[DAV ACT 1 SPOILERS] The conversation that solidified my disappointment in DAV's writing.

Quick preface: I'm only going to talk about the first few hours of DAV and a bit about conversations you can have with Solas in Inquisition.

I'm a huge DA fan, I've played each game more times than I can count, made every variation of decision possible and talked to every NPC that had even a snippet of information or lore. I personally really loved Inquisition (though I know it's quite divisive as a game) mostly for the characters and companions. I especially loved Solas, as he seemed enigmatic and wise but had some very glaring philosophical short comings that made him nuanced.

In the beginning I thought he was going to be a boring standard 'lawful good' type wise character; however one conversation in particular changed my mind. Specifically his stance on blood magic where, in summary, he stated that 'magic is magic' and blood magic was a tool that can be used improperly by evil people with the implication that it wasn't itself inherently evil. It gave me insight into his more utilitarian views, and was a nice surprise as I was expecting a long lecture about why blood magic is evil etc. etc. Beyond this, his temperament - while he was in our party - was on the quieter side. He was never a grand stander. Even in trespasser when we meet him again, he holds himself in sad resignation and quiet resolve.

Then DAV roles up. Solas seems to be a totally different person. He appears more one dimensional. He talks melodramatically and his temperament seems to now be of determination. It practically feels like he's on the verge of yelling 'GLORY' out loud. We disrupt the ritual and Solas gets trapped in the fade but can use our blood to access our dreams and communicate. And he says one line which just made my heart sink.

'I abhor blood magic'.

In this moment I felt like the writers had just undone a huge facet of what had made Solas, Solas, (also damn how do commas work. English makes no sense) for me. They turned him into exactly the thing that I assumed he would be in Inquisition - a goody goody (Except now I guess he's a baddy baddy with 'morals'). I assume the writers did this to make him appear more moral despite being the antagonist, to make us feel like he wasn't all bad etc. but with his new temperament it made him (at least to me) feel more one dimensional and melodramatic.

This conversation kind of sums up how I feel about everything in this game that draws from the past ones. Old characters (as a side note Harding felt so different to me personally that I honestly felt like they simply weren't the same characters) don't feel or act like they used to, and new ones don't act the way I've grown to expect based on past games. Ultimately I feel a little disappointed about the writing direction as it kind of feels to me like the past games were mostly disregarded.

I haven't finished the game yet, but I am hoping it picks up in quality as it goes on. Anyways. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.