1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Arttis]

It should be close to the same.

They are vastly changing the consoles to fit their respective strengths.

[In Exile]

Therumancer wrote...
 As relatively simple as it seems, testing all those spells and skills and such throughout an entire RPG probably took a LOT of time and testing. Not to mention creating player models for the various races, and of course all those origin stories, and the changes to some of the dialogue involving characters like Jowan based on how your character started.... 

I disagree strongly. The models have to be testing regardless of whether or not there will be origin or customizability; they cannot get away with having identical looking NPCs or there will be a riot (if we are building this mythological, superficial driven mass market, focused on graphics and action as their user base). Mass Effect can get away with recycled non human designs because we are looking at distinctly non-human aliens, and we can't tell them apart well as a matter of psychology. But dwarves are just short humans and elves are humans with no facial hair and pointy years. They can't recycle faces for that. So I don't see how the development cost here goes away regardless of the design philosophy.

The Origin stories themselves only had two unique settings: Highever and the different Dalish camp. All other set-pieces and characters were recycled. There was different dialogue and plot triggers based on origin, to be sure, but would be no different than in any game that stacks past decisions.

So I just don't see the costs added here, or even the quantity of labour added. Yes, Jowan has a few more lines - but that just means an IF MAGE line added to the code for the dialogue options (since you'd figure choosing the line is what triggers the NPC response, so you'd just need to limit the PC dialogue options) since recording the dialogue isn't exactly a big deal.
 

Truthfully it seems like Bioware is involved in both performing a quick cash-in, and is also becoming more corperate and trying to cater to what seems to be the most profitable group, rather than focusing on making the best RPGs it can. This bomb that is being dropped is disturbing, and it's even more disturbing that we're being told "don't talk about what you don't know" when they don't get the reaction that they were hoping for to the information.

Except this involves a lot of presumption about where the development cost in DA:O went and how dramatic the changes in DA2 will be. If they are going to rebuild the combat from stratch to make it purely action oriented say (despite the fact that they've said they will not do this, but let's suppose they do), they are suddenly faced with an engine they built ground up not designed for this. So this involves a significant cost and investment on their part.

If anything, if you are going to argue they are trying to make a quick buck and we can both agree that DA:O was well-polished at release, the impentus should be to slap something shiny on the DA:O system and just ship it as is. Designing an entirely new system would go directly against the idea of the cheapest possible thing out at the greatest possible speed.

I don't think at any point Bioware sat down and said, let's make games that are not profitable. They make a certain kind of game. Their major break beyond BGII was the contract with LucasArts to produce KoTOR. After that they made their first own IP - Jade Empire, a console only release at first. What did that have? No RPG-like combat. 3 stats. A deep story and enganging characters. The ability to only take 1 companion with you. A much shoter than usual story. Mass Effect was envisioned and developed prior to being purchased by EA.

You can make claims about some betrayal for their core principle after being acquired by EA, but I just don't see anything in Bioware's design history that ever showed they were about not making money. They very clearly want to make the most money possible while designing to their strengths. That's why they don't market gameplay or graphics - they polish both well, but they produce mediocre relative to the market products. But their stories and characters are top notch, and this is what Bioware is driving in.

Right now Bioware has a lot of irons in the fire, and i think their attitude has been changing along with their newfound "big business" abillity to simultaneously develop *TWO* single player game franchises simultaneously, while also working on a big budget, big liscence MMORPG project. Rather than the loving focus and attention to craftsmanship that made them great, I think it's becoming more about focus groups, changing based on what the most people seem to want (as opposed to staying loyal to fans) and simply having too many cooks in the kitchen. The core talent probably being split up between all the projects as opposed to all working together to make something grand.

Did KoTOR involve a betrayal of what made them great? Did NWN, which was effectively a multiplayer D&D game with a slapped on garbage and actually KoTOR II partially finished main campaign have anything to do with the "tradition" of BG II? Did JE tie into their proud tradition of making RPGs?

Look, I get that many people love the Bioware isometric RPGs. But Bioware has made 3 of them. BG/BG II and DA:O. They've had almost as many action RPG series on the console, JE/ME, and KoTOR was far more action-RPG like the console version of DA:O than anything else.

So I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Bioware very likely designs the games they want, making compromises where they feel those compromises will lead to greater profit, which makes them effectively developers. Software companies live off their release earnings before they pull out another product. Obviously Bioware now has the financial backing of EA, but the basic business model stands: their profits have to fund the next game in part, and sustain the company in the black until the next release.

Ah well, enough rambling. Not sure if anyone reads what  I am saying, but to be blunt I find this news quite disturbing. Apologies if the suppositions above upset anyone, but honestly that's how a lot of it looks from where I'm sitting. The Bioware of today does not seem to be the Bioware of a couple years ago that was first developing some of these properties. I fear we are seeing the company change, and falling into the pit that has wrecked a lot of formerly fan-favorite companies. 

It would be silly to think that EA is not involved in setting a direction for Bioware. But Bioware is independently profitable. EA will use their tremendous resources and market research to tell Bioware what features a succesful game has. But it's pretty clear they bought Bioware because they had no hand in the kind of market Bioware produces for. And honestly, right now, our market is largely a Bioware exclusive. The Fable series is market to the same group, the Witcher is, Obsidian is still barely holding on but producing games.... EA doesn't want to have Bioware design FPS because they can already do that with other assets.

There's no doubt that with a Bioware being a subsidiary, there will be influences. But Bioware, IMO, will keep the core of what they think is important to how they design games. I just don't think they see the same thing as important as some of their fans. And if their development history is any indication, that has nothing to do with being owned by EA.

Was JE or KoTOR RPG-like from a gameplay standpoint? ME, which introduced the dreaded voiced PC for RPGs, was entirely Bioware's idea, prior to being a subsidiary. These are both sorepoints for the DA board, but I just don't see how Bioware didn't make decisions to head in this direction alone.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juillet 2010 - 07:45 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Therumancer wrote...
 No matter what they wind up spending on the new Dragon Age, consider that it's still a project that is being kicked out a year after the original. That means less time is being spent on it any way you slice it. From where I sit it's not terribly surprising that the game is being simplified and dumbed down (or so it seems by the comments) simply because of the time involved. Paying the better part of a hundred million dollars to a bunch of programmers doesn't change the fact that they are still developing the game in about a year's time after the first one.  [/quote]

But DA is a finished product. They aren't building the engine from scratch. You could very well accuse them of wanting to take the franchise in a different direction because they quite clearly seem to want to do this, but it just seem absurd to say it is because they want to spend less.

As of right now, they have to create the combat system from the ground up if it will be action oriented. To "dumb it down" (and man, can you not appreciate how incredibly insult you are when you say this? just outright insult an entire user base for liking a particular kind of game as being stupid?) would mean a redesign, which is exactly what a snake-oil salesman would not want to do.

[quote]Oh and one final note, people are always talking about Voice Actors and how expensive they are. While not as into it as I used to be, back when I was on a major Anime kick, I read a lot of interviews and such with people who did voice acting for animation, both in the US and abroad. They apparently don't get paid all that much, unless some major celebrity is being hired. Not too long ago I was reading something about one actress, I think it might have been Michelle Ruff, and what she wound up making for her work, and doing hours of dialogue for games. If it was her, she's the Voice Actress who does "Etna" (among other things) for various JRPGs, having done that voice in a pretty major role for games like the Disgaea titles (except the first one), Cross Edge, and Trinity Universe... especially when it comes to the latter these were not AAA titles, and from what I was reading she certainly doesn't seem like she's demanding millions or driving a Ferrari around.....[/quote]

I would think the cost is associated with implement the VO in game, QA, the studio-space and the equipment needed, etc. Not to say that you might not be right, but there is a lot greater cost involved than just the actors. I'm assuming there's a director involved that needs to be paid for the actors. Not to mention that anime quality VO is, well, vomit inspiring to say the least, and Bioware tends to have much better VO than, say, a final fantasy game.

And let's say a game has 50 voice actors. If you pay them just 10k each, that's 500k. That's a fairly substantial amount of money only on the voice talent, and that doesn't include the investment in

[quote]The point about voice actors being that the full voicing of games is something frequently mentioned as substantially increasing the cost from paying all these expensive voice actors. Something that does not appear to be true, unless certain companies have done a very bad job in looking. The point both being related to earlier points about there being no excuse for not having multiple voice actors doing the script and being selectable as part of character selection, but also because, again it comes down to budget not being indicative of quality and the fact that the money doesn't seem to be going where a lot of people think it does... which is why you have guys like Kotick fighting with what was once Infinity Ward over the distribution of what seemed to be the majority of the budget to the general programmers and their supervisors and such (not to mention the big bosses who were calling the shots and most notably left). [/quote]

But it seems absurd to say that the cost of VO would only be the cost of paying the VA, instead of the cost of the studio to record, the programmers to program, the QA to QA, and so on. Plus there may well be further manipulation done on the recordings themselves to smooth out the sound which may cost some.

None of which is to say that you aren't right that the cost are being overstated, but simply making it about how much the actors are paid seems to be oversimplifying.

 




 
 







[/quote]

[Pocketgb]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, yeah. But if enemies don't attack tanks, then tanks are worthless and we have to build everybody for DPS.

Right, and it leads to bad and boring design. What a tank needs to be is an unappealing target to attack while having tools to prevent allies from being attacked. DA:O was doing pretty well in this regard until they implemented mechanics which encourage or enforce people to attack the tank.

[In Exile]

Pocketgb wrote...

Right, and it leads to bad and boring design. What a tank needs to be is an unappealing target to attack while having tools to prevent allies from being attacked. DA:O was doing pretty well in this regard until they implemented mechanics which encourage or enforce people to attack the tank.

What do you mean?  Short of drawing attention away from the squshy members of the party, what can a tank do?

[17thknight]

Quoting this from a just-closed thread beacuse it's an excellent post and deserves to live on.
[quote]Davasar wrote...


From MerlinTB....

Pulling from what I quoted before:

"give Dragon Age a shot of adrenaline (effectively) amping up everything that
maybe was a little lacking" - Mark Darrah
"just as Commander Shepard provides a compelling anchor for the Mass Effect series, the Champion
of Kirkwall will be..." - Joe Juba
"how hard it is to work initially  on PC and then convert the game back to console ... (i)n the case of
Dragon Age II ...we're definitely ensuring the features we put in work  well on console ... because it is typically much easier to convert them back to PC." - Ray Muzyka.
GI: Has Bioware's success with the Mass Effect series affected the studio's approach to Dragon Age?
Greg  Zeschuk: ... it's fair to say that Mass Effect has had an influence on
Dragon Age.

The rest of the GI article is chock full of references to ME this and ME that, as well as repeatedly referring to "classic RPG elements" as being "dated" and "needing replacement" while  constantly referring to ME.

You. Play. Connect. The. Dots.


From
Therumancer...

Truthfully
it seems like Bioware is involved in both performing a quick cash-in,
and is also becoming more corperate and trying to cater to what seems to
be the most profitable group, rather than focusing on making the best
RPGs it can. This bomb that is being dropped is disturbing, and it's even more disturbing that we're
being told "don't talk about what you don't know" when they don't get
the reaction that they were hoping for to the information.



Ahh
except we are reacting to what we DO know.   You are spot on
Therumancer.  The quotes above point that out, unless they are lying and
we shouldnt believe things they say?


Which is it?  Reacting
in a fashion they dont like to news and quotes from Bioware themselves
(and then Bioware getting mad about it), or not believing things they
say because they are lying?

Not pointing fingers, I just want to
know which way to react.

Modifié par 17thknight, 19 juillet 2010 - 08:26 .

[Terror_K]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It almost seems to me that most of the talent has gone to SWTOR or something. Seems to be the only BioWare game since DAO that has good things about it, is staying true to its source material

Out of curiosity, how can DA2 not remain true to the source material?

David Gaider (and the rest of the writing team) is the source material. It's entirely their world. They're still writing it so I don't comprehend how it could possibly stray from their desire as the creators of the story...

Darkspawn don't even look like darkspawn any more. That alone just gives the whole thing a "retooled by the network" vibe to me. Seems to be Bethesda did a better job of sticking to the Fallout lore than BioWare are with their own IP. And given that they've said they'll just readily change anything up to suit their whimsy doesn't give me much hope. How can I get into a series that won't even stay consistent within itself? Where the things I like can just change and be thrown out the window and replaced with any random thing with no logical reason? Any IP needs a certain consistency and familiarity to it or it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else entirely. There are books for DA, a comic series and an upcoming anime film amongst other things... how are we supposed to embrace these things when what they are is likely just tossed aside and replaced by this new entity that claims to be Dragon Age now?

[AlanC9]

17thknight wrote...

You only read that one little sinppet of his entire post and then responded? Read the whole thing, he makes many many EXCELLENT points.

You focused like a laser on what is literally the most irrelevant remark in the whole post and ignored his numerous, excellent points.

It was the only part of the post I had anything to comment on. 

I wasn't especially impressed by any of it, though. And In Exile was thoughtful enough to handle the substance for me.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2010 - 08:33 .

[UltraBoy360]

Terror_K wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It almost seems to me that most of the talent has gone to SWTOR or something. Seems to be the only BioWare game since DAO that has good things about it, is staying true to its source material

Out of curiosity, how can DA2 not remain true to the source material?

David Gaider (and the rest of the writing team) is the source material. It's entirely their world. They're still writing it so I don't comprehend how it could possibly stray from their desire as the creators of the story...

Darkspawn don't even look like darkspawn any more. That alone just gives the whole thing a "retooled by the network" vibe to me. Seems to be Bethesda did a better job of sticking to the Fallout lore than BioWare are with their own IP. And given that they've said they'll just readily change anything up to suit their whimsy doesn't give me much hope. How can I get into a series that won't even stay consistent within itself? Where the things I like can just change and be thrown out the window and replaced with any random thing with no logical reason? Any IP needs a certain consistency and familiarity to it or it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else entirely. There are books for DA, a comic series and an upcoming anime film amongst other things... how are we supposed to embrace these things when what they are is likely just tossed aside and replaced by this new entity that claims to be Dragon Age now?

The Darkspawn look a bit different due to the new art style, which I am also not a fan of at this stage, but these are the first screen shots at a pretty early development point. If art style consistancy is what you are talking about when you talk about betrayal of the source material, yeah, you could be in trouble. If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons?

To me the source material is all about the continuity, lore and story. None of which have been touched on enough to pull apart yet.

[UltraBoy360]

AlanC9 wrote...

17thknight wrote...

You only read that one little sinppet of his entire post and then responded? Read the whole thing, he makes many many EXCELLENT points.

You focused like a laser on what is literally the most irrelevant remark in the whole post and ignored his numerous, excellent points.

It was the only part of the post I had anything to comment on. 

I wasn't especially impressed by any of it, though. And In Exile was thoughtful enough to handle the substance for me.

Word. In Exile's post rocked. I am so so tired of the ultra-condescending 'dumbed down' accusation. As if grinding xp into a DPS rouge is frigging string theory. Jesus.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
I don't think at any point Bioware sat down and said, let's make games that are not profitable. They make a certain kind of game. Their major break beyond BGII was the contract with LucasArts to produce KoTOR. After that they made their first own IP - Jade Empire, a console only release at first. What did that have? No RPG-like combat. 3 stats. A deep story and enganging characters. The ability to only take 1 companion with you. A much shoter than usual story. Mass Effect was envisioned and developed prior to being purchased by EA.

You can make claims about some betrayal for their core principle after being acquired by EA, but I just don't see anything in Bioware's design history that ever showed they were about not making money. They very clearly want to make the most money possible while designing to their strengths. That's why they don't market gameplay or graphics - they polish both well, but they produce mediocre relative to the market products. But their stories and characters are top notch, and this is what Bioware is driving in.

One of the funny things about Bio's relationship with their fans is that I think Bio's accidentally ended up with a lot of fans who don't really agree with Bio about what RPGs are or what they ought to be. Ever since BG1 hit it's obvious that Bio wants a mass audience and thinks that RPGs done right can win that mass audience. Meanwhile, a lot of CRPG fans... well, let me quote that Gamasutra history:

There was a point in gaming history when the CRPG was viewed as the “hard” genre; the genre that required the largest investment in time and energy but which offered the greatest rewards. These were games for the “hardcore,” the computer geek who was proud of her esoteric knowledge and superior intelligence.

Which is kind of hard to reconcile with mass appeal.

By pitching DAO as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" Bio accidentally brought this conflict into the open. A lot of self-described BG fans seems to think of of BG as "a great game of the type that nobody wants to make anymore because it's a niche market." But Bio's never seen RPGs as a niche, because their games have always been mass-market successes. Unless JE failed; I don't remember the sales figures.

[AlanC9]

UltraBoy360 wrote...
 If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons? 

Not to mention ENT's retcon of the whole mess.....

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Darkspawn don't even look like darkspawn any more. That alone just gives the whole thing a "retooled by the network" vibe to me

Then you believe they're lying when they say that they hired back one of their old people as an art director and just liked where he wanted to take the look? From the Eurogamer interview:

Eurogamer: You revealed Dragon Age 2 recently. The art style has changed and you now play a pre-determined hero. Why have you decided to make those changes?


Dr. Greg Zeschuk: It's a weird way to say it, but part of it's the passion of the team. The art style example is an interesting one. We changed art directors. The art director on Dragon Age 2 is the same guy who was the art director on Jade Empire. He worked somewhere else for a while then he came back. He's a fan of our stuff, but he also has his own ideas on how to take it.There was some commentary that Dragon Age could have been more visually unique. We said, 'Okay! You want visually unique? Here's visually unique.' It's usually a combination of things that drives our decision-making. It's not like we're designed by committee. Nor are we beholden to fan and press feedback. But we really do look at all that stuff.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:07 .

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Right, and it leads to bad and boring design. What a tank needs to be is an unappealing target to attack while having tools to prevent allies from being attacked. DA:O was doing pretty well in this regard until they implemented mechanics which encourage or enforce people to attack the tank.

What do you mean?  Short of drawing attention away from the squshy members of the party, what can a tank do?

Not to put words in his mouth, but to me Taunt is a problem in DA:O.  It does too much too well, doesn't scale, and isn't particularly interesting.  You press the button and everything attacks you until it dies.  Tanking/aggro can be a fun minigame, but it was poorly implemented in Dragon Age.

Modifié par soteria, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:08 .

[UltraBoy360]

AlanC9 wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...
 If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons? 

Not to mention ENT's retcon of the whole mess.....

Ha! I didn't want to reveal my Star Trek knowledge went that deep

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
Not to put words in his mouth, but to me Taunt is a problem in DA:O.  It does too much too well, doesn't scale, and isn't particularly interesting.  You press the button and everything attacks you until it dies.  Tanking/aggro can be a fun minigame, but it was poorly implemented in Dragon Age.

Haha. I just never used the ability. I'm pretty sure I didn't even select it until I ran out of possible skills for my warrior and didn't want to invest in another weapon tree. I never played MMOs, so I just don't have aggro or it being useful. Warriors are hard to kill and not squishy, and I control crowds with stunning attacks like war cry, or mass paralyze, or dog's stunning howl, etc.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
One of the funny things about Bio's relationship with their fans is that I think Bio's accidentally ended up with a lot of fans who don't really agree with Bio about what RPGs are or what they ought to be. Ever since BG1 hit it's obvious that Bio wants a mass audience and thinks that RPGs done right can win that mass audience. Meanwhile, a lot of CRPG fans... well, let me quote that Gamasutra history:

There was a point in gaming history when the CRPG was viewed as the “hard” genre; the genre that required the largest investment in time and energy but which offered the greatest rewards. These were games for the “hardcore,” the computer geek who was proud of her esoteric knowledge and superior intelligence.

Which is kind of hard to reconcile with mass appeal.

By pitching DAO as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" Bio accidentally brought this conflict into the open. A lot of self-described BG fans seems to think of of BG as "a great game of the type that nobody wants to make anymore because it's a niche market." But Bio's never seen RPGs as a niche, because their games have always been mass-market successes. Unless JE failed; I don't remember the sales figures.

JE did well as I recall (it wasn't a flop like Alpha Protocol or anything) but it wasn't succesful enough to warrant a sequel, and was less succesful than KoTOR by a ton. Bioware had leeway from KoTOR to run off on their own IP, I think, and they lad a letdown. Mass Effect and DA:O were their big investments then, and a lot was riding on ME. since they needed a breakthrough IP. It puts why they're riding its features into perspective. Or so I think, at any rate,

But seriously, that cRPG website actually says superior intelligence? Seriously? I mean, I accuse people of secretly hiding a sense of superiority, but out and out like that....

[soteria]

But seriously, that cRPG website actually says superior intelligence? Seriously? I mean, I accuse people of secretly hiding a sense of superiority, but out and out like that....

Just because they're saying a geek was proud of her superior intelligence doesn't mean they were actually saying RPG players are smarter. But yeah, there's definitely a superiority complex there. Of course, other people seem to consider us basement-dwelling virgins, which is unfair and untrue--my house doesn't even have a basement.

[wikkedjoker]

Well I can say with some certainty that Dragon Age 2 is being told to someone, or part of it is.
“Verric: A dworf who acts as a narrator.” Seems to be part of our party. Which would make since if you look at the way they are telling the story.

I’m going to quote a post I made in another thread, about Morrigan being the main character, and not our Warden. Dragon  Age 2 seems to be carrying on with that in the plot, form what I can infer at least. With Flemeth being a large part of the story. Look at the marketing Morrigan got for Origins, and look at the marketing Flemeth is getting . I will admit its only a guess, BUT I would say a very informed guess.

It makes sense that Morrigan would return, after all she is the main
character, and really when you think about it does that surprise anyone?

 
Look at the facts

*The Battle at Ostagar is botched,
and Flemeth saves you.
*Femith than tells you to take Morrigan with
you, as the price for her saving your life.  
*Over all Morrigan has a
great deal more character development. Going form scared child in a
woman’s body, mentally. To coming into her own, and learning to trust
the rag tag band of heroes assembled.
Even to the point of falling
in love with the Warden.
And if you remember what her mother teaching
of what love is, than you know that was a big step for her to pull away
form that, and open up to the warden and fall into a fulfilling love.

But
than she does fall in love with the Warden, she was only originally
been sent there to have his child, and have that child be the host for
the Old Gods soul.

Her and the Warden  conceive a child, and she
does her job thinking she is saving the man she loves life. But really
she’s just a pawn for Flemeth.

However it seems that Morrigan,
knows more about the “God Child” than she lets on. Probably based off
something Flemeth told her, something along the lines that it’s
dangerous, or could be. So for the safety of the people she cares about
she leaves Ferelden.

But this is probably what Flemeth wants.

Do
you honestly believe that someone as old and wise and as powerful as
Flemeth would be killed as easy as she was? Think about what it took to
kill the Archdemon, I would imagine it wouldn‘t be that hard, but not as
easy as it was.

Anyways  this is when we get to DA2.

The
start Dragon Age 2 takes place, just before the final battle, so in the
first year of DA2 we know our Warden is in  Denerim and Amaranthine

However
Hawke was making his was to Kurkwall, or more likely the Free Marches.
On his way there its likely that Flemeth, not the old hag we know, but
the young beautiful woman we have seen in the concept art, saves his
life form Hurlocks. The two team up, after all Hawke also has a Mage
sister he needs to protect. My guess is they want to go as far North as
they can, to someplace controlled by the Tevinter Imperium. Flemeth of
course is not in anyway a good person, and is plotting. Her plot all
along was to eventually create a “God Child”. to what end we don’t know.
but I can guess.

On a side note it would be interesting to see
just how far this plot goes.  We know that three is something off with
the Architect for some unknown reason he was born different. We also
know that he was able to find Urthemiel, faster than what he should
have. I wonder just how much influence Flemeth had in this? Maybe she
created the Arhitect and, sent him on his way to find the Old God
faster, to start the Blight in the life time of Morrigan, so Morrigan
could conceive the “God Child.”

So in DA2 Morrigan is on the
run, and has probably already had the “God Child.” Well what better way
to find someone than to have entire nations looking for her, and if they
believe this child could start the next Blight or something like that,
because it has the soul of an Old God, and there is reason enough to
believe that it would be powerful.

However there is no reason to
believe that Morrigan is utterly stupid, and it wouldn’t be unrealistic
to believe that she has ether been given power by the Old God to
protect its undeveloped child body, or that the child her self is in
full control of her God power, enough power to fake the return of 
Andraste, and raise a cult like army.  One that would take the resources
of 10 years to find and combat.

I don’t think that this is
Hawke’s story. I think we will see the story of a man being used by
Flemeth to achieve her ultimate goal, a goal that if I had to guess
would be the power of the God child, ether though its body or
Morrigan/Morrigan’s body.

I think we will see a sneaky villain
in the guise of our “friend” Flemeth. As she manipulates us in to
creating a new world, maybe by using our sister who is a mage as bate so
to say. Or manipulating us through romance so that we would do what
ever  it takes to create a world in which out mage sister and lover
could be safe. Ultimately however it’s only a ploy to use us to find and
get Morrigan    

As we see form events in Origins its fully possible that Flemeth is/ has been setting this up. If the story is in fact a narration, than everything changed makes sense. I have a feeling, and its just a guess that Verric is talking to our Warden, telling him about the this story.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the title screen fades and it opens in a seedy looking pub, the camera move through the crowd , and you hear the noise of the full Pub, music, people talking, and than over that Verric’s voice  chimes in. He’s a Dworf, so its low an husky, but strong it carries weight. You see a figure in armor, possibly covered in a hood to keep the mystery of who he/she is. Verric opens up the story starting in Lothering, with Hawke and his sister’s escape, and looking down on what could be there very death, only to be saved by a beautiful woman. . . Named Flemeth. . . .

Modifié par wikkedjoker, 19 juillet 2010 - 10:23 .

[Terror_K]

UltraBoy360 wrote...

If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons?

That's a bit different, because the original klingons came from a lack of budget and make-up expertise at the time. And, yes, Enterprise's take on that was awful, but then Enterprise was horrible and constantly ruining Star Trek throughout. Worf's little comments in DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" brought a smile to my face though and I thought it should have been left at that.

In either case, DAO's original art design certainly didn't suffer budget and technology constraints. Part of DAO's appeal was its look and feel and that seems to have gone out the window now entirely. As I said before, I'm glad I hadn't invested in the IP as a fan as much as I had Mass Effect, because otherwise I'd be selling a lot of stuff and feeling even more put out. Mass Effect is probably even more visually defined by its artistic style than DAO is after all. Both I feel are games that were just as defined by their artistic nature as they were by their lore and setting. If the ME people suddenly said, "Y'know... from now on all asari are going to have long green hair instead of head fronds and all salarians are going to have hammerhead shark eyes" would that seem right to you? It's the same thing here as far as I'm concerned. DAO's visual style, to me, is part of what defines it. And now that's just thrown out the window for a completely new approach.

And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 juillet 2010 - 10:21 .

[wikkedjoker]

Modifié par wikkedjoker, 19 juillet 2010 - 10:21 .

[wikkedjoker]

Terror_K wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...

If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons?

That's a bit different, because the original klingons came from a lack of budget and make-up expertise at the time. And, yes, Enterprise's take on that was awful, but then Enterprise was horrible and constantly ruining Star Trek throughout. Worf's little comments in DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" brought a smile to my face though and I thought it should have been left at that.

In either case, DAO's original art design certainly didn't suffer budget and technology constraints. Part of DAO's appeal was its look and feel and that seems to have gone out the window now entirely. As I said before, I'm glad I hadn't invested in the IP as a fan as much as I had Mass Effect, because otherwise I'd be selling a lot of stuff and feeling even more put out. Mass Effect is probably even more visually defined by its artistic style than DAO is after all. Both I feel are games that were just as defined by their artistic nature as they were by their lore and setting. If the ME people suddenly said, "Y'know... from now on all asari are going to have long green hair instead of head fronds and all salarians are going to have hammerhead shark eyes" would that seem right to you? It's the same thing here as far as I'm concerned. DAO's visual style, to me, is part of what defines it. And now that's just thrown out the window for a completely new approach.

And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Oh but if I'm right,and the story is being told to us by this Varric
guy, than the art changing would sort of fit.Because we are seeing it though his eyes, and its  being changed based on memory, and exaggeration.

[Arrtis]

Like Leliana's Song was not accurate to what she says.

[wikkedjoker]

Arrtis wrote...

Like Leliana's Song was not accurate to what she says.

Exactly. It almost seemed like she was telling the story to the Warden, again that can be taken as is because technically we are the Warden.

[Terror_K]

But that would only fit if the art design changes ONLY for this game and then goes back to the DAO style for future ones. In which case, why change the style at all?