Okay... forget "a new nation" - I think Ieldra's point is that: "Why does the Inquisitor have to totally ****** out at the end of Inquisition?"
We seem to be stripped of an army - okay.
We seem to be stripped of backing from Ferelden and Orlais - okay.
Most of our friends move on - fine.
But I think the point is: "Why even bother with the journey if you just end up back where you started AND you don't get to start over... Bioware just says: "No."
From a storytelling perspective... I agree.
@Ieldra: You can't put any imagination into what the Inquisitor we get is doing?
Oh, I can, and losing the anchor is ok for any other of my Inquisitors but Maelyn, though I maintain that losing almost everything you've gained in the course of the story in the epilogue is insulting.
Edit:
Yep, exactly what you said in your post.
No conscience, no morals, no interest in social norms. The ability to care only for one-self and not give two hoots who you have to crush in order to get to where you want to be. Missing what makes an average being "human". That's a psychopath. I'm not entirely sure Bioware would have the skill to write that.
Interesting... that's exactly how I see the average person.
Interesting... that's exactly how I see the average person.
But I think the point is: "Why even bother with the journey if you just end up back where you started AND you don't get to start over... Bioware just says: "No."
Oh, I can, and losing the anchor is ok for any other of my Inquisitors but Maelyn, though I maintain that losing almost everything you've gained in the course of the story in the epilogue is insulting.
Here are a few items:
(1) I actually didn't mind losing the arm as such. I'd happily have Maelyn live one-armed for the rest of her life. Losing the anchor along with it was what made it a really bad hit.
(2) If in the epilogue, most of the Inquisition's army would've left for their homes, leaving me only with a core guard and Skyhold, that would've been perfectly ok. I would've lost political power, but I wouldn't have lost it *to* someone.
(3) And lastly, I didn't really mind losing to Solas. He is a mage with god-like powers after all, and an antagonist I respect.
(4) It would've been less unpleasant had I lost an arm - or even an eye - against Corypheus in Haven
On the other hand, just to indicate how invested Maelyn was in the anchor, if keeping it had meant she could only relax - and sleep - in the Fade, and having to deal with the same stuff as in the final stretch of Trespasser at any time she left it, I'd have accepted that in preference to losing it. It would've been an interesting outcome as well, one into which I could put some imagination.
About point 2, isn't this covered by keeping the Inquisition as the Divine's Honor Guard/Peace-Keeping Force? Yeah, you "answer" to her, but most of the time the Divine is someone you wanted elected in the first place, so there wouldn't be that many differences in opinion.
You still have influence, though. You've made connections with several important people in the setting - the Divine, Viscount Varric, Dorian who's officially a Magister now, Red Jennies, Josephine who has a bajillion connections herself, etc. - so it's not like you're back to being nothing but a mercenary or a smuggler (or whatever your Inquisitor was). You're a Comte(sse) with an estate and your name is known around the world for being the person who closed the rifts and defeated Corypheus.
That's at least as much as some Wardens got, and way more than Hawke got. Or am I reading this wrong?
Ieldra can of course correct me if I'm wrong... I'm not exactly discussing something I have a problem with, but I get what the problem is I think.
I don't think the problem is just with the Inquisitor... I think it's with the Warden and Hawke and Shepard.
Bioware gives you a character.. let's you build them... and then, so as not to need to deal with player complaining... they strip that character and leave them a blank slate all over again.
Why would it be a blank slate? Well - all those characters start with a backstory.
I think Ieldra is asking... why bother playing if it's just going to be the backstory for what's next?
Why not play "what's next" instead?
Again... from a storytelling perspective I totally agree (if that's what Ieldra is saying) - you don't add in garbage... get to the meat of the story and start there.
Example: IF the Inquisitor was going to be embroiled in what happens to be the next great event of DA history... why did we start with the backstory of crushing Solas' lackey Corypheus?
Now I think I actually have the same problem Ieldra does...
Why not play "what's next" instead?
Example: IF the Inquisitor was going to be embroiled in what happens to be the next great event of DA history... why did we start with the backstory of crushing Solas' lackey Corypheus?
I haven't been following this side of the discussion so my pardons if I missed reading something I should.
Inquisition can be seen as build-up by how it establishes the Inquisitor's relationship to Solas including how they impact his view of the world for better or worse, it unravels revelations about the the ancient elves and so forth.
I don't think we are in a position to judge of the extent of the Inquisition's military strength. The only indication we have is a comment made by Cullen before engaging Corypheus in the Arbor Wilds, that with the help of the imperial army the Inquisition matches Cory's numbers. Presumably this means the Inquisition legions are equal to the Orlesian forces. While my favorite scenario remains a marriage with Celene (if we're a human noble of course) I can see other possibilities.
Do not forget the Inquisitor has some time to prepare after the final confrontation with Cory; time to strengthen his strongholds to secure his supply lines for instance - or redeploy his assets to cut off those of his enemies once he's ready to move. If the Inquisition has freed the mages and allied with them he can promise their full freedom in exchange for their help against both Orlais and Ferelden - who can hardly count on any mages themselves.
As for the Divine' sanction, by the time we win there is no Divine elected yet whereas the Inquisitor is revered throughout the land - the only one who stood against the chaos when everyone else failed. As a matter of fact, if you play the religious card to the hilt the Inquisitor could conceivably claim the Sunburst Throne for himself and the people would accept it. A warrior prophet as Divine, with a devoted army at his command, announcing a time of change... The monarchs of Thedas would tremble and bend the knee to him (this is essentially the main plot of the Second Apocalypse trilogy by Scott Bakker - highly recommended read btw)
Naturally Bioware will never go down that route but one can speculate, which is part of the fun in between chapters of Thedas' history.
The problem is that Skyhold is not the only place that the Inquisition has a presence. Ine Inquisition would lose any camps or keeps outside of Skyhold easily. Even if the Inquisition's army matches Orlais you also have to consider the Ferelden army and the fact that the Inquisition would have to fight on two fronts. Fighting on two fronts without allies makes for an untenable situation.That would divide any resources that the Inquisition has to wage war.along those fronts. So the Inquisition would be outmanned and out gunned. The Inquisition has to borrow siege equipment!.
Also where does the Inquisition get its weapons and armor? Vivienne said it best "You lead an army of the faithful outfitted by the coin of the nobility". The only money generated by Skyhold is the selling of secrets and hiring out patrols in the game.
The supplies that Skyhold receives are coming from the other two nations.
Sounds like Tyranny could be a game for the OP to check out when more info is available.
The premise is we a character who helped evil overlords rise to power. The game play is more than likely going to be closer to PoE than DAI though, so obviously won't appeal to everyone. For me PoE is all I've played since WM2 came out, completely hooked.
About point 2, isn't this covered by keeping the Inquisition as the Divine's Honor Guard/Peace-Keeping Force? Yeah, you "answer" to her, but most of the time the Divine is someone you wanted elected in the first place, so there wouldn't be that many differences in opinion.
I don't want to serve the Chantry. It may have been necessary to stabilize it in order to maintain some order, but I still don't like it.
I'm not sure you should be using Maelyn as an example if she isn't typical even for you.
And again, I'm going to have to ask you to show your work on that "losing almost everything" phrase. No matter how I try to add it up, I can't make the score come out that way.
Oh, she is very much the Inquisitor I'm most invested in. I just play only one of her type per game.
Also, the phrase is "losing almost everything I've gained for myself in the course of of the story in the epilogue", and then some, actually, since I also lose my arm. And my cool magical extra. And my castle. And my political power. Or my independence. Well, all that may not have stung so much (except for the anchor) had it not required that I lose *to* someone as well.
@Ieldra: In the thread about the Evanuris... I appealed to challenging Solas by going to all the repositories of knowledge left in the world and trying to corroborate his claims.
What if... we play an agent of our Inquisitor doing exactly this in DA4?
Going to places like Minrathous, the Dalish clans, Weisshaupt, the Shaperate or even to the Fade to communicate with spirits and the Evanuris themselves to figure out if what Solas says is even remotely true.
Would that be a satisfying continuation of Tresspasser even if we don't get to play the Inquisitor him/herself?
I want DA4 to be a fact finding adventure... not another mindless combat romp (or at least reverse them... 80% fact finding... 20% combat romp)
If the US was forced it would have been meaninglessThe thing is, though, DAO doesn't force you to do the Ultimate Sacrifice. My own favorite ending is Redeeming Loghain and letting him die doing one last heroic deed to atone for his actions. Others think the Dark Ritual is the best: saving everyone and preserving the soul of an Old God. And some prefer
"Sad" and "bittersweet" are pretty subjective. How much sweet? How much bitter. Tastes are going to greatly differ (as Bioware learned the hard way with ME3). So I'd say having a variety of possible outcomes serves best.
This is something I've been feeling for quite some time. In short, the way Bioware treats its protagonists, I increasingly don't want to play them as heroes any more. It has left so much dark emotion in me that I want little else from them now but the ability to act that out in a game. In Trespasser you lost your arm, your cool magical extra and you lost against three of your four opponents. In the ME trilogy, you died for outcomes that weren't worth it. No more, I say.
And while I was thinking that, I realized how interesting, how different it could be to play a darker character in the first place, if written right, and no, I'm not talking of the usual caricature of evil we tend to get in our stories, but about a character whose main motiviation is *rational* self-interest. In stories I read, I often find the antagonists more interesting than the protagonists, because they aren't restricted in their presentation by the hero template and have more varied motivations than the hero protagonists. At least if they're presented as sane and rational.
So here's what I'd like to see in Bioware's next game: the ability to play a character whose main motivation is rational self-interest, and who doesn't care overmuch about morals or others' wellbeing, and even less about saving the magical order or any group in which they wouldn't have a natural interest. Above all, I don't want to save the status quo. I want change, as radical, as large-scale and as complete as I can imagine. I don't care if the outcome will be non-canon and I'll never see it continued in a sequel. I want a story that's more interesting, and more varied, than being someone's or something's hero. Because I'm tired of being that. Utterly fed up.
Comments welcome. It's why I'm posting this after all...
I'm sick and tied of the grim and dark crap that has been used popular culture. I find not interesting or cool or even thought-provoking but just plain boring. I want hope and optimism. I got enough grimness and darkness in my life and I DON"t WANT IT!
Better is subjective,i truly despise the DR ending in fact i never once did it( i dislike Morrigan as well)because is using a child for a sort of experiment while put at risk the fate of the world with Flemeth for one single GW.Also, it does not shame the player for not sacrificing themselves; yeah, that kid sure was selfish for not dying needlessly when there were better options avaliable that would result in no one needing to die!
Better is subjective,i truly despise the DR ending in fact i never once did it( i dislike Morrigan as well)because is using a child for a sort of experiment while put at risk the fate of the world with Flemeth for one single GW.
Trade the world security for one GW...
Oh, that bit in my post was referring to something in Fallout 3.
One of my Grey Wardens had the same reasoning as you as to why they didn't want to do the dark ritual.
My bad lol....Oh, that bit in my post was referring to something in Fallout 3.
Also, the phrase is "losing almost everything I've gained for myself in the course of of the story in the epilogue", and then some, actually, since I also lose my arm. And my cool magical extra. And my castle. And my political power. Or my independence. Well, all that may not have stung so much (except for the anchor) had it not required that I lose *to* someone as well.
Retour en haut