4635 réponses à ce sujet

[Baboontje]

IMO Trespasser pretty strongly suggests that we're going to see Inky back in DA4, possibly in more than just a cameo or as an NPC, like Hawke. The 'final showdown' after all is so far built up to still be between Inky and Solas.

 

Plus, the post-epilogue scene in the DLC suggests that it's likely that in the next game we're going to play agents for Inquisition (... or, alternatively, Fen'Harel? Are we going to be able to play at one side or another?). So Inky will likely be on the 'chessmaster' position, playing a tactical game with Fen'Harel through their agent(s).

 

It may also be that:

a.) since TW3 proved to be wildly popular and the ability to play secondary protag was met with positive response,

b.) we know that even before TW3 release DA devs (in a Q&A with Kotaku) revealed that they at least consider the idea of multiple protagonists as intriguing and not undoable

c.) David Gaider has revealed that DAI was initially supposed to be twice as long in terms of scope of the story and that another half of it still exists and will be part/focus of the next game

 

... that we may yet end up controlling Inquisitor to some extent in the next game.

This....would make me so happy....

[Mistic]

IMO Trespasser pretty strongly suggests that we're going to see Inky back in DA4, possibly in more than just a cameo or as an NPC, like Hawke. The 'final showdown' after all is so far built up to still be between Inky and Solas.

 

Plus, the post-epilogue scene in the DLC suggests that it's likely that in the next game we're going to play agents for Inquisition (... or, alternatively, Fen'Harel? Are we going to be able to play at one side or another?). So Inky will likely be on the 'chessmaster' position, playing a tactical game with Fen'Harel through their agent(s).

 

I don't see the Inquisitor as a playable character in DA4 happening (similar arguments were made for the Warden and for Hawke, and it ended up the same), but this, this I can see. At least at the beginning, to provide some kind of help or main quest, and perhaps a guest party member in the final fight. More like Flemeth in DA2 and even DA:O, if you get my analogy, and all those who joined the battle against the final boss in those two games.

 

However, I seriously doubt we'll be mere agents for long. Let's not forget that while the Inquisitor may be an awesome snowflake, the new protagonist is going to be an awesome snowflake too.

[midnight tea]

I don't see the Inquisitor as a playable character in DA4 happening (similar arguments were made for the Warden and for Hawke, and it ended up the same), but this, this I can see. At least at the beginning, to provide some kind of help or main quest, and perhaps a guest party member in the final fight. More like Flemeth in DA2 and even DA:O, if you get my analogy, and all those who joined the battle against the final boss in those two games.

 

However, I seriously doubt we'll be mere agents for long. Let's not forget that while the Inquisitor may be an awesome snowflake, the new protagonist is going to be an awesome snowflake too.

 

It's true that they will likely have to be awesome snowflakes, but in that regard I see it playing out similar way TES: Oblivion does - the final showdown wasn't between the main baddie and protagonist, but the main baddie and Martin Septim.

 

Arguably HE's the most important character to the story - the one the plot of Oblivion revolves around. Yet it's the Champion of Cyrodiil that allowed Martin Septim sort of fulfill his destiny and therefore is an indispensable part of the narrative as well as a character in his/her own right.

 

Therefore I see the agent/PC in next game as someone without whom the Inquisitor (... or Solas?) is unable to fulfill their role, whatever that role it would be.

 

And I'd like to mention another possibility - Inky might be a special snowflake, like any other PC in games... buuuut they aren't necessarily built up to be a 'good' special snowflake. They can be jerks and can make bad (not necessarily 'evil') decisions. 

 

So... what if there would be a possibility for the next protag to betray Inky? Or Inky to betray them? Or Inky to turn into a villain? Exotic scenarios, but - due to open-endedness of Trespasser - I'd say they're not that outlandish. I'd love to have a playthrough in which my past protag (not necessarily 'jerk' in DAI) can turn into a villain, or do something catastrophic (even on redemption route or whatever! Who said that well-intentioned people can't make mistakes, ey?).

[German Soldier]

IMO Trespasser pretty strongly suggests that we're going to see Inky back in DA4, possibly in more than just a cameo or as an NPC, like Hawke. The 'final showdown' after all is so far built up to still be between Inky and Solas.

 

Plus, the post-epilogue scene in the DLC suggests that it's likely that in the next game we're going to play agents for Inquisition (... or, alternatively, Fen'Harel? Are we going to be able to play at one side or another?). So Inky will likely be on the 'chessmaster' position, playing a tactical game with Fen'Harel through their agent(s).

 

It may also be that:

a.) since TW3 proved to be wildly popular and the ability to play secondary protag was met with positive response,

b.) we know that even before TW3 release DA devs (in a Q&A with Kotaku) revealed that they at least consider the idea of multiple protagonists as intriguing and not undoable

c.) David Gaider has revealed that DAI was initially supposed to be twice as long in terms of scope of the story and that another half of it still exists and will be part/focus of the next game

 

... that we may yet end up controlling Inquisitor to some extent in the next game.

Bioware has never made a returning protagonist which was so aleatory like the Inquisitor and turn them into secondary Npc.

Hawke was more easy to define and even Hawke wasn't satisfying for many while the dual protagonist of the Witcher series Ciri was a defined character.

The story of Inquisiton was planned to be twice as long but that doesn't necessarly mean that it will involve the inquisitor.

DIdn't they said that they don't want to bring back The Inquisitor?

[midnight tea]

Bioware has never made a returning protagonist which was so aleatory like the Inquisitor and turn them into secondary Npc.

 

So the fact that they've never done something before means that they will never do it? Especially that every game that exists in the franchise (all 3 of them) is demonstrably different from one another, both in terms of narrative choices or design?

 

Even in DAI they've done something they never did before - they let a future and possibly main antagonist to be a companion for the main protag. They also created a definite epilogue DLC that also serves as a tie-in to the next game - it was never done before as well.

 

And though separate to the main story (although multiplayer characters are actively mentioned in the game), they've also never made multiplayer component in past games.

 

Hawke was more easy to define and even Hawke wasn't satisfying for many while the dual protagonist of the Witcher series Ciri was a defined character.

 

Yet even in that defined character we were able to chose how Ciri responds or decides about certain things. And in DAI we can decide the look of Hawke. It's not a stretch of imagination that we'd be able to design a character *and then* be able to choose a set of responses that will also be determined by playthrough of DAI.

 

The story of Inquisiton was planned to be twice as long but that doesn't necessarly mean that it will involve the inquisitor.

DIdn't they said that they don't want to bring back The Inquisitor?

 

No, they never said that they don't want to bring back Inquisitor. They very definitely stated that they won't be bringing back HoF, but there were never such declarations made in case of Inky (or Hawke).

 

There were even some vague hints on devs twitter that the character will likely be retained, but they're indeed vague, since they can't even say if the game will be made or not (we know they work on it, but until the title is announced, legally they can't confirm nor deny anything).

[Mistic]

So... what if there would be a possibility for the next protag to betray Inky? Or Inky to betray them? Or Inky to turn into a villain? Exotic scenarios, but - due to open-endedness of Trespasser - I'd say they're not that outlandish. I'd love to have a playthrough in which my past progat (not necessarily 'jerk' in DAI) can turn into a villain, or do something catastrophic (even on redemption route or whatever! Who said that well-intentioned people can't make mistakes, ey?).

 

As interesting as that would be, I can hear the rage from the fans across future timelines if it happened. It's not as if Hawke's appearance and the way they addressed it in DA:I was universally liked (on the other hand, the Warden's lack of appearance wasn't universally liked either; Bioware can't win). Now imagine if they turn the PC into a villain. "My Inquisitor would never do that thing they say they did!"

 

Heck, even Teagan has become the scrappy after Trespasser, despite having a long story of helpfulness with previous two PCs, just because he opposed our third snowflake (not without reason, but that's a secondary matter for some).

[midnight tea]

As interesting as that would be, I can hear the rage from the fans across future timelines if it happened. It's not as if Hawke's appearance and the way they addressed it in DA:I was universally liked (on the other hand, the Warden's lack of appearance wasn't universally liked either; Bioware can't win). Now imagine if they turn the PC into a villain. "My Inquisitor would never do that thing they say they did!"

 

Heck, even Teagan has become the scrappy after Trespasser, despite having a long story of helpfulness with previous two PCs, just because he opposed our third snowflake (not without reason, but that's a secondary matter for some).

 

But this is probably why we will play a new protagonist - so we can disassociate ourselves from our previous protag. Multiple PoV may also mean that we'd see two (or more) angles of a given situation. AND if we'd be given a chance to still shape our past protag (unlike Hawke) even by giving us a limited choice of options, I think the response to that sort of solution could be quite positive, depending on how BioWare would implement such idea.

[Illegitimus]

Which kind of clicks with the last part of my post and also with my reason for liking Ozymandias as a "character(/person)" more than i do Solas.
 
Solas says he does what he does for a reason, Solas says he feels guilty, Solas says he will pay. Problem is, Solas says lots of things and yet his actions, at least for me, go against most of the things he says.
Solas destroyed his world after the Evanuris killed his friend. I remember you saying Solas' rebellion was efficient enough for the Evanuris to consider giving him a place amongst their ranks, and yet he basically gave up on his idea and just destroyed everything out of desire for revenge. 

 

I'm pretty confident that isn't what is going to turn out to have happened.  I think he had a bigger reason than that.  Something along the lines of "when his rebellion was succeeding the Elven gods decided to get Old Testament on their rebellious subjects, and "killed" Mythal because she wouldn't go along with that so to prevent one catastrophe...he caused another".  This fits with his mythical persona where the consequences of his problem solving are only somewhat better than what would have happened had he done nothing.  

[Fiskrens]

I do believe the lesser number of scenes with Solas as LI was rather unintentional due to it being added later on, but as said they compensate for that with more intensity. Plus, it adds immensely to the continued story with the two adversaries being in love (despite what one may think of Solas as a character). And yes, I'm positive the Inq will play a much larger part in DA4 than, say Hawke in DAI; they are so much more integral to the story.

[German Soldier]

So the fact that they've never done something before means that they will never do it? Especially that every game that exists in the franchise (all 3 of them) is demonstrably different from one another, both in terms of narrative choices or design?

 

Even in DAI they've done something they never did before - they let a future and possibly main antagonist to be a companion for the main protag. They also created a definite epilogue DLC that also serves as a tie-in to the next game - it was never done before as well.

 

And though separate to the main story (although multiplayer characters are actively mentioned in the game), they've also never made multiplayer component in past games.

 

 

 

All those things don't cause operationals problems like trying to define a nebulous character.

The reason way they decided ultimately to not reuse the HoF(It was not the US issue) was the same reason for whom they will not reuse the Inquisitor,these characters  are too undefined to be Npc.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

DA4 being dual protagonist is really the only way they can save the story for me at this point. 

[midnight tea]

 

All those things don't cause operationals problems like trying to define a nebulous character.

 

Yet they've already made attempts to define a nebulous character by introducing Hawke to DAI. That was never done before as well, remember? So what prevents them from making improvements and taking it a step further and let US define the nebulous character, by basing it partially on choices made in Inquisition and partially on choices given in DA4?

 

The 'nebulosity' of a character is a weak argument anyhow, since (excluding slightly a more defined character in DA2) we *play* a nebulous character we have to define ourselves in every DA game, even if we are limited by choices presented to us.

 

The reason way they decided ultimately to not reuse the HoF(It was not the US issue) was the same reason for whom they will not reuse the Inquisitor,these characters  are too undefined to be Npc.

 

Well no, that's not what happened. They didn't let us play HoF because there were too many variables to conclusions to their story. Don't forget that even in DAO you sometimes can't even play your own protagonist in DLC or even huge expansions.

 

Why? Because one of the major choices in the game lets us kill them off before the epilogue to the main story. So in more than half of worldstates the HoF is dead. And it's not like they die off-screen or they get an ending where their death is uncertain - they most definitely die, with funeral where we see the body and all. And that's not even mentioning that they can end up in wildly different places in the universe even if they're alive - like becoming King or Queen of Ferelden.

 

That's not what happens to Inquisitor (or Hawke in DA2 for that matter). No matter of the character or decisions made at the end of the main game they end up defeating Corypheus and still leading Inquisition. And at the end of Trespasser they end up meeting Solas, losing an arm and the very last scene of the DLC shows every single one of them meeting with Cass, Leliana and Harding and planning how to stop Solas.

 

How the character is set up in the story or where they end in the story can tell us of the possibility of retaining it. This is why people have good reasons to suspect that Dorian will be back in the next game as well - because no matter of approval level or even romance between Inky and him Dorian *always* ends up returning to Tevinter and taking his father's place in the magisterium. Same way Inky *always* ends up surviving encounter with Qunari or Solas and are planning to head towards Tevinter.

[Mistic]

And yes, I'm positive the Inq will play a much larger part in DA4 than, say Hawke in DAI; they are so much more integral to the story.

 

I'm not so sure. Hawke was pivotal in the beginning of the Mage-Templar War, was sought by Cassandra and company, and freed and defeated for the first time the Big Bad of DA:I. Their disappearance at the end of DA2 was very mysterious and of course it had to be something important (spoilers: it wasn't).

 

Compared to that, depending on your choices Solas is just an annoying ex-companion that now threatens to destroy the world and the Inquisitor may be happy to have another person do the murder-knife thing.

[midnight tea]

I'm not so sure. Hawke was pivotal in the beginning of the Mage-Templar War, was sought by Cassandra and company, and freed and defeated for the first time the Big Bad of DA:I. Their disappearance at the end of DA2 was very mysterious and of course it had to be something important (spoilers: it wasn't).

 

Compared to that, depending on your choices Solas is just an annoying ex-companion that now threatens to destroy the world and the Inquisitor may be happy to have another person do the murder-knife thing.

 

I think that "threatens to destroy the world" and "the Inquisitor and Inquisition are realistically the only people who actually know something about someone who wants to destroy the world" trumps 'annoying-ex companion' or whatever Hawke has managed to accomplish. And unlike mage-templar conflict that was put on side-lines to make space for a much bigger threat, the fact that Solas wants to destroy/change the world was put at the forefront in the final and most crucial piece of DLC for the game. 

 

And it's not like it's a vague threat - it's comming from a creator of the Veil itself and arguably the creator of modern Thedas. It's not realistically a conflict that can be pushed to make space for something more important. Because what else could be more important? ...The Qunari invasion or instability in Tevinter? Even if that would be a part of the story, it'd serve more as a backdrop for potential apocalypse

[Macha'Anu]

 

Bioware has never made a returning protagonist which was so aleatory like the Inquisitor and turn them into secondary Npc.

Hawke was more easy to define and even Hawke wasn't satisfying for many while the dual protagonist of the Witcher series Ciri was a defined character.

The story of Inquisiton was planned to be twice as long but that doesn't necessarly mean that it will involve the inquisitor.

DIdn't they said that they don't want to bring back The Inquisitor?

 

How can they not though? It actually drives me insane how there has been so many companions and important characters in thee games only to never see or hear from them again. There , for me anyway, are so many loose ends......

[Fiskrens]

OT: I thought that Hawkes' disappearance becoming "unimportant" and the mage-templar war sidestepped was mostly due to the canceled, final DA2 DLC?

[Sah291]

The only thing against dual protagonists I see, is that it seems like an awful lot of work for the devs...to have to account for two player generated characters (taking into account all possible combinations of races, genders, voice actors, etc). I'm no game dev, but that seems like a lot of resources.

Suppose the Inquisitor actually gets the lead role then, and a new secondary protagonist is a more defined character somehow--like maybe human only, or a choice between two set characters (like how we had Bethany/Carver in DA2 but playable/customizable)?

I don't know. The Inquisitor was less defined than Hawke, true, but quite less open-ended than the Warden.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The only thing against dual protagonists I see, is that it seems like an awful lot of work for the devs...to have to account for two player generated characters (taking into account all possible combinations of races, genders, voice actors, etc). I'm no game dev, but that seems like a lot of resources.

Then they should drop their stupid "New PC every game" rule and just have DA4 have the Inquisitor as the protagonist to finish the Solas story, then DA5 can have a new person again. 

[Sah291]

Then they should drop their stupid "New PC every game" rule and just have DA4 have the Inquisitor as the protagonist to finish the Solas story, then DA5 can have a new person again.

That would be my preference. But I would accept a dual protag, if they did it.

[German Soldier]

Yet they've already made attempts to define a nebulous character by introducing Hawke to DAI. That was never done before as well, remember? So what prevents them from making improvements and taking it a step further and let US define the nebulous character, by basing it partially on choices made in Inquisition and partially on choices given in DA4?

 

The 'nebulosity' of a character is a weak argument anyhow, since (excluding slightly a more defined character in DA2) we *play* a nebulous character we have to define ourselves in every DA game, even if we are limited by choices presented to us.

 

 

Well no, that's not what happened. They didn't let us play HoF because there were too many variables to conclusions to their story. Don't forget that even in DAO you sometimes can't even play your own protagonist in DLC or even huge expansions.

 

Why? Because one of the major choices in the game lets us kill them off before the epilogue to the main story.

-Hawke is one race with three personalities branches and it was not a nebulous character it was in fact more of a Bioware character rather than the player character still Bioware had thecnical difficulties to bring them back.

 

-The Inquisitor has the same issues of the Wareden is very nebulous and cannot be defined as an Npc.

If the warden dies it does not matter it is a non-issue since Bioware provide another character to replace them and yet the Orlesian warden commander  (which is unkillable) is not reused in DAI for the same issues the Hof and The Inquisitor have.

 

-Ciri is not a valid example because Ciri is not only present as a protagonist in a small part of the game but is also an Npc which is sometime with the protagonist and since she has a personality she is perfectly defined.

[Macha'Anu]

Then they should drop their stupid "New PC every game" rule and just have DA4 have the Inquisitor as the protagonist to finish the Solas story, then DA5 can have a new person again. 

That would be cool though yeah? Being able to import your initial inquisitor and getting a full conclusion though the whole missing hand thing might be quite the interesting thing....

[midnight tea]

The only thing against dual protagonists I see, is that it seems like an awful lot of work for the devs...to have to account for two player generated characters (taking into account all possible combinations of races, genders, voice actors, etc). I'm no game dev, but that seems like a lot of resources.

Suppose the Inquisitor actually gets the lead role then, and a new secondary protagonist is a more defined character somehow--like maybe human only, or a choice between two set characters (like how we had Bethany/Carver in DA2 but playable/customizable)?

I don't know. The Inquisitor was less defined than Hawke, true, but quite less open-ended than the Warden.

 

It's true that even from a perspective of someone who isn't a game dev it seems like a lot of work, but I think it depends on how they're going to design a story. Like, perhaps instead of creating a variety of NPCs (which necessitates designing them, setting them in the narrative and hiring more than 4 people for VO) r even companions to lead us through some more or less crucial quests we simply have the Inquisitor? That could realistically lower the cost of working on their inclusion into the story.

[Lezio]

Then they should drop their stupid "New PC every game" rule and just have DA4 have the Inquisitor as the protagonist to finish the Solas story, then DA5 can have a new person again. 

 

It is quite stupid. I mean, The Warden is off to the West, Hawke is North and The Inquisitor, in DA4, will probably be South (of Tevinter). It'll soo become kind of ridiculous having all those demi-gods around the world whenever a new (world threatening) crysis strikes, if it isn't already

 

Plus, as much as i dislike The Inquisitor s/he is the only one who should confront Solas, and s/he should do so while under the player's command and not by becoming a NPC like Hawke

[Addictress]

It is quite stupid. I mean, The Warden is off to the West, Hawke is North and The Inquisitor, in DA4, will probably be South (of Tevinter). It'll soo become kind of ridiculous having all those demi-gods around the world whenever a new (world threatening) crysis strikes, if it isn't already

 

Plus, as much as i dislike The Inquisitor s/he is the only one who should confront Solas, and s/he would do so while under the player's command and not by becoming a NPC like Hawke

Alternatively as I've said before, they can all be controllable companions, just like Dorian, Vivienne, Solas... you know.... controllable companions. It would also work even if the warden or Hawke are dead, because it would be as simple as "not recruiting that companion."

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That would be cool though yeah? Being able to import your initial inquisitor and getting a full conclusion though the whole missing hand thing might be quite the interesting thing....

Yeah, it would be really cool. Much better than what they are actually doing. 

 

The missing hand can even be an in-lore explanation for your level dropping back to 1, since with the prosthetic you have to relearn what you knew.