254 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

So, having Morrigan running away with The Warden's child if the ritual's accepted, or having a child with the soul of an Old God running around, or dying, or having Alistair or Loghain dying is, again, wrong and unbelievable because in Inquisition's ending, for the first time, the Inquisitor actually fails? (and becomes much more interesting because of it, as i already said?)

 

As far as I can remember, Morrigan tells the Warden what she'll do if the ritual is completed and it is the Warden's choice to accept the ritual which means it is the player's choice to accept the risk that comes with a child with the soul of an Old God.

 

Alistair and Loghain dying is also on the choice of the player, if I remember correctly, with the exception being if Alistair is romanced. Riordan lays out how that there'll be sacrifices necessary to slay the Archdemon permanently so the player is aware of it before the battle. 

 

These outcomes are avoidable by player choice whereas the Inquisitor will always lose their arm, will always be unable to stop Solas and will always have their Inquisition infiltrated by the spies of Solas and the Qun.  That's part of what the choice at the end of Trespasser comes down to: do you choose to leave the Inquisition a growing force but more susceptible to infiltration attempts or do you choose to disband and reform it as a shadow organization, smaller but less likely to be infiltrated.

 

I may be misunderstanding what you mean though.
 

[Lezio]

As far as I can remember, Morrigan tells the Warden what she'll do if the ritual is completed and it is the Warden's choice to accept the ritual which means it is the player's choice to accept the risk that comes with a child with the soul of an Old God.

 

Alistair and Loghain dying is also on the choice of the player, if I remember correctly, with the exception being if Alistair is romanced. Riordan lays out how that there'll be sacrifices necessary to slay the Archdemon permanently so the player is aware of it before the battle. 

 

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by it.
 

 

If i have to be honest i was so confused by Abyss' post that i'm not surprised that my post is confusing too

What i meant is...... well, i don't know what i meant, really. I don't even know how we went from discussing The Inquisitor to Origins' ending

[BansheeOwnage]

I think the point still stands, though, especially if compared to the Exalted Council. In the latter you can be an-a-hole to everyone and still get to decide the future of The Inquisition, even though everyone during Trespasser tells you can't just do as you please(which is what ends up happening), in the Landsmeetyou can be a-hole..... and lose. Of course then the duel happens, because the plot demands it, but you/The Warden still lost, much like Loghain does if The Warden wins

Trespasser certainly felt like a loss to me, in many ways... Especially the Exalted Council.

 

2 - You character can be any of those things, or much worse, or a crazy psychopath. Doesn't matter, you are still apparently much better than the guy who has actual experience. No one every questions why they should be taking orders from some random 20 year old kid who just happened to miss the main battle at Ostagar.

But Alistair doesn't want to lead, and he probably can't effectively lead (yet); you can hardly force him.

 

But Alistair is also some random 20 year old kid who just happened to miss the main battle at Ostagar

[ArcaneEsper]

Going back on topic, allowing more options for how you handle side quests might have made a difference to how the Inquisitor was received.

Sister Tanner is a smuggler? Leave her be, recruit her, or have the Chantry deal with her.

There's a flood in Crestwood? Offer to help immediately, say you have business to take care of first, or that resources are limited/it's not your problem

Contacted by Fairbanks? Be welcoming to a potential new ally, be wary of his intentions, or just dismiss his offer as a trap.

Just a few examples I know but if there was more variety for how the Inquisitor could react in such situations it would help, because the side quests make up a big portion of the game.

[Shechinah]

Do you think is possible in concept? For a person to be flawless or akin to be flawless?

 
That's not quite what I think Iakus means by "no real flaws". One of the characteristic of flawed writing is a character who supposedly has flaws but whose supposed flaws are not actual flaws in the sense that they do not negatively impact the character that they belong to in a significant manner.
 
An example would be a character who has one of their flaws being that they are clumsy but whose clumsiness is conveniently absent whenever it could cause difficulties like say if the character is being chased or has to catch something thrown to them in an important situation though sometimes it does but it is done so that they can be rescued and they never suffer harm or a negative consequence of it as a result.
 
It's like a character who has the faux flaw that they faint a lot: they faint into couches, the arms of others and to avoid furthering the plot but never onto a floor where they might injure themselves or in the face of a monster that might eat them should they do so.

They also do not have bruises, scabs or such from mishaps brought on by the flaw.
  
This is referred to as the Informed Flaw trope and is frequently seen with young writing as I sometimes call it. Basically, young writing is people who have recently started writing and are making the common mistakes that are expected with people who've only recently begun to write regardless of their age. It's nothing to be ashamed of: it happens. 
 
Now there are exceptions in which the trope is used to positive effect but most of the times I've encountered it, it tends to be to negative effect.
 
For more information; http://tvtropes.org/...in/InformedFlaw

[Shechinah]

I think the point still stands, though, especially if compared to the Exalted Council. In the latter you can be an-a-hole to everyone and still get to decide the future of The Inquisition, even though everyone during Trespasser tells you can't just do as you please(which is what ends up happening), in the Landsmeetyou can be a-hole..... and lose. Of course then the duel happens, because the plot demands it, but you/The Warden still lost, much like Loghain does if The Warden wins

 

But there are no consequence, if my memory serves me right: if the Warden loses the Landsmeet, they do not suffer a loss of forces nor are their options lessened by this lost. They simply win the Landsmeet in a different manner and achieve the same success. There are no significant loss suffered: The Warden can be as much as a jerk as they please and still win the Landsmeet's support.  

 

There are consequences posed to the choice the Inquisitor make before the Exalted Council: a growing Inquisition gambits the risk of infiltration and continued espionage and sabotage by Solas and other enemy forces with more resources and influence while a disbanded Inquisition gambits the risk of less resources and effiency with less a chance of enemy infiltration. 

 

Granted, we'll have to see in due time whether or not the consequences will come into effect but as it is now and as far as I know, the choice is presented as having consequences that can impact the Inquisitor and their Inquisition negatively.  
 

[Sah291]

In the main game, yes I think so, but not by Tresspasser, where they get stripped back down to size, anchor removed, and you find out members of your inner circle (Solas and possibly Bull) were stringing you along, and that your organization is infested with spies. That's a pretty epic rise and fall from importance, now that I think about it, maybe even trumping Hawke who never really makes it to Viscount and loses everything they had to go on the run. If the Inquisitor doesn't get any cameos or follow up in DA4, and their story left there, then no, they don't end up being a Sue, and was allowed to fail in the end.

[Cute Nug]

Maybe it is partly a perceived dissonance in developing agency but I also felt a greater distance from the Inquisitor. 

 

True at times I also felt playing as The Inquisitor i never actually feel rewarded because everything gets handed to me

 

For me maybe it was more the lessened response of the world to issues that would have made me care it they had more meaningful ongoing reactions in game. Quizzy and companions/NPCs seemed Tranquil-sque in their reaction to many of the following big events in DAI: death of colleagues at conclave; fall of the Grey Wardens; stupidity of Grey wardens; loss of rebel templars or rebel mages to Cory; WTF an actual Second Sin proto-darkspawn magister is walking around; I just banished the southern Grey Wardens; Grey Wardens are hiding the Second Sin proto-darkspawn magisters; Orlesion royals want to have a party while the world is ending; did I really just show up a party and choose the ruler of the Orlesion empire; I just saved two Orlesion armies in the Exalted Plains by myself; murder of the Tranquils; demons are pouring into Thedas; the chantry. templars, and circles failed; Grey Spawn helped a darkspawn murder the Divine; could Ferelden help; so can this glowing hand still kill me; where the fade are the "loyalist" mages; did anyone notice the abomination problem is fixed; run it's a red lyrium dragon; red lyrium dragon are easier to kill then regular dragons; Maker I'm currently the only person in Thedas that can close demon spawning sky holes; now that I've closed all the skyholes for the people that wanted to kill me for the crime of having lived instead of helping you wish to have an Exalted Council to discuss the Inquisition; what is an Inquisition

 

In game reactions to some huge interesting events when they did happen seemed limited to just after that event and then ceased to matter.

 

I don't feel DAI was fully able to portray being in charge of what felt like the only large organization willing/able to help the bad state the world was in which is a pretty difficult task to do well. Their other games as part of a group of companions felt more to me.

 

I also wonder how it would have played if companions had been vocal in game about being a special snowflake and Mary Sue. 

 

Overall they aren't a failed character to me in that they definitely had their moments but they seemed to have more potential like Corybits. I felt like they could have been more. Ameridain was a better written Inquisitor although Trespasser Quizzy was better than main game Quizzy IMO.

 

They also couldn't be a perfect Mary Sue in that they seemed a bit soulless in much of DAI but collecting pointless Shards and bland but pretty zones would do that. 

[Lezio]

But there are no consequence, if my memory serves me right: if the Warden loses the Landsmeet, they do not suffer a loss of forces nor are their options lessened by this lost. They simply win the Landsmeet in a different manner and achieve the same success. There are no significant loss suffered: The Warden can be as much as a jerk as they please and still win the Landsmeet's support.  

 

There are consequences posed to the choice the Inquisitor make before the Exalted Council: a growing Inquisition gambits the risk of infiltration and continued espionage and sabotage by Solas and other enemy forces with more resources and influence while a disbanded Inquisition gambits the risk of less resources and effiency with less a chance of enemy infiltration. Granted, we'll have to see in due time whether or not the consequences will come into effect.     
 

 

The comparison between the two is more about the fact that in one we win if we're deemed worthy (Landsmeet), in the other we get to decide what we'll do even if, for all intents and purposes, we've anatgonized everyone present at the Council. Basically, in the Landsmeet we need to prove something, and if we fail, well, we win anyway, as you say, but we do so the pathetic and unrewarding way, in the Exalted Council it's just a matter to decide which way to go and no one can actually do or say anything about it. For example, if you behaved in a certain way during the game (blackmailing Celene/Briala/Gaspard) or during the DLC (storming out, not showing respect, taking the servant under custody ecc) Ferelden and Orlais should have at least had the chance to take the decision out of the hands of The Inquisitor

 

Trespasser certainly felt like a loss to me, in many ways... Especially the Exalted Council.

 

But Alistair doesn't want to lead, and he probably can't effectively lead (yet); you can hardly force him.

 

But Alistair is also some random 20 year old kid who just happened to miss the main battle at Ostagar

 

Don't get me wrong, i like Trespasser because it's actually the 1st where my inquisitor suffered a personal loss and actually had a chance/reason to grow as a character(or, y'know, actually become one ). Still, the Exalted Council didn't really feel like a loss to me because, as i said, in the end i was the one to pick

[Abyss108]

So, The Herald leading around people with more experience than him, while also controlling all of the operations of The Inquisition, is story/gameplay segregation, but The Warden leading around 2 people and a dog is unbelievable and wrong? I......

 

The rest is just very confusing, if i have to be honest. You can't lose the game, you just get different options based on what you did during the ball. I specifically compared that whole arc to Orzammar because there it felt like The Warden had to submit to the dwarves' will, in Halamshiral The Inquisitor just finds all kinds of secrets about the people who are supposed to be, y'know, masters at keeping them. Then you say that there are consequences for losing the game, which again you can't do, which makes the whole thing even more confusing

 

So, having Morrigan running away with The Warden's child if the ritual's accepted, or having a child with the soul of an Old God running around, or dying, or having Alistair or Loghain dying is, again, wrong and unbelievable because in Inquisition's ending, for the first time, the Inquisitor actually fails? (and becomes much more interesting because of it, as i already said?)

 

And i feel like pointing out, once again, that you sumbit to no one. You either go under the Chantry, which basically means retaining independence, or disbanding. You can choose the one you like the most and no one has a say on it, so, again, neither Ferelden or Orlais are forcing The Inquisitor to do anything (which, from what we had been told throughout the DLC, they would have done if The Inquisitor behaved badly and was thus judged incapable of leading The Inquisiton)

 

I..... feel like we should agree to disagree, i'm all open for discussion but this won't go anywhere, i believe

 

Yes, the Warden leading is not gameplay-story segregation, because the story states this is what happens. The story states that you are the boss. The story in Inquisition states you are not the boss, you have a big scene where the game says "and now you are the boss" at Skyhold. In origins, you have a scene saying you are the boss as soon as you get out of Ostagar. 

 

I never said anything was "wrong and unbelievable" so I don't know where you got that from. You are just making things up here. I said you get to have a happy ending with no personal loss. Or you can choose to be a perfect selfless hero who dies to save everyone and will always be remembered. Both very romanticised endings. Being maimed for life with no choice is not a romanticised ending.

 

You do submit - you do not remain independent. You are under the leadership of the chantry now, not yourself. The devs have stated in interviews that they could not allow the protagonist to remain with so much power. This was talked about - about how Trespasser removes the Inquisition as a force - I quote -

 

"The story of Dragon Age: Inquisition was about the player character's journey — their rise to power. Trespasser effectively undoes that. It concludes the story of a an institution — the titular Inquisition."

 

As stated -

 

http://www.gamebansh...el-reports.html

http://www.polygon.c...captain-america

 

It undoes your rise to power. There is absolutely no option to remain independent.

[Lezio]

Yes, the Warden leading is not gameplay-story segregation, because the story states this is what happens. The story states that you are the boss. The story in Inquisition states you are not the boss, you have a big scene where the game says "and now you are the boss" at Skyhold. In origins, you have a scene saying you are the boss as soon as you get out of Ostagar. 

 

I never said anything was "wrong and unbelievable" so I don't know where you got that from. You are just making things up here. I said you get to have a happy ending with no personal loss. Or you can choose to be a perfect selfless hero who dies to save everyone and will always be remembered. Both very romanticised endings. Being maimed for life with no choice is not a romanticised ending.

 

You do submit - you do not remain independent. You are under the leadership of the chantry now, not yourself. The devs have stated in interviews that they could not allow the protagonist to remain with so much power. This was talked about - about how Trespasser removes the Inquisition as a force - I quote -

 

"The story of Dragon Age: Inquisition was about the player character's journey — their rise to power. Trespasser effectively undoes that. It concludes the story of a an institution — the titular Inquisition."

 

As stated -

 

http://www.gamebansh...el-reports.html

http://www.polygon.c...captain-america

 

It undoes your rise to power. There is absolutely no option to remain independent.

 

For the bolded part i just need a some kind of meme, possibly with a hand covering a face

 

Agreed to disagree

[Donquijote and 59 others]

 
That's not quite what I think Iakus means by "no real flaws". One of the characteristic of flawed writing is a character who supposedly has flaws but whose supposed flaws are not actual flaws in the sense that they do not negatively impact the character that they belong to in a significant manner.
 
An example would be a character who has one of their flaws being that they are clumsy but whose clumsiness is conveniently absent whenever it could cause difficulties like say if the character is being chased or has to catch something thrown to them in an important situation though sometimes it does but it is done so that they can be rescued and they never suffer harm or a negative consequence of it as a result.
 
It's like a character who has the faux flaw that they faint a lot: they faint into couches, the arms of others and to avoid furthering the plot but never onto a floor where they might injure themselves or in the face of a monster that might eat them should they do so.

They also do not have bruises, scabs or such from mishaps brought on by the flaw.
  
This is referred to as the Informed Flaw trope and is frequently seen with young writing as I sometimes call it. Basically, young writing is people who have recently started writing and are making the common mistakes that are expected with people who've only recently begun to write regardless of their age. It's nothing to be ashamed of: it happens. 
 
Now there are exceptions in which the trope is used to positive effect but most of the times I've encountered it, it tends to be to negative effect.
 
For more information; http://tvtropes.org/...in/InformedFlaw

Are these characters present in Dragon age?

hmmm thinking...maybe that red haired elf of DA2

[vbibbi]

BRIEF EDIT: All player characters are treated as SPESHUL, but I think it comes in different doses and flavors, and there are different doses and flavors that different people are willing to live with. Personally:

 

I rather disagree about the Inquisitor. No one really treats you like you're inherently special just for existing, you're just some random johnny ("and I do mean random") who happened to be the only survivor of a giant explosion, which at first causes them to treat you with suspicion and hostility. Then you turned out to have the key to closing the giant hole in the sky that would have swallowed the world. At least everyone treats you with fear and suspicion at first and you have to actually prove you're useful before they start falling to their knees and treating you like every other PC.

 

I'd say Cousland is a bigger Mary Sue since the entire family is treated as insufferably perfect, from historical conception to present-day, and everyone falls to their knees and worships the ground you walk on from the very beginning just for existing; just for being a Cousland. (Because apparently the Couslands have this genetic, inherent superiority that everyone can Just Tell.)

 

Personally, I also think Hawke is a better example of a Sue. Yeah, you have to work your way up to Hightown, but from the very beginning everyone s/he meets treats Hawke as Important. Fighting for your life in darkspawn-infested Lothering because you and your family weren't smart enough to get out of dodge, then FLEMETH goes out of her way to rescue you and give you her life locket because somehow she could tell from a faraway glance that Hawke is Special. You arrive at Kirkwall and get treated like just another refugee for a few days, but then after helping the guards with a kerfuffle that they could have handled on their own the guard is like, "WOW! Thank you so much for your help! Look, I don't normally do this for refugees, but because it's you I'll send a message that'll help arrange you to get into the city." Then you have a fade-to-black time skip and suddenly Hawke is strutting around Kirkwall like the Bee's Knees, with everyone constantly fawning over and gazing admirably at Hawke like s/he is special and important and a person of consequence in the city even though s/he was just a smuggler/mercenary and now acts as a glorified errand boy. Heck, the very first time you approach Bartrand for a job, Varric instantly pulls you aside and offers you a job as an EQUAL PARTNER to him and his brother because he could just tell by your reputation that you're That Important. And then, of course, everyone treats Hawke like s/he is important long before s/he actually moves to Hightown or saves Kirkwall at the end of Act II. (Even companions! Fenris has been on the run from Danarius for years and never stayed in one place for too long for fear of getting caught, but then you help him with one quest and suddenly Fenris feels safe enough to stick around for years and Danarius instantly lays off him for three year intervals because they can instantly tell that the All Important Hawke--some former smuggler or mercenary refugee living in Lowtown--is now watching over him.) Even by DA everyone can't stop gushing over how awesome and special and amazing Hawke is every time s/he is brought up in conversation, or in person.

 

Wut? Hawke is not a Mary Sue.

 

One of our siblings dies in Lothering no matter what we do. Wesley dies no matter what we do. Our mother dies no matter what we do. Anders blows up the Chantry no matter what we do. Isabela steals the Qun book no matter what we do (although she returns if we're friendly enough with her). Marethari dies no matter what we do. The Arishok kills the Viscount no matter what we do. Both Meredith and Orinso go off the deep end no matter what we do.

 

We help the guards fight off attackers when we try to enter the city. Then, because we know someone who is already a citizen of Kirkwall, the guards are willing to send that person a message. That's all that they do. They don't help us find a way in, they just send Gamlen a message. And it takes at least a few days for him to get the message or come to the gates to meet us. And then we're basically sold into indentured servitude for a year in order to enter the city. We do not magically gain free entrance after helping the guards.

 

Varric doesn't allow us to enter the Deep Roads expedition because he's heard so much about us. He lets us buy in to the expedition to become a partner. The entirety of Act I is about raising enough money to become a partner. A Mary Sue would have charmed Varric or Bartrand into taking them along without paying.

 

Who treats Hawke as the bee's knees in Act I? The Fereldan refugees don't recognize Hawke and think we're looking for Anders to attack him. They even attack us if we don't convince them we mean Anders no harm. Sister Petrice only hires us to guard Ketojan because we're unknown mercenaries, not famous. Sebastian doesn't consider us worth accompanying in Act I since we're just mercenaries who avenge his family's murders. If we kill Kelder, his magistrate father is furious and threatens to make our life difficult (granted, that never happens, but it was built up as a consequence in later acts that was cut due to time).

 

The time skips are difficult to manage narratively. They are used to show Hawke's life over seven years, I don't think it's actually meant that three years go between anything happening in Hawke's life and then everything happens in the course of a few weeks. It's gameplay-story segregation, plus Varric taking narrative liberties. Where does Danarius say that he was afraid to come fetch Fenris himself because he's afraid of Hawke? From the Act 2 quest about slavers hunting Fenris down, the game indicates that the slave hunters have been after Fenris this whole time, but each time we kill them so Danarius is no closer to discovering Fenris' location. It's only when Fenris writes to his sister that Danarius confirms his location and goes to Kirkwall. He's an arrogant magister, why would he travel across the continent if he's not sure Fenris will be waiting for him?

 

 

ETA: re: Flemeth. She is literally helping herself by helping us. She is prophetic and knows that the HOF will quite possibly kill her current body soon (she mentions that she has another appointment to keep, indicating the Warden). She wants someone to carry her horcrux to the altar of Mythal located on Sundermount. Hawke proves their self-preservation abilities by killing an ogre and wants to go close to Sundermount, so they're the ideal candidate for Flemeth to give her amulet. Plus, since she's prophetic, she probably had a good indication that Hawke would survive long enough to deliver the amulet.

Modifié par vbibbi, 19 avril 2016 - 10:02 .

[Shechinah]

The comparison between the two is more about the fact that in one we win if we're deemed worthy (Landsmeet), in the other we get to decide what we'll do even if, for all intents and purposes, we've anatgonized everyone present at the Council. Basically, in the Landsmeet we need to prove something, and if we fail, well, we win anyway, as you say, but we do so the pathetic and unrewarding way, in the Exalted Council it's just a matter to decide which way to go and no one can actually do or say anything about it. For example, if you behaved in a certain way during the game (blackmailing Celene/Briala/Gaspard) or during the DLC (storming out, not showing respect, taking the servant under custody ecc) Ferelden and Orlais should have at least had the chance to take the decision out of the hands of The Inquisitor

 

And yet no consequence is suffered by the Warden nor are their outcome affected by the dishonorability in which they conduct themselves despite how their victory is brought about, to my memory. The Warden can disregard the honorable duel and will still, to my knowledge, recieve the same options and forces as had they won the Landsmeet through debate. Neither they nor their decision suffer a consequence as a result of how they win the Landsmeet: a ruler placed through a dishonorable victory will sit as long and as well as a ruler placed through an honorable victory.   

 

The Exalted Council did force a decision from Inquisitior: they forced the Inquisitor to make a choice as the Inquisition would not be allowed by them to remain an independent organization of such size and influence. The Inquisitor had to make a choice wherein both decisions could negatively impact them and they did not have the option of escalating the meeting into violence and beat everybody bloody without the consequence such a choice would bring.      

 

 

[Terodil]

The illusion of choice is a powerful tool in making RPGs. If done well, it allows the player to suspend their disbelief and to accept that illusion as actual, real choice. And I accept and support this, otherwise RPGs could not realistically be implemented. For example the ME3 ending debacle never really had much traction with me. I could accept the idea of destroy-control-synthesis.

However, when discussing the topic at hand it's hard to make the distinction between the illusion of choice crafted by the game, with the player being the target, and the illusion of choice crafted by characters in the game, with the protagonist being the target.

One of the leitmotifs of DA:I is "The Game", and it shows everywhere. The Inquisitor is being misled, directed etc. at almost every turn, most notably, of course, by Solas, but also Cassandra, Sera, Iron Bull, Madame de Fer. Only very few people are not playing the Inquisitor but actually accept her for what she is (Dorian comes to mind... and not many others). If the Inquisitor then follows these more or less subtle promptings, is it truly choice? Of course, you could argue that the Inquisitor should be able to see through these machinations, and that therefore, following or rejecting such manipulations is a choice, but that is indeed only possible for a perfectly aware Mary Sue Inquisitor and not for the Inquisitor we get to play.

Very often in this game the important question is whether to put on socks or not, and that decision is made by others. The Inquisitor only gets to decide the meaningless question of whether she puts the left or the right sock on first, while falling for the deception that that is the essential question.

[Catilina]

Wut? Hawke is not a Mary Sue.

[...]

(Hawke'story is a refreshing change for me, among the many world salvation. In Varric's presentation Hawke get some comic-heroic traits, but I think this just highlights the story's tragic line. Hawke still my favorite hero.)

[BansheeOwnage]

 

You do submit - you do not remain independent. You are under the leadership of the chantry now, not yourself. The devs have stated in interviews that they could not allow the protagonist to remain with so much power. This was talked about - about how Trespasser removes the Inquisition as a force - I quote -

 

"The story of Dragon Age: Inquisition was about the player character's journey — their rise to power. Trespasser effectively undoes that. It concludes the story of a an institution — the titular Inquisition."

 

As stated -

It undoes your rise to power. There is absolutely no option to remain independent.

*Sigh* All this rubs me the wrong way. What's the point of a rise to power if it just gets taken away right after? Although, I think part of those feelings come from the fact that the vanilla game didn't end anywhere near this way and the actual fall happens through paid DLC. Also, I could forgive the fall if we play as the Inquisitor again, because it could add an interesting angle to it all, but if it's the last thing that happens to the Inquisitor, that's just lame. Especially because it seems to have been done for meta-reasons (can't write their idea of DA4 without depowering the Inquisitor)

 

Going out with a whimper and all that.

[Terodil]

I don't know why Bioware tends to do that in more recent games (I mean ME3 was a similar downer, emotionally). I personally wouldn't mind a "{saved | conquered} the world -- happy ever after" ending at some point again. Subjectively, I've had my fill of dark and sad and "the world is bad" games lately, so much so that I start feeling that bad endings are more cliché now than happy ones...

[CardButton]

... No not technically, though I can see why some people could see it that way with the way the story played out.  Look I love the Inquisitor, I think they have VAST potential to grow since the "Trespasser" finale which is why I am a strong advocate for the Inquisitor to return as a playable character for one more game (If and only if they are balanced out by a new Tevinter born PC as well), but the Inquisitor would be considered something more of a "Special Snowflake" over a "Mary Sue Character" (in that they are defined by a single Plot-Essential plot point that makes them indispensable to the story at hand, nothing more).

 

A Mary Sue (or Gary Stu) by definition is an idealized and seemingly perfect character who comes from a low rank and saves the day through unrealistic abilities.  The Inquisitor has two of the three, they come from a humble background (as most heroes are tbh) and they save the day because of some unique ability, but despite this ... they are missing the third and probably most trademark trait of a Mary Su, the seemingly perfect part.  Because the Inquisitor, as all DA protagonists, starts off as a mostly blank slate there is nothing preventing players from making them perfect, but there is also nothing preventing them from simply being flawed.  The RPing allotted to such a character mitigates the Mary Sue concept quite a bit.  Then there is the simple fact that the Inquisitor really isn't all that spectacular at much (at least amongst their peers) in the story beyond 1) Having the Anchor attached to them and therefore they are needed, and 2) Being used as a political tool to make hard decisions when no one else wants to.  Those are really the Inquisitor's only two defining traits.    

They are not particularly exceptional at combat beyond those capabilities of the others in the party, they are not particularly skilled at playing political, they are not particularly intelligent in regards to science, magic, or street smarts, and they rely FAR too much on their companions and followers to pick up for their inadequacies to be considered a Mary Sue/Gary Stu.  In short, the Inquisitor if they truly where a Mary Sue style character, wouldn't need all those people in the story to help them, they would simply be capable of doing all of it themselves and teaching everyone else how to do things right.

 

Hence the reason I do like the prospect of the Inquisitor returning.  Now that they are no longer fettered to their "plot-critical point" the Anchor, they now have the chance to grow as a character beyond that singular trait (and they can finally be allowed to grow as a character beyond the Inquisition as well). 

[Artona]

Talking about Mary Sues in Bioware roleplays is kinda pointless, because every character from DA trilogy has pretty big "modal" aspect - I mean, both Wardens and Inquisitors can choose differently - you can be cruel and tyrannical, lose friends and do as little war table operations as possible - or you can play perfectly, slay every dragon, do every sidequest - and while one of those playthroughs can be called Mary Sue (let's put beside problems with that term for now), other one can't. Hell, you can even, you know, die during one of the missions and decide that Inquisition failed; why that choice shouldn't be valid ? 

 

[Iakus]

 
That's not quite what I think Iakus means by "no real flaws". One of the characteristic of flawed writing is a character who supposedly has flaws but whose supposed flaws are not actual flaws in the sense that they do not negatively impact the character that they belong to in a significant manner.
 
An example would be a character who has one of their flaws being that they are clumsy but whose clumsiness is conveniently absent whenever it could cause difficulties like say if the character is being chased or has to catch something thrown to them in an important situation though sometimes it does but it is done so that they can be rescued and they never suffer harm or a negative consequence of it as a result.
 
It's like a character who has the faux flaw that they faint a lot: they faint into couches, the arms of others and to avoid furthering the plot but never onto a floor where they might injure themselves or in the face of a monster that might eat them should they do so.

They also do not have bruises, scabs or such from mishaps brought on by the flaw.
  
This is referred to as the Informed Flaw trope and is frequently seen with young writing as I sometimes call it. Basically, young writing is people who have recently started writing and are making the common mistakes that are expected with people who've only recently begun to write regardless of their age. It's nothing to be ashamed of: it happens. 
 
Now there are exceptions in which the trope is used to positive effect but most of the times I've encountered it, it tends to be to negative effect.
 
For more information; http://tvtropes.org/...in/InformedFlaw

In addition:

 

The character's lack of skill or talent will generally be minor things which may make things uncomfortable, but never prove really important.  A mighty wizard may be an absolute master of the elements, but can't cook breakfast (with or without magic) without burning something.

 

If a skill they lack does become important it will be picked up and mastered in an absurdly short period of time.

 

Then three's "flaws" like Chronic Hero Syndrome, the person who always has to try and rescue everybody or fix everything.  And of course, succeeds far more often than not.  Or some Traumatic Past they've never quite gotten past (but still manage to draw strength from when it really counts)  Or they have a temper, which conveniently only the Bad Guys end up on the receiving end.

 

Or perhaps they don't meet society's classic sense of beauty.  A scar, perhaps.  Or elven features.  or, they're really really tall,, or something that makes them stand out in a crowd.  And have low self-esteem as a result.  But the "exotic" appearance automatically draws any and all potential suitors in the area.  And oh, look the ugly duckling is a beautiful swan after all!

 

On a related note, said character may be a stranger to the customs of an area or a social circle.  Yet their earnest fumbling at trying to make a good impression are seen as appealing to the people they are trying to impress (save some stodgy old dinosaur who will probably end up being the Villain anyway)  No matter how ignorant or uncouth a Mary Sue is, s/he will power on through with charisma alone.

[Addictress]

I agree with Lezio. In fact the Inquisitor was so worshipped and everything was handed to them so easily, it was sickening.

[Addictress]

Wut? Hawke is not a Mary Sue.

One of our siblings dies in Lothering no matter what we do. Wesley dies no matter what we do. Our mother dies no matter what we do. Anders blows up the Chantry no matter what we do. Isabela steals the Qun book no matter what we do (although she returns if we're friendly enough with her). Marethari dies no matter what we do. The Arishok kills the Viscount no matter what we do. Both Meredith and Orinso go off the deep end no matter what we do.

We help the guards fight off attackers when we try to enter the city. Then, because we know someone who is already a citizen of Kirkwall, the guards are willing to send that person a message. That's all that they do. They don't help us find a way in, they just send Gamlen a message. And it takes at least a few days for him to get the message or come to the gates to meet us. And then we're basically sold into indentured servitude for a year in order to enter the city. We do not magically gain free entrance after helping the guards.

Varric doesn't allow us to enter the Deep Roads expedition because he's heard so much about us. He lets us buy in to the expedition to become a partner. The entirety of Act I is about raising enough money to become a partner. A Mary Sue would have charmed Varric or Bartrand into taking them along without paying.

Who treats Hawke as the bee's knees in Act I? The Fereldan refugees don't recognize Hawke and think we're looking for Anders to attack him. They even attack us if we don't convince them we mean Anders no harm. Sister Petrice only hires us to guard Ketojan because we're unknown mercenaries, not famous. Sebastian doesn't consider us worth accompanying in Act I since we're just mercenaries who avenge his family's murders. If we kill Kelder, his magistrate father is furious and threatens to make our life difficult (granted, that never happens, but it was built up as a consequence in later acts that was cut due to time).

The time skips are difficult to manage narratively. They are used to show Hawke's life over seven years, I don't think it's actually meant that three years go between anything happening in Hawke's life and then everything happens in the course of a few weeks. It's gameplay-story segregation, plus Varric taking narrative liberties. Where does Danarius say that he was afraid to come fetch Fenris himself because he's afraid of Hawke? From the Act 2 quest about slavers hunting Fenris down, the game indicates that the slave hunters have been after Fenris this whole time, but each time we kill them so Danarius is no closer to discovering Fenris' location. It's only when Fenris writes to his sister that Danarius confirms his location and goes to Kirkwall. He's an arrogant magister, why would he travel across the continent if he's not sure Fenris will be waiting for him?


ETA: re: Flemeth. She is literally helping herself by helping us. She is prophetic and knows that the HOF will quite possibly kill her current body soon (she mentions that she has another appointment to keep, indicating the Warden). She wants someone to carry her horcrux to the altar of Mythal located on Sundermount. Hawke proves their self-preservation abilities by killing an ogre and wants to go close to Sundermount, so they're the ideal candidate for Flemeth to give her amulet. Plus, since she's prophetic, she probably had a good indication that Hawke would survive long enough to deliver the amulet.

Reblogging for truth.

[Abyss108]

For the bolded part i just need a some kind of meme, possibly with a hand covering a face

 

Agreed to disagree

 

Can you explain why you disagree? The only thing I can think of is you don't know what gameplay-story segregation means... Inquisition is the perfect textbook example of it. Which is actually something it did rather badly, as I didn't realise that was what it was doing until the game had actually had a character tell me.

[straykat]

I agree with Lezio. In fact the Inquisitor was so worshipped and everything was handed to them so easily, it was sickening.

 

That and they also come from nowhere with any important context (at least most don't). Which makes it more sickening. Baf enough to have the world handed to you. Even worse when you don't know much of anything.

 

Oh, but it's open ended, some say! Invent the context!

 

That would work better if they didn't ask so many questions. It's not openended when the character is inherently ignorant. Why does a Chantry brother not know Tevinter (or a Qunari, for that matter), a Dalish not know Mythal, a Templar trainee need to understand the Order from Cullen or that girl next to him? And on and on. And all power needs to be handed to this person? Why? Are people that desperate?

 

It reminds me of this time I went to volunteer for the Salvation Army.. for some reason, they thought I was applying for regional manager. They wanted to make me the boss of a whole urban area. And I had next to nothing on my resume. Desperate times, I guess