enough did that it's clear something went spectacularly wrong.

 

I honestly played Inquisition expecting an ending that leaves no opening for the Inquisitor to come back. At the end of the main game, i assumed my Inquisitor would not be back as she would be busy inquisitoring. Or dismantling the Inquisition without a bomb. Then Trespasser came and it opened up her story again. I was honestly quite annoyed. But i have no preference for protags. Persona has new PC's ever time, and it works.  Witcher has one and it works. Dragon Age doesn't seem to be able to fit into one particular slot.

 

The standard video game convention of the protagonist being the only person who can fix institutionalized socioeconomic issues that have been entrenched in the culture for centuries.

 

I am fully aware of this fact.But as i am on the Dragon Age Forum, i will keep my comments as Dragon Age related as possible.

[vbibbi]

I had a feeling at end of the base game they was gonna make a DLC that would heavily nerf the Inquisition 
 

 
I also thought about this, and I do feel that Bioware probably forgot about it after it got stabilized in the prologue. But it was smart for them to bring it back up in Trespasser

I would have been pretty ticked if they have never dealt with the Anchor one way or another. As it is, I still wish they had actually explored it more.

  

I honestly played Inquisition expecting an ending that leaves no opening for the Inquisitor to come back. At the end of the main game, i assumed my Inquisitor would not be back as she would be busy inquisitoring. Or dismantling the Inquisition without a bomb. Then Trespasser came and it opened up her story again. I was honestly quite annoyed. But i have no preference for protags. Persona has new PC's ever time, and it works.  Witcher has one and it works. Dragon Age doesn't seem to be able to fit into one particular slot.
 

 
I am fully aware of this fact.But as i am on the Dragon Age Forum, i will keep my comments as Dragon Age related as possible.

Okay, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

[Smudjygirl]

Okay, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

 

I know, Just thought i would clarify that i wasn't giving any digs to DA specifically. I find the "i'm the greatest person alive" narrative to be a little tiresome, sometimes. So i tend to poke fun where i can

[Nefla]

Because people would've been asking where's the Inquisition everytime something comes up in the world of Thedas.

 

I guess leaving a world-changing organization open ended, even if we're going north in DA4, was too risky. Considering that they're trying to close most loose ends even though they might not appear again...

What was the point in building up (what we're told but not shown is) this powerful organization to rival kingdoms, to compare it to "founding the jedi order" (which persisted for thousands of years...) only to immediately dismantle it? The inquisition itself wasn't even necessary for most of the stuff we did in DA:I. This kind of thing is why I always thought each game should be much smaller scale and self contained as well as not having companions and plotlines go from one game to the next.

 

You're a street rat who starts a thieves guild in Antiva in order to get revenge on the person who murdered your brother in game A? Well the secret mage bastard of a noble Orlesian  family who is the protagonist of game B won't know or care. Neither will the member of a band of elven rebels that is the protagonist of game C, and so on.

[AresKeith]

I would have been pretty ticked if they have never dealt with the Anchor one way or another. As it is, I still wish they had actually explored it more.

 

It would've been interesting in the Cory fight if he used the Orb to mess with the Anchor and caused it to discharge like it did in Trespasser 

[Smudjygirl]

It would've been interesting in the Cory fight if he used the Orb to mess with the Anchor and caused it to discharge like it did in Trespasser 

 

That would have made the fight more interesting. You effectively just chase him up a mountain and stab him a few times. I guess the opening the fade rift in him was cool, but i'm not even 100% sure that's what happened

[vbibbi]

What was the point in building up (what we're told but not shown is) this powerful organization to rival kingdoms, to compare it to "founding the jedi order" (which persisted for thousands of years...) only to immediately dismantle it? The inquisition itself wasn't even necessary for most of the stuff we did in DA:I. This kind of thing is why I always thought each game should be much smaller scale and self contained as well as not having companions and plotlines go from one game to the next.
 
You're a street rat who starts a thieves guild in Antiva in order to get revenge on the person who murdered your brother in game A? Well the secret mage bastard of a noble Orlesian  family who is the protagonist of game B won't know or care. Neither will the member of a band of elven rebels that is the protagonist of game C, and so on.

 

Oh I mean I agree. I do think Bioware's intention all along though was for the Inquisition not to last past the game. They show a poor track record on having player choices actually matter, and maintaining a new organization that is led by a (former) protagonist is more hassle than they're willing/able to do. They did hint that disbanding would be an option with Mother Giselle, but I ink there should have at least been an option for us to fight the two choices given, even if we eventually have to give in.

And I think that quote comparing it to the Jedi order was short sighted on their part, as they were building the Inquisition up as more relevant to Thedas than it actually was.

 

It would've been interesting in the Cory fight if he used the Orb to mess with the Anchor and caused it to discharge like it did in Trespasser

I still wish the final fight had ended with the Inquisitor and Cory in the Fade. Deal with the Anchor during that finale.

  

I know, Just thought i would clarify that i wasn't giving any digs to DA specifically. I find the "i'm the greatest person alive" narrative to be a little tiresome, sometimes. So i tend to poke fun where i can

Yeah. It's most Bioware protagonists as well as DA protagonists.

[Smudjygirl]

I was just reading Cory's page on the Wiki. Not been on his page for a long while

 

http://dragonage.wik.../wiki/Corypheus

 

Why was this information not part of the main story line? I'd have been so interested in him if my Inquisitor discovered even a fraction of this (in more than just a codex that is never, ever, ever mentioned). What a waste of a villain that could have been so interesting. By the end of Inquisition, it seems like Inquisitor still isn't even sure if Cory is a Magister or not

 

*it's important to note i don't have much media outside of them game. And i should not really need it if i play a game where the chump is the antagonist.

 

EDIT: I feel like i'm not making myself too clear. I know we as players learn quite a lot about Cory between what happened in 2 and Inquisition, but it always felt like the Inquisitor was always kept in the dark about Cory. Like there was a big split between what i know, and what she knew.