408 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

Those who wanted to run a secret society from the shadows rather than lead armies and daring others to invade also got what they wanted.

Eh, I thought the Inquisition was portrayed as a military force that used spies for information, not that it was a secret society. It never operated from the shadows until the end of Trespasser. Prior to that, it was pretty dang blatant and unapologetic at touting the Herald as a figurehead for its cause.

 

I would have liked to play it more as a shadow organization, at least while we're trying to discover the Elder One's identity, and once we have proof, then go public and enlist aid from current world powers.

[Iakus]

Eh, I thought the Inquisition was portrayed as a military force that used spies for information, not that it was a secret society. It never operated from the shadows until the end of Trespasser. Prior to that, it was pretty dang blatant and unapologetic at touting the Herald as a figurehead for its cause.

 

I would have liked to play it more as a shadow organization, at least while we're trying to discover the Elder One's identity, and once we have proof, then go public and enlist aid from current world powers.

I see it as the Inquisition adapting based on its mission.  When Corypheus had his armies, the Inquisition needed theirs.  But Solas is more subtle, a master of manipulation, not one to face an enemy head-on.  And so the Inquisition must adapt to fight this shadow war.  A huge army would be worse than useless:  it would scare off potential allies and be a source of endless leaks.

[robertthebard]

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.

Isn't this a bit of bias on your part here? I didn't get invested in Solas, and the dialogs with him in Tresspasser reflected that. Just like I didn't do the DR, and ran a female HoF, so Morrigan didn't have a baby, so I'm not invested in Kieran, because he doesn't exist. Your experience does not necessarily equal my experience with Solas. There was no emotional "I'm going to save you from yourself" scene. Because we weren't even friends, just allies of convenience, until it became inconvenient for him.
 

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.

You're going to be in for a disappointment, I think. If that means you're done, then that's what it means. But we've been told time and again that this game isn't about a single character in the setting but the entire setting. There isn't a single heroic type person in Thedas that wouldn't be invested in saving the world as they know it, it is, after all, their lives we're discussing, and people have a tendency to want to live, as a rule.
 

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.

...and others on these very forums felt like the Inquisitor was entirely too hands on. Haven't you expressed that same opinion? I'm asking because I'm not sure. The fact is, we could go wherever we wanted, if we had scouted the regions. There were limits, we couldn't go to places that weren't in the game in a literal sense, such as most of Val Royeaux and Denerim. The maps don't exist, therefore we can't go, but once we had the scouting done, we could go anywhere we wanted.

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.

There should be. The Inquisitor wasn't there for the events of DA 2. People complain a lot about having to read codex entries to get the backstory, I don't think including Wiki entries in the codex would have helped much. Even the people that were there don't know everything, so not getting an info dump from Varric makes sense, to me.

[AlanC9]

Let me say this: while I am of the view that there is no need for the Inquisitor to return as a protagonist, I absolutely felt the same way about Trespasser. In fact, I basically felt trolled the entire time. It wasn't so much about the character losing - there are loses all the time in good narratives, sometimes the bad guy wins, and low points in a story can make the high points feel all the sweeter (In Your Heart Shall Burn handles that low to high very well, IMO). 
 
What Trespasser does, however, is strip you down and defeat you and just... ends. It's an awful and dissatisfying way of doing it regardless of what DA4 does, and the Inquisitor as a protagonist in some future game does not change being trolled by Solas (and Bioware).

Though I see this as the logical outcome of the major theme of DAI, Being the Inquisitor never had much to do with who the Inquisitor was or what she wanted. Trespasser is just the subtext breaking through into the text.

[Smudjygirl]

There should be. The Inquisitor wasn't there for the events of DA 2. People complain a lot about having to read codex entries to get the backstory, I don't think including Wiki entries in the codex would have helped much. Even the people that were there don't know everything, so not getting an info dump from Varric makes sense, to me.

 

Where on earth did you get that from? Nowhere did i say that we should get an "info dump" and i did not say any one character should have all the answers. I said that Cory clearly was an interesting character, but his story was not apart of Inquisitions story. For all the talk about "finding the truth" and stopping him, the Inquisitor effectively learns nothing about Cory save that he "might have been a magister". There is usually an info gap between player and character. For example, i don't expect the Inquisitor to learn about the Warden seal and such, because Hawke learned that when it was needed. But the Inquisitor should have learned much, much more about Cory. If we were pursuing him, why reduce him to a couple of codex here and there, but have him be the main villain?

 

Moral of the story: I do not think that PC's should be omniscient. But they should not be left completely in the dark either.

[Super Drone]

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.

 

The answer to that is simple, actually... Because you had to have the mark Post-Corypheus so you could play the game after the end of the Main Quest. There's Rifts in the Frostback Basin, and I at least closed them after Corypheus was long dead. 

 

Trespasser forcibly ends the game when you start it, so they can remove the Mark and not jack up your game...

[vbibbi]

I see it as the Inquisition adapting based on its mission.  When Corypheus had his armies, the Inquisition needed theirs.  But Solas is more subtle, a master of manipulation, not one to face an enemy head-on.  And so the Inquisition must adapt to fight this shadow war.  A huge army would be worse than useless:  it would scare off potential allies and be a source of endless leaks.

Yes, the new incarnation of the "Inquisition" after Trespasser is going to be a shadow organization (I'd hesitate to even name it the Inquisition at that point, more like Inky and Friends!). I was referring to the Inquisition as it existed and operated in DAI. It had Leliana's agents but at no point was it really trying to conceal its operations or goals. If anything, it was advertising that in order to gain support and allies.

[Nefla]

Imagine how amazing it would be to play a character who is all but broken. It would be the perfect reason to play someone who thinks "damn the consequences, i've tried it your way before"

Yeah that would have been awesome. To me Trespasser gave a reason for possibly being more bitter and more willing to take chances and be ruthless in addition to giving the freedom of not being tied to this massive political organization and not having to be polite and political constantly. Sadly I didn't realize that The Rule is ironclad.

 

It's pretty obvious that there would be a new protagonist, something DA has always had, those who think otherwise is just wishful thinking, especially if they hold onto to the hope that Solas is involved. Solas could be involved, but that doesn't mean the Inquisitor would be the one who resolve the issue. The game makes the ending to be varied too greatly, Inquisitor lost their arm, the group disbanded, most companions could be dead or gone. That's a good thing though, Inquisitor is boring as Hell. It's good they move on to another protagonist, at least, there's a chance they may not be boring, while I have already gotten sick of the Inquisitor. 

In any other series or to any group of people not familiar with BioWare's arbitrary "each Dragon Age shall have a different protagonist no matter what" rule everyone playing or watching Trespasser would think the inquisitor would continue on as the protagonist.

 

Your new DA4 protagonist is going to be exactly the same as the inquisitor. Enjoy.

 

Those who wanted to run a secret society from the shadows rather than lead armies and daring others to invade also got what they wanted.

I would have liked that, too bad I never actually got to DO that.

 

Yeah for those that never wanted to lead they got their wish. Those that wanted a life of religious service got their wish. Those are very narrow bounds to drive everyone else within.

I never wanted to lead and even I didn't get my wish since I never got to actually play or experience the (former) inquisitor working alone or in a small anti-Solas task force.

 

The answer to that is simple, actually... Because you had to have the mark Post-Corypheus so you could play the game after the end of the Main Quest. There's Rifts in the Frostback Basin, and I at least closed them after Corypheus was long dead. 

 

Trespasser forcibly ends the game when you start it, so they can remove the Mark and not jack up your game...

Ugh so the "side content" strikes again. In any case, they could have still removed the mark in Trespasser but only the mark and not the hand (which I still feel they did to sideline the inquisitor). They could have even had Solas steal it for his own use.

[Abyss108]

I was always pro-The Rule. But that was because I assumed when Bioware said "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game", they actually meant "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, and each game will be written in a way that this makes sense", not "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, but will write the game so the previous protagonist has every reason and motivation to remain the protagonist". My bad for assuming I guess.

[Super Drone]

Ugh so the "side content" strikes again. In any case, they could have still removed the mark in Trespasser but only the mark and not the hand (which I still feel they did to sideline the inquisitor). They could have even had Solas steal it for his own use.

 

Oh, I agree with all that, I was just clarifying to people who, in their grief and distress over a video game, kinda-sorta forgot this was a video game and need to make allowances for the fact that some people aren't treating the game like a overly complex Light Novel. 

 

I do feel they took the Inquistor's arm to try to bench them. Which, obviously, backfired super-hard, but then again NOTHING short of a messy, on-screen death for the Inquisitor would keep people from clamoring for them to come back for DA4. 

[Abyss108]

Oh, I agree with all that, I was just clarifying to people who, in their grief and distress over a video game, kinda-sorta forgot this was a video game and need to make allowances for the fact that some people aren't treating the game like a overly complex Light Novel. 

 

I do feel they took the Inquistor's arm to try to bench them. Which, obviously, backfired super-hard, but then again NOTHING short of a messy, on-screen death for the Inquisitor would keep people from clamoring for them to come back for DA4. 

 

Who was clamoring for them to come back pre-Trespasser? The vast majority of people I've seen posting about this say they were perfectly happy for a new protagonist before Trespasser. The very few who wanted them back before then said it was something they would like, but they certainly weren't clamoring.

 

This was started by Trespasser.

[Arcana scribo]

Well, I would like to create a new character for Dragon Age 4, someone from Tevinter, or more related with it. She could deal with whatever mess which going to happen there, partly dealing with Solas plan. But it would be amazing to have a possibility to choose between inquisitor and new character which will finish the whole situation with Solas, like final moves. I don’t know, it could happen in the end of a game, or in separate DLC... I just remember final speech, then inquisitor disbands organization: "the war is over, for most of us" or "I have a world to save. Again".

[In Exile]

Yeah that would have been awesome. To me Trespasser gave a reason for possibly being more bitter and more willing to take chances and be ruthless in addition to giving the freedom of not being tied to this massive political organization and not having to be polite and political constantly. Sadly I didn't realize that The Rule is ironclad.

In any other series or to any group of people not familiar with BioWare's arbitrary "each Dragon Age shall have a different protagonist no matter what" rule everyone playing or watching Trespasser would think the inquisitor would continue on as the protagonist.

Your new DA4 protagonist is going to be exactly the same as the inquisitor. Enjoy.

I would have liked that, too bad I never actually got to DO that.

I never wanted to lead and even I didn't get my wish since I never got to actually play or experience the (former) inquisitor working alone or in a small anti-Solas task force.

Ugh so the "side content" strikes again. In any case, they could have still removed the mark in Trespasser but only the mark and not the hand (which I still feel they did to sideline the inquisitor). They could have even had Solas steal it for his own use.

Solas did steal it. That's the whole point - Solas needs the Anchor, and he got it back. He didn't transfer it to himself and it's not even clear that's how it's "meant" to work but Solas absolutely took it back. It just so happens he couldn't take it back until it burned through your arm.

[In Exile]

I was always pro-The Rule. But that was because I assumed when Bioware said "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game", they actually meant "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, and each game will be written in a way that this makes sense", not "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, but will write the game so the previous protagonist has every reason and motivation to remain the protagonist". My bad for assuming I guess.

That's not how it works. Characters don't choose to be protagonists. They simply are, and the protagonist doesn't even need to be the POV character.

[Iakus]

Solas did steal it. That's the whole point - Solas needs the Anchor, and he got it back. He didn't transfer it to himself and it's not even clear that's how it's "meant" to work but Solas absolutely took it back. It just so happens he couldn't take it back until it burned through your arm.

Did he take it back, or destroy it?

 

Corypheus, even with the Orb, couldn't take it from the Inquisitor.

[In Exile]

Did he take it back, or destroy it?

Corypheus, even with the Orb, couldn't take it from the Inquisitor.

Corypheus has no idea what he's dealing with when it comes to the foci. Solas took it back. He all but admits he needs it to create or remove the Veil.

[Hellion Rex]

Solas did steal it. That's the whole point - Solas needs the Anchor, and he got it back. He didn't transfer it to himself and it's not even clear that's how it's "meant" to work but Solas absolutely took it back. It just so happens he couldn't take it back until it burned through your arm.

Corypheus has no idea what he's dealing with when it comes to the foci. Solas took it back. He all but admits he needs it to create or remove the Veil.

I don't think that's necessarily true. We have no indication that he actually stole the Anchor back from us. All we know is his parting words and that he cut our arm off to save us from death. 

 

I remember Dorian mentioning once that Tevinter mages discovered other such foci, which they named somnoborium, "vessels of dreams". I think it's feasible that one of these orbs might hold a similar power to bestow an Anchor, hence another reason why the series might be turning towards Tevinter.

 

And, if Solas really did take it back, why is the world not burning yet? The way he initially worded it made it seem like tearing down the Veil would not take much time at all.

[Lazarillo]

Corypheus has no idea what he's dealing with when it comes to the foci. Solas took it back. He all but admits he needs it to create or remove the Veil.

He said he needed it.  It was key to his original plan.  At this point, he's had to give up on that plan, since even with the Anchor, the orb was destroyed.

[Nefla]

Who was clamoring for them to come back pre-Trespasser? The vast majority of people I've seen posting about this say they were perfectly happy for a new protagonist before Trespasser. The very few who wanted them back before then said it was something they would like, but they certainly weren't clamoring.

 

This was started by Trespasser.

There are always a few people who want their old character back just because they like the old character, not because it makes sense for the story. BioWare's plan definitely backfired though since it had the opposite effect and made people that didn't want the inquisitor back as the protagonist(like me) want the inquisitor back as the protagonist. If they wanted closure for the inquisitor and the players that wanted to play as the inquisitor they shouldn't have involved them so heavily in the setup for the next conflict, shouldn't have given them a reason to keep going, shouldn't have had every inquisitor vow to stop him  and shouldn't have had every inquisitor working against him in secret.

 

Solas did steal it. That's the whole point - Solas needs the Anchor, and he got it back. He didn't transfer it to himself and it's not even clear that's how it's "meant" to work but Solas absolutely took it back. It just so happens he couldn't take it back until it burned through your arm.

To use. It's clear Solas took the mark so the Inquisitor wouldn't die, but there was no reason for BioWare to take the hand beyond sidelining the inquisitor (despite what they later claimed) because obviously someone without a hand is just a cripple and can't be a hero right? Let's make them like some NPC quest giver instead so we can make room for a REAL hero that has two hands.

[vertigomez]

^ I really don't think they took the hand to sideline the Inquisitor. Like they said, there are amputee heroes. Bull manages to get around with a bum knee, one eye, and several severed fingers. But the Anchor was eating your arm, and it wasn't salvageable. That seems more realistic to me than our heroes constantly staying perfectly intact no matter WHAT the world throws at them.

[Nefla]

^ I really don't think they took the hand to sideline the Inquisitor. Like they said, there are amputee heroes.

Just not in Dragon Age apparently...

 

 

But the Anchor was eating your arm, and it wasn't salvageable. That seems more realistic to me than our heroes constantly staying perfectly intact no matter WHAT the world throws at them.

BioWare decided to write the anchor dissolving your arm into the story and IMO they did it just so they could remove the arm and sideline the inquisitor. That is the ONLY(though awful) thing that makes sense. They have all these indication that the inquisitor's story will continue, that the inquisitor is actively working to stop Solas no matter what, and the only thing possibly stopping them from being the protagonist is the fact that they only have one hand and that BioWare thinks if you have one hand you have to go retire and be an NPC.

 

When I played Trespasser I was GLAD they removed the arm. When the mark was going nutso and damaging you I kept shouting at the screen "cut it OFF!" Playing a main character that had to suffer through the loss of a limb both physically and emotionally was extremely appealing and although I knew BioWare had The Rule, the story pointed towards the inquisitor continuing on as the protagonist.

[CronoDragoon]

I was always pro-The Rule. But that was because I assumed when Bioware said "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game", they actually meant "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, and each game will be written in a way that this makes sense", not "we will always have a new protagonist for a new game, but will write the game so the previous protagonist has every reason and motivation to remain the protagonist". My bad for assuming I guess.

 

Considering we don't even know what the next game will be about, this strikes me as premature.

[vertigomez]

BioWare decided to write the anchor dissolving your arm into the story and IMO they did it just so they could remove the arm and sideline the inquisitor. That is the ONLY(though awful) thing that makes sense. They have all these indication that the inquisitor's story will continue, that the inquisitor is actively working to stop Solas no matter what, and the only thing possibly stopping them from being the protagonist is the fact that they only have one hand and that BioWare thinks if you have one hand you have to go retire and be an NPC.
 
When I played Trespasser I was GLAD they removed the arm. When the mark was going nutso and damaging you I kept shouting at the screen "cut it OFF!" Playing a main character that had to suffer through the loss of a limb both physically and emotionally was extremely appealing and although I knew BioWare had The Rule, the story pointed towards the inquisitor continuing on as the protagonist.

The Inquisitor's still going to try to stop Solas no matter what. They're just probably not going to be our viewpoint character.

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree that they used the amputation as an excuse. If they wanted an excuse to definitively get rid of the Inquisitor, Solas would have killed them then and there.

[Abyss108]

The Inquisitor's still going to try to stop Solas no matter what. They're just probably not going to be our viewpoint character.

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree that they used the amputation as an excuse. If they wanted an excuse to definitively get rid of the Inquisitor, Solas would have killed them then and there.

 

I would have preferred that, he certainly had the opportunity. Could have just written it so he didn't have a way to save you as well. Either way would have avoided this problem.

[Nefla]

Considering we don't even know what the next game will be about, this strikes me as premature.

We do know that the next game will resolve Solas' plotline, that the inquisitor will not be the protagonist, and that they have thrown away the interesting dynamic they introduced in Trespasser in order to keep their special rule. (unless we're all somehow completely misinterpreting that slide)