60 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

Hundreds, thousands of ideas get thought up. Dozens get drawn up. Only one is 'right'. Ideas are not set in stone. Ideas allow for more ideas to flourish, but that doesn't mean that the original idea had to absolutely work. No. The idea just has to be interesting enough to the artist, in order for it to be drawn up, because hey 'why not?'.

 

 

No it doesn't just need to be interesting to the artist. If an artist just sits there drawing things that are completely impractical to the game they have been told to work on they won't have a job for long. Drawing up designs take time, and the developers have a limited amount of time to make the game.

 

Though honestly, I'm not sure why I'm replying - if you ignore the words of the actual developers, and if you ignore the ways the issue has already been solved previously in the setting, it's not like you have more reasons to believe a bunch of random posters on the internet. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Why did they, the BioWare writers, decide to cut off the hand? And don't say "because it's supposed to be tragic" - bollocks! That scene was not tragic in any way, shape or form, and if it was, it wasn't for that reason.

 

The writers could have simply removed the mark without having to remove the hand itself.

The writers could have made it so the mark just disappeared after a period once the breach had closed.

The writers could have written any number of different ways that could have played out, many of which would have led credibility to the Inquisitor returning as a protagonist in the next game.

 

But they chose the one that had the hand get cut off. What does that tell you all?

As I've said before, if the reason they removed the hand is to make the Inquisitor not playable because handicapped people can't be heroes then I am quitting my support of Bioware because that is a disgusting mindset. Luckily that doesn't seem to be the case since Patrick Weekes when asked stated that they did not remove the hand to make the Inquisitor no longer playable, saying there are plenty of amputee heroes. He said it was to show that the Inquisitor's days of sealing Rifts was done.

 

 

Dragon age did always had a new protagonist per game, this is not going to change because of for some fanboys of Solas and his romance who want to redeem him.

I want to be the Inquisitor again, but I'm not a Solas fanboy and I certainly don't want to redeem him. I want to be the Inquisitor again because there is more potential in them being the one to stop Solas rather than a new person. Whether they are in love with, love, hate, or anything in between Solas, there is a connection there that leads to better storytelling opportunities.

[LightningPoodle]

As I've said before, if the reason they removed the hand is to make the Inquisitor not playable because handicapped people can't be heroes then I am quitting my support of Bioware because that is a disgusting mindset. Luckily that doesn't seem to be the case since Patrick Weekes when asked stated that they did not remove the hand to make the Inquisitor no longer playable, saying there are plenty of amputee heroes. He said it was to show that the Inquisitor's days of sealing Rifts was done.

 

And in my examples, the Inquisitors days of sealing rifts would still have been done, and he or she would have still had a hand.

 

I don't believe a word of what Weekes said there. It was clearly so that the Inquisitor wouldn't be coming back as the playable character. He just wants to cover their backsides from any more controversy.

 

And no. Just because the Inquisitor isn't going to be playable does not stop the Inquisitor from being a hero. Just a hero you have limited control over. Don't twist my words.

[Abyss108]

It just seems so strange to me to buy the games off developers that you think are a bunch of liars. 

[LightningPoodle]

It just seems so strange to me to buy the games off developers that you think are a bunch of liars. 

 

Um, I don't consider them liars. I consider what he said to be a lie, but that does not make him a liar. I tell a lie once in a while, when it's needed, but I don't think of myself as a liar. I actually think of myself as a very honest person.

 

Why must people twist words and read between the lines?

[Abyss108]

Um, I don't consider them liars. I consider what he said to be a lie, but that does not make him a liar. I tell a lie once in a while, when it's needed, but I don't think of myself as a liar. I actually think of myself as a very honest person.

 

Why must people twist words and read between the lines?

 

 

Uh, the definitive of liar is a person who tells a lie.  I'm not twisting anything.

 

The idea of buying a product and giving money to someone when you think some number of things they say are lies is just very strange to me. But then, I have a particular thing agains lies, so maybe its just me being strange there. 

[dragonsteak]

So basically the time we play the Inquisitor as the tactician and strategist choosing operations to do, and when we choose an operation we play that operation as the new PC? 

 

This would be very interesting, although the Inquisitor would have minor action in the game.

[LightningPoodle]

Uh, the definitive of liar is a person who tells a lie.  I'm not twisting anything.

 

A person who tells lies.

[Abyss108]

A person who tells lies.

 

 

So you've never heard someone tell a lie, and then someone say "you liar"? 

[LightningPoodle]

So you've never heard someone tell a lie, and then someone say "you liar"? 

 

Yes, I have heard that. I've also heard people call others a "bastard", even though their parents were married before they were even concieved. Language is fickle. Spoken word and written word don't always align. Their meanings can change to suit a situation.

 

Anyway, this has strayed from the point. Even though this topic has been beaten to death on more than one occasion, going into this is not needed here.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And in my examples, the Inquisitors days of sealing rifts would still have been done, and he or she would have still had a hand.

 

I don't believe a word of what Weekes said there. It was clearly so that the Inquisitor wouldn't be coming back as the playable character. He just wants to cover their backsides from any more controversy.

 

And no. Just because the Inquisitor isn't going to be playable does not stop the Inquisitor from being a hero. Just a hero you have limited control over. Don't twist my words.

Well they didn't go with your examples. Most likely they went with the missing hand to visibly show it, or serve some plot point we don't know of yet. I use the Luke Skywalker example where he lost his hand and yet a few minutes later he got a new robotic one, yet the loss of his actual hand still served the story multiple times. 

Wouldn't lying about that and later that being the case cause more controversy, not less? That was certainly the case with the Mass Effect 3 ending. 

I didn't. You said they can't be the protagonist(what I meant when I said hero), and are saying it is because they are handicapped that Bioware won't and shouldn't have them be the one in DA4, so you are saying that handicapped people can't or shouldn't be protagonists. 

[LightningPoodle]

Well they didn't go with your examples. Most likely they went with the missing hand to visibly show it, or serve some plot point we don't know of yet. I use the Luke Skywalker example where he lost his hand and yet a few minutes later he got a new robotic one, yet the loss of his actual hand still served the story multiple times. 

Wouldn't lying about that and later that being the case cause more controversy, not less? That was certainly the case with the Mass Effect 3 ending. 

I didn't. You said they can't be the protagonist(what I meant when I said hero), and are saying it is because they are handicapped that Bioware won't and shouldn't have them be the one in DA4, so you are saying that handicapped people can't or shouldn't be protagonists. 

 

Can you honestly say that advertising the game with the protagonist being a hand short is a great way to sell an RPG?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Can you honestly say that advertising the game with the protagonist being a hand short is a great way to sell an RPG?

Yes, I can. Especially with a company like Bioware who is praised for diversity. Having a handicapped character be the protagonist, as well as all the others pros that come with continuing as the Inquisitor, would be a good marketing strategy. 

[In Exile]

Yes, I can. Especially with a company like Bioware who is praised for diversity. Having a handicapped character be the protagonist, as well as all the others pros that come with continuing as the Inquisitor, would be a good marketing strategy. 

 

Luke Skywalker didn't have a hand. Except that they just use technomagic to remove any issue. Same with, for example, Adam Jensen in Deus Ex. These are not "handicapped" protagonists, however, because they don't have handicaps (Jenson got superpowers, even if he didn't ask for it). People's solutions to the Inquisitior are typically the same idea: steampunk robo-hands, etc. No one so far has asked for Jaime Lannister - someone whose story is about coping with a handicap. 

[Inkvisiittori]

People's solutions to the Inquisitior are typically the same idea: steampunk robo-hands, etc. No one so far has asked for Jaime Lannister - someone whose story is about coping with a handicap. 

 

Because I doubt that would work for a video game protagonist who has to fight all the time. 

 

Also DA is high magic setting (unlike GOT) - why settle for a useless golden hand when you such master dwarven engineers as Bianca, Branka and Dagna at your disposal? 

[Abyss108]

Can you honestly say that advertising the game with the protagonist being a hand short is a great way to sell an RPG?

 

Yes. It immediately gets my attention and makes me interested. Why wouldn't it? Because it adds an extra challenge? Because it's not typically "badass"? Those things make me interested in the game. 

 

Honest question - why do you think this wouldn't be interesting for a game?

 

Luke Skywalker didn't have a hand. Except that they just use technomagic to remove any issue. Same with, for example, Adam Jensen in Deus Ex. These are not "handicapped" protagonists, however, because they don't have handicaps (Jenson got superpowers, even if he didn't ask for it). People's solutions to the Inquisitior are typically the same idea: steampunk robo-hands, etc. No one so far has asked for Jaime Lannister - someone whose story is about coping with a handicap. 

 

Actually I've seen a large number of people want exactly the Jaime Lannister treatment. It's not been mentioned in this thread, but when the discussions first started lots of people said they wanted the Inquisitor back and to actually have to deal with the loss. That's definitely my preference.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

I can't add much to the conversation but from what I have read in the past.. A lot of people disliked Hawke coming back as a NPC. Maybe it messed up their headcanon, or representation during conversation (views on blood magic), wrong weapon displayed during the mission, among other things. I think they handled it quite well. In hindsight, anything can be better. With the reaction to Hawke's return, the HoF or his alternative Warden returning dropped even further.. (Not that Bioware wanted to deal with that anyway, but it definitely set it in stone IMO.)

They had time to consider the ending in Tresspasser. With a lot of negativity towards the Inquisitor (bland, ect), they were not going to make a return as the PC. It MIGHT of changed their direction if the Inquisitor as a PC was an overwhelming success, but that's just an opinion.

I don't think it's because the Inquisitor is handicapped in battle that he or she will not be the PC. I don't think they were going for that while making the scene since they were opting for new protagonist every game. They were doing it for the feels, imo. Maybe it was not executed properly or not dramatic enough. Maybe it was a negative reaction because people don't want their former protagonist without two hands for their headcanon?

Honestly, I see where people are coming from about losing the hand means not playable for class types so in turn means not a PC. Since I connected those dots, I could say Bioware intentionally did that but if that's the case.. the HoF or alternative Warden is still roaming around so he/she can be playable but they choose not to involve the Warden. The Inquisitor could have kept the hand and they could send him/her off on a mission and not be playable in the same fashion.

I think losing the hand makes sense due to the damage being done to the body over time. I believe it was for the feels, dude. I felt bad for my Inquisitor, after all this time, the thing that gave him power has damaged him forever.

The Inquisitor lost a hand. His/Her mouth can still speak. Body can walk. Returning as a NPC is plausible but it seems people want the Inquisitor to be playable unlike Hawke and HoF. I can understand that but the torch has been passed to a new protagonist. Some people are viewing the loss of a hand as a symbol of throwing the Inquisitor under the bus to be a PC instead of creative story approach for feels during the end of the game.

[Smudjygirl]

The fact this is still being discussed shows how big an issue it is for people. They have to be clever about what they do and how they do it...

[Abyss108]

You know what a good way to leave the path open for a new protagonist was? - the original ending to the game. Nobody wanted/expected the Inquisitor to deal with the Solas situation then.

 

You know what a bad way is? - having every single Inquisitor forced to declare that they are going to stop him.

[Beerfish]

Quizzy will have a hawke/warden like cameo like they did in DAI.

 

The new hero is going to be a Seeker.

 

Book it! 

[XEternalXDreamsX]

You know what a good way to leave the path open for a new protagonist was? - the original ending to the game. Nobody wanted/expected the Inquisitor to deal with the Solas situation then.

You know what a bad way is? - having every single Inquisitor forced to declare that they are going to stop him.

Definitely. If they had left that out, the Inquisitor could have been open to whatever headcanon or far off mission that they deemed official.

Now, we know the Inquisitor will make an appearance (at least partly sure). We have some Inquisitors looking to redeem or stop Solas at all cost. The romantic relationship with Solas is over unless they hook back up again..ouch.

Those variables create alot of different directions instead of just straight up trying to stop him via new protagonist and Inquisitor. How do they approach it without dismissing the redeemers and romancers?

It's not impossible but when things get too messy, we are not going to get an optimal (although subjective) plot line.

[Nefla]

I agree that the Inquisitor was likely maimed because BioWare thought a "cripple" can't be a hero, protagonist, or competent fighter and no one would even want to play as someone with any kind of handicap and used the loss of the hand as a way to remove the inquisitor as the protagonist without killing them or resorting to the same old "they disappeared mysteriously" scenario. I think the statement of "oh no, we totally didn't remove the hand for that reason (but yeah we're still tossing out the inquisitor...)" was a PR statement and a reaction to unexpected backlash. I believe it as much as I believe ME3 had "16 different endings" and "wildly different conclusions." Having Solas remove just the mark would have been obvious that there was no more rift closing in their future but since they would still be fully intact many people would be expected to ask to play as the inquisitor again (as with the warden and Hawke). Removing the hand might not have been ONLY to sideline the character by making them "helpless" or what have you but I don't believe for a second that it wasn't one of the reasons they did it. Ironically the thing that was probably supposed to put me off the character was (along with the personal conflict and confrontation with Solas and the loss of power from the inquisition) what finally made them interesting to me in a way the base game never did.

[Abyss108]

I agree that the Inquisitor was likely maimed because BioWare thought a "cripple" can't be a hero, protagonist, or competent fighter and no one would even want to play as someone with any kind of handicap and used the loss of the hand as a way to remove the inquisitor as the protagonist without killing them or resorting to the same old "they disappeared mysteriously" scenario. I think the statement of "oh no, we totally didn't remove the hand for that reason (but yeah we're still tossing out the inquisitor...)" was a PR statement and a reaction to unexpected backlash. I believe it as much as I believe ME3 had "16 different endings" and "wildly different conclusions." Having Solas remove just the mark would have been obvious that there was no more rift closing in their future but since they would still be fully intact many people would be expected to ask to play as the inquisitor again (as with the warden and Hawke). Removing the hand might not have been ONLY to sideline the character by making them "helpless" or what have you but I don't believe for a second that it wasn't one of the reasons they did it. Ironically the thing that was probably supposed to put me off the character was (along with the personal conflict and confrontation with Solas and the loss of power from the inquisition) what finally made them interesting to me in a way the base game never did.

 

 

But nobody wanted the play as the Inquisitor again after the base game. There was no problem to fix with players wanting them for DA4, that problem was created with Trespasser. And if they wanted to write them out just in case that discussion suddenly popped up despite a year of not existing - why also have them declare that they are going to get involved in the plot by swearing it? 

 

Bioware didn't have to write an entire plot line where the Inquisitor found out all about Solas' plans, and it makes no sense to write that in when the entire purpose is to distance them from the plot. They had already seen the reaction to Hawke as an NPC, so that obviously wouldn't be a good idea. There was nothing that required the Inquisitor to be involved in DA4 at all. If they simply wanted to confirm that the Inquisitor wouldn't be back with an injury, they could have written literally any other plot line that ended with the Inquisitor having to remove their arm due to the mark. 

[Shechinah]

I would like to note that Trespasser has, at least, one slider  which shows the once-Inquisitor in action; in a slider, the once-Inquisitor can be seen on a roof with Sera and wearing a crossbow prosthesis. This indicates that prostheses are a thing within the setting and that a once-Inquisitor can still engage in action.

Here it can be seen;
http://3.bp.blogspot...lides_Sera2.jpg

This would be an odd thing to have if the developers intended to present the amputation as a reason for why the Inquisitor could no longer engage in action or undertake certain kinds of missions. This is one of the reasons why I question the interpretation that they originally intended to use this as the argument since, well, they'd have shot that argument in the foot in the very same dlc that they intended to use the argument in.

[Ieldra]

Ive been reading forums and comments about who the new Protagonist is going to be in 4. some want Inky to return because trespasser ends very open ended others want a new protagonist so we can have a new point of view. I think Bioware should do what some people have suggested and do a dual protagonist approach, but wont doing that take away from the NP if Inky returns and how would that work given what happen to the inquisitor at the end you might be asking. well its simple when ever we return to the base of Operations what ever it be we play as the inquisitor where we do all the war table stuff and make the big choice like do we ask the quinari or tevintars for help and anytime we leave the base we play as the NP where we can make some small choices and interact with the companions.  what do you guys think could this work?

Wouldn't work for me since I don't want the new protagonist to be subordinate to the Inquisitor. In fact, with my next protagonist I want to get as far away as possible from the religious aspect of DA.

 

Better leave the Inquisitor in the background altogether. If the Inquisitors stick to the mission and don't express any personal opinions - very much unlike Hawke in DAI, grrrr - I'm ok with them as an NPC.