232 réponses à ce sujet

[Seagloom]

Maybe a little? It feels like it based on the advertising. Origins felt like it nudged me toward human noble. I still preferred playing a mage in that game because it's my favorite class in any fantasy RPG. I will gladly play a mage whether or not DA2 nudges me in that direction. That it feels like the plot might be slightly mage skewed makes me excited. That's rarely the case in fantasy RPGs.

Modifié par Seagloom, 06 octobre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Lumikki]

Riona45 wrote...

Mary's point was that you are a part of it whether you play a mage or not, because your sister is an apostate mage.

Yeah, but because "my" sister is apostate, doens't mean I have to be apostate, does it?
So, the question, is player mage also forced to be apostate because story? Meaning do we have any choise?

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 10:58 .

[Icinix]

 I feel more like we're being pushed to play a human character.
...hang on.  

I imagine the mage push is more because the majority of players in DA:O played as rogues or warriors.  (I have zero of anything to base that on, but what you going to do?)
So they're showing people how cool mages can be and what kind of awesomeness can be unleashed when you make yourself bleed.

[Lord Gremlin]

I always play as a mage so I don't feel pushed.

[Seagloom]

Ages back one of the devs posted rough statistics on this. If memory serves 50% of players went warrior with 25% each for rogue and mage. I expect the writers' decisions are based on more than statistics though.

[Skellimancer]

 Filthy munchkin mages need to be put back in the tower!

*betrays family*

[Rhayth]

I never feel marketing ploys my first origin was city elf as its description seemed eventful, second was dwarf noble which has become tied for favorite origin. In DA2 I plan to start as a warrior as I like the idea of being the middle ground between my families great mage history and his religion. I think being a mage might make whatever decision of mage vs chantry one sided.



BTW being a Templar would make for some interesting story.

[Marionetten]

Canon Hawke is obviously a mage so yes there is definitely a push.



Not that I see the big issue as you were pushed to play a Cousland in Origins. I felt entirely disconnected from that game while playing a mage.

[Milky Way]

Lumikki wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Mary's point was that you are a part of it whether you play a mage or not, because your sister is an apostate mage.

Yeah, but because "my" sister is apostate, doens't mean I have to be apostate, does it?
So, the question, is player mage also forced to be apostate because story? Meaning do we have any choise?

In Origins you were forced to be a Grey Warden. You could not avoid the Blight. In DA2, if you choose to be a player mage, you are considered an apostate because you're outside of the Chantry's jurisdiction. You cannot avoid the Chantry/Templar conflict. It's not so different, is it?

And why wouldn't you want to be an apostate? You would otherwise be stuck in the Circle under the Templars or be a Grey Warden again.

[svenus97]

I always play mages, so they can push ME as much as they want

[Xewaka]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I wouldn't say you're Forced to have 3 mages. I generally only have 1, Wynne, for healing, and not much else. She'll throw an occasional cone of cold in a couple of the actual difficult encounters in the game, but seriously some of you are totally exaggerating when you say you need a party of all mages to effectively go through the game. It's just not so.

My first run I had a main rogue, Two warriors, and Wynne. It took ages to get anything done. And the Archdemon final battle was a pain in the ass without a ranged party.
My second run I had a main warrior, Leliana for lockpicking, and Wynne and Morrigan tag-teaming on AoE effects. Most combats took about half the time and I had less friendly casualties (I believe I had maybe two knockouts in the whole run).
By "effectively go through" I don't mean only "finishing the game". I mean "finishing the game with a minimum amount of friendly casualties and maximizing combat effectiveness of the party and micromanaging". A properly built and optimized party in DA:O required two mages minimum to avoid combat feeling like a grind. That's what I don't like about it. And that's why I hope that with the "shuffling" gone I may be able to use melee classes effectively. Still, I'll need a mage because Bioware took away my Cleric class and tucked it into mages (yet another reason to hate them).

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 octobre 2010 - 11:52 .

[Bobad]

Well I feel more compelled to play as a mage given the trailer and what has been said so far, whether that entails being more interested & intrigued with the class this time round or being "pushed" is entirely subjective.

[Felfenix]

As opposed to DAO "pushing" human noble warrior? Or ME pushing soldier? Or everything pushing a male hero?

[J-Reyno]

Riona45 wrote...

I think the "importance" of the HN origin in DA:O--in relation to the other origins--is way overstated, and is usually advocated by people who are (surprise!) fans of that origin.

You don't have to be a fan to see how HN had greater compatibility with the storyline's plot.  

So yeah, to the OP, I also feel a little "urged" to play a mage.  It seems like that's going to be the de facto canon class for DA2, but we will see.

[Rhayth]

Well how could the HN not be as important thats the perk of being HN...just like DN was well known in Orzammar.

[Pzykozis]

No.

[errant_knight]

Felfenix wrote...

As opposed to DAO "pushing" human noble warrior? Or ME pushing soldier? Or everything pushing a male hero?

Can't speak for ME, because I don't play it, but I never felt that DA:O pushed the HN warrior. It's my personal favorite choice, but most people seem to play rogues or mages. And I really never felt that playing as a male was pushed even slightly. DA:O was one of the few games that I've encountered here I've played a female, actually, because she came across like a warrior, and not a striper with a sword. Often, females are portrayed so irritatingly that I can't stand to play them. And the fact that she was female was well integrated into the story line.

[Avissel]

[quote]Mary Kirby wrote...

[/quote]

 You just watch a cinematic of Hawke crying in a corner, excluded by the cruel, cruel world.

[/quote]

So how much would it cost to get the guys who make the cinematic trailiers to wipe that up and put in on the Collectoers Edition disk?

[errant_knight]

Xewaka wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I wouldn't say you're Forced to have 3 mages. I generally only have 1, Wynne, for healing, and not much else. She'll throw an occasional cone of cold in a couple of the actual difficult encounters in the game, but seriously some of you are totally exaggerating when you say you need a party of all mages to effectively go through the game. It's just not so.

My first run I had a main rogue, Two warriors, and Wynne. It took ages to get anything done. And the Archdemon final battle was a pain in the ass without a ranged party.
My second run I had a main warrior, Leliana for lockpicking, and Wynne and Morrigan tag-teaming on AoE effects. Most combats took about half the time and I had less friendly casualties (I believe I had maybe two knockouts in the whole run).
By "effectively go through" I don't mean only "finishing the game". I mean "finishing the game with a minimum amount of friendly casualties and maximizing combat effectiveness of the party and micromanaging". A properly built and optimized party in DA:O required two mages minimum to avoid combat feeling like a grind. That's what I don't like about it. And that's why I hope that with the "shuffling" gone I may be able to use melee classes effectively. Still, I'll need a mage because Bioware took away my Cleric class and tucked it into mages (yet another reason to hate them).

It depends on what you mean by 'grind.' I found it not challenging enough with two mages, even on nightmare, and so rarely used it--only if I had no health or lyrium potions for some reason. I don't play a mage, but given how much easier having two makes the game, I'd think that three would remove any challenge what so ever.

[Herr Uhl]

errant_knight wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

As opposed to DAO "pushing" human noble warrior? Or ME pushing soldier? Or everything pushing a male hero?

Can't speak for ME, because I don't play it, but I never felt that DA:O pushed the HN warrior. It's my personal favorite choice, but most people seem to play rogues or mages. And I really never felt that playing as a male was pushed even slightly. DA:O was one of the few games that I've encountered here I've played a female, actually, because she came across like a warrior, and not a striper with a sword. Often, females are portrayed so irritatingly that I can't stand to play them. And the fact that she was female was well integrated into the story line.

I think it was mainly the marketing that was meant by that. The warden in the trailers was a human noble warrior.

[Lumikki]

TriggerWolves wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Mary's point was that you are a part of it whether you play a mage or not, because your sister is an apostate mage.

Yeah, but because "my" sister is apostate, doens't mean I have to be apostate, does it?
So, the question, is player mage also forced to be apostate because story? Meaning do we have any choise?

In Origins you were forced to be a Grey Warden. You could not avoid the Blight. In DA2, if you choose to be a player mage, you are considered an apostate because you're outside of the Chantry's jurisdiction. You cannot avoid the Chantry/Templar conflict. It's not so different, is it?

And why wouldn't you want to be an apostate? You would otherwise be stuck in the Circle under the Templars or be a Grey Warden again.

Forced to be Warden did not force me to be agaist or behave Chantry as been outlaw or lawfull. Why would I want to be apostate?