408 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

That's understandable, you're entitled to your opinion of course. For what it's worth, I wasn't overly impressed by the Inquisitor either, at least compared to Hawke or my Warden (and they were each compelling in different ways). The way I see it though, Bioware is likely to make the next protagonist in the same style as the Inquisitor; if you found them boring, they'll be boring. If you didn't, they won't be.

 

Because of that, I'd rather play a previously-boring character who could at least be developed further than another boring character who won't be developed much *shrug*

This exactly! Setting up an interesting scenario, personal drama, a fall from power, a connection between protagonist and antagonist only to throw it out not because it makes a better story but because of a rule just tells me that storytelling isn't important to them anymore. If they don't care enough to write a consistent or logical story or to follow through with their built up scenarios then there's no way I'll believe they they will write a new protagonist as interesting and engaging, especially because that new protagonist is some random nobody with no connections to what's going on.

[Nefla]

It makes sense that the hand would go, from the moment you first got the Mark it was killing you. Having the mark taken away with no consequences would have in-fact been a cop out 

It should have killed the inquisitor then.

[AresKeith]

It should have killed the inquisitor then.

 

If Solas didn't take the Anchor back then it would have

[Nefla]

If Solas didn't take the Anchor back then it would have

They forgot to put any setbacks or loss in the vanilla game so they just cut off the arm in the DLC and also set up a new story they wont follow through on. They should have followed through and made the inquisitor the protagonist of DA4 or they should have just killed the inquisitor at the end of Trespasser. Maybe by having a giant nug sit on them, or by having rocks fall and all the characters die. That would have been more satisfying than this.

[AresKeith]

They forgot to put any setbacks or loss in the vanilla game so they just cut off the arm in the DLC and also set up a new story they wont follow through on. They should have followed through and made the inquisitor the protagonist of DA4 or they should have just killed the inquisitor at the end of Trespasser. Maybe my having a giant nug sit on them. That would have been more satisfying than this.

 

Well I'm satisfied /shrugs

[Nefla]

Well I'm satisfied /shrugs

I'm not. *incoherent furious chittering noises*

[Absafraginlootly]

While I do see Solas story ending in DA4 I dont think it would be the starting focus of the game. DA4 is going to be in northern thedas a new setting with a vastly different culture and its own issues such as reform of Tevinter and Qunari Wars that all needs to get established and fleshed out before we get into Solas story. The Qunari Story alone I can see taking up a good bulk of DA4 which is better for a new hero to handle. The Inquisitor wants Solas thats it so them going all the way up there to be involved in other conflicts doesnt make sense. Have a new hero hopefully native to the land establish the lore and setting for the players, then in the final act of DA4 Tevinter is possibly in a weakened state perfect time for a trickster like Solas to start the Elf uprising. Of course throughout the game there will be hints of it but it should only come after the other events not to overshadow each other. Similar how The Elder One conflict basically overshadowed the Mage-Templar War and War of Lions. We dont need that to happen again, it also makes sense to appear at the end so the Inquisitor's cameo comes off bigger then Hawkes did by popping up in the middle of the game and having to get cut up so soon because we cant have two heroes from mid game to the end. But by having the Inquisitor be brought in by Dorian at the final Act they can ride the wave and help us stop Solas. As a temporary companion for the final mission, that way they can be controlled and I feel dialogue should also be controlled by the player due to lack of personality type.

 

I like the cut of your jib.

[In Exile]

This exactly! Setting up an interesting scenario, personal drama, a fall from power, a connection between protagonist and antagonist only to throw it out not because it makes a better story but because of a rule just tells me that storytelling isn't important to them anymore. If they don't care enough to write a consistent or logical story or to follow through with their built up scenarios then there's no way I'll believe they they will write a new protagonist as interesting and engaging, especially because that new protagonist is some random nobody with no connections to what's going on.

 

This is pure fantasy. Even if the Inquisitor was going to be a protagonist in DA4, hell would freeze over before any of the things you say would even come within a thousand feet of a Bioware protagonist. 

[Smudjygirl]

It should have killed the inquisitor then.

 

I'm listening to an interview with Weekes and Biofan. At one point Weekes says that killing off a character is difficult because you inherently limit their ability to appear in future games. (This is in reference to Bull).

 

Naturally, that leads to the assumption that they left the Inquisitor alive because the Inquisitor's job is not yet done. If they had been killed, they would not have truly been able to have a big presence in the future. 

 

If you're interested 

[In Exile]

I see what you mean, but if this is why Bioware did what they did, I disagree with the reasoning 100%. If they have to try this hard to wipe former PCs off the map (almost literally), they're constructing their stories in a convoluted way just so they can have new protagonists in each installment. Why not just continue for another game? Not forever, just another game? What would be so bad about that? If Bioware had never said "new game = new protagonist", would the same number of people complain about this?

 

I certainly would. I think Bioware's shown clearly with ME that they have absolutely no capacity to even conceive of how to handle an RPG with a recurring protagonist. 

 

Everything that defines what Bioware does well goes against a new protagonist. You see it in all the insanity they did in ME - predefined character relationships, arbitrarily swapping out entire crows, completely incoherent tonal swifts between games, etc. 

[DragonKingReborn]

I certainly would. I think Bioware's shown clearly with ME that they have absolutely no capacity to even conceive of how to handle an RPG with a recurring protagonist. 

 

Everything that defines what Bioware does well goes against a new protagonist. You see it in all the insanity they did in ME - predefined character relationships, arbitrarily swapping out entire crows, completely incoherent tonal swifts between games, etc. 

 

Making me very glad I never bothered with Mass Effect there, In Exile...did the crew that Shepard worked with change fully each game?

[AresKeith]

Making me very glad I never bothered with Mass Effect there, In Exile...did the crew that Shepard worked with change fully each game?

 

Pretty much, Mass Effect 3 was overall the original crew plus 3 more

[In Exile]

Making me very glad I never bothered with Mass Effect there, In Exile...did the crew that Shepard worked with change fully each game?

Not exactly. Well, sort of. Besides one character (and one pretty much re-written character), they did in ME2. Then in ME3 they swapped back in parts of the original party, with a few new characters. But some of those characters back in, again, had weird characterization shifts. 

[Nefla]

This is pure fantasy. Even if the Inquisitor was going to be a protagonist in DA4, hell would freeze over before any of the things you say would even come within a thousand feet of a Bioware protagonist. 

With Trespasser beginning a story that would seem to have those things and with the switch in lead writers I got my hopes up thinking "hey, things could be turning around!" I obviously shouldn't have.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

With Trespasser beginning a story that would seem to have those things and with the switch in lead writers I got my hopes up thinking "hey, things could be turning around!" I obviously shouldn't have.

Always assume the worst. That way you are never disappointed. 

[In Exile]

With Trespasser beginning a story that would seem to have those things and with the switch in lead writers I got my hopes up thinking "hey, things could be turning around!" I obviously shouldn't have.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you wouldn't get those options in a Bioware game, because that type of personal expression is anathema to a Bioware game. DA:I is the first game that even really lets you express views in-game. An entire game structured around 1) how the Inquisitor felt about the events of the last game and 2) how the Inquisitor feels about the current antagonist, is just not something in-line with how Bioware generally handles their writing. 

 

The stuff PW wrote in ME doesn't do a very good job of following up on relationships. Where DA will turn things around is re: theme - PW is pretty good at keeping a consistent theme, and actually using characters to have a thematic significance. DG was a better character writer, but PW is a good enough that we won't feel the loss. 

[Nefla]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you wouldn't get those options in a Bioware game, because that type of personal expression is anathema to a Bioware game. DA:I is the first game that even really lets you express views in-game. An entire game structured around 1) how the Inquisitor felt about the events of the last game and 2) how the Inquisitor feels about the current antagonist, is just not something in-line with how Bioware generally handles their writing. 

 

The stuff PW wrote in ME doesn't do a very good job of following up on relationships. Where DA will turn things around is re: theme - PW is pretty good at keeping a consistent theme, and actually using characters to have a thematic significance. DG was a better character writer, but PW is a good enough that we won't feel the loss. 

I feel like even the loyalest fans of BioWare expect so little of them. "Oh BioWare NEVER does ___ well" or "implementing ___ would make the game much better but BioWare would never devote the resources to it" and so on. A "meh, good enough" attitude.

[In Exile]

I feel like even the loyalest fans of BioWare expect so little of them. "Oh BioWare NEVER does ___ well" or "implementing ___ would make the game much better but BioWare would never devote the resources to it" and so on. A "meh, good enough" attitude.

 

I expect Bioware to be good at the things that they consistently do well. There just some things they are obviously bad at, and have historically been bad at, which is what I find so perplexing - I don't get how fans who have played more than one of their games don't have a sense for what they do and don't do well. Apart from what they screwed up in ME3, Bioware's always delivered on what I want out of them. 

 

In the same way that I don't expect Obsidian to, say, ever have a decent plot centered around religion is where I'm going with this one. 

[AlanC9]

Yeah, it's just realism. Bio's devs have strengths, and they have weaknesses.

A couple years ago I was the one saying that Bio shouldn't try an open-world game since they're not very good at exploration content and linking such content to their kind of plots. As it happens, I ended up liking DAI better than I expected to -- but how'd that work out for you, Nefla?

[AresKeith]

However I do think that Bioware is capable of improving on some of their weaknesses 

[In Exile]

Yeah, it's just realism. Bio's devs have strengths, and they have weaknesses.

A couple years ago I was the one saying that Bio shouldn't try an open-world game since they're not very good at exploration content and linking such content to their kind of plots. As it happens, I ended up liking DAI better than I expected to -- but how'd that work out for you, Nefla?

 

It's interesting how they basically executed a more highly polished version of BG. People just - for whatever reason - don't really remember what BG was like (or haven't actually played it despite saying they did).

[Battlebloodmage]

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.

That's a premature assumption, even with the same personality, the buildup background for the Inquisitor is garbage for me, so at least a new background already gives me more to look forward to even if ti's a new protagonist. There are other changes in departments, lead writer is gone as well as some developers and project leaders, so there would be some changes with how they handle the story and characters overall. There's a reason why Trespass is so varied and why ME3 is so varied, they are intending for those story to be the closing chapter, given the same protagonist, I can already see people moaning about the same LIs to carry over or romance with Solas, which may even ****** off the fans if they have to kill a romanced Solas. I would rather not to deal with these dramas. I look forward to a new protagonist, the world is big enough for several heroes to rise up to the challenge, not a one person saving the world. 

[Nefla]

That's a premature assumption, even with the same personality, the buildup background for the Inquisitor is garbage for me, so at least a new background already gives me more to look forward to even if ti's a new protagonist. There are other changes in departments, lead writer is gone as well as some developers and project leaders, so there would be some changes with how they handle the story and characters overall. There's a reason why Trespass is so varied and why ME3 is so varied, they are intending for those story to be the closing chapter, given the same protagonist, I can already see people moaning about the same LIs to carry over or romance with Solas, which may even ****** off the fans if they have to kill a romanced Solas. I would rather not to deal with these dramas. I look forward to a new protagonist, the world is big enough for several heroes to rise up to the challenge, not a one person saving the world. 

Well you get a new protagonist like you want, why do you care if I think they will be boring?

 

The thing is...Trespasser isn't varied. All inquisitors are funneled into the same position. All vow to stop Solas' plan, all plot in the basement to stop him, all are missing the arm, none are dead. It seemed like they were setting up the inquisitor as the protagonist of the next game or at least an expansion.

 

BioWare made the world feel awfully small by continuing to carry over plotlines, NPCs, and companions. It would make sense to carry those things over if the protagonist is carried over and it's part of the same story, otherwise do a new story with new companions, new plotlines, etc...

[Nefla]

I expect Bioware to be good at the things that they consistently do well. There just some things they are obviously bad at, and have historically been bad at, which is what I find so perplexing - I don't get how fans who have played more than one of their games don't have a sense for what they do and don't do well. Apart from what they screwed up in ME3, Bioware's always delivered on what I want out of them. 

 

In the same way that I don't expect Obsidian to, say, ever have a decent plot centered around religion is where I'm going with this one. 

So they shouldn't even try to improve on their weaknesses? They shouldn't try to learn from past mistakes? That makes no sense to me.

[In Exile]

So they shouldn't even try to improve on their weaknesses? They shouldn't try to learn from past mistakes? That makes no sense to me.

 

That's not what I said. What I said is that Bioware is awful at certain things, and it makes no sense to expect them to suddenly do those things well. I don't purchase a Bethesda game on the expectation that this time, they'll have a story that isn't total incoherent ass. If they did - and actually that seemingly happened at first when I got New Vegas not knowing it was an Obsidian™ product - I was very pleasantly surprised. But I don't know a deep dish pizza thinking it'll help me lose weight. 

 

I actually thought Trespasser was the weakest of the three DA:I DLCs, by far. It had all of the features of a Bioware expansion I dislike, and ended with my PC getting trolled by Solas.