I'm only at the start of act 3 so maybe something at the end makes the 6 years in Kirkwall relevant, but at the moment I am wondering why they say 3 years and not 3 months. Would it really be that different?
A few months is enough time for things like buying a mansion and frankly 3 months is more believable when talking about the Qunari hanging around or having no new leader for the city. 3 years just seems like too long and stretches the believeability of the it for me. Not just the Qunari and having no Viscount, but also Varric living in the pub and Anders and my Hawke living together but not progressing further, stuff like that.
My main question is: does the "10 year narrative" serve a purpose other than making the game sound more epic?
If every time it says 3 years it actually said 3 months would it be that different?
Débuté par
StingingVelvet
, mars 17 2011 11:34
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 17 mars 2011 - 11:37
Icy Magebane
-
- Members
- 7 317 messages
It would be more logical. Hell, I would go so far as to say 3 weeks after the Deep Roads, 3 months of Qunari occupation, and maybe another 3-4 weeks after the Viscount's death. Nobody sits around for 3 years and earns no money at all, which is basically what Hawke wound up doing... I totally agree with you.
