585 réponses à ce sujet

[Slayer299]

HawkeN7x wrote...

i agree with the OP. his posts are fact imho. too many bash DA2

The OP's claims of 'fact' are about as real as mine that I'm secretly the heir to the throne of Asgard

But to the OP's list of things;

1. Ordering items from Walmart.com does not make a better crafting system. If I or (any of my party) isn't doing the crafting or even a specific person I'm going to then Hawke is using the Theadas version of the Internet to get his runes/potions/poisons.
2. It's Raining Men - Men in plate-mail armor falling from the open sky or a ceiling is not a combat improvement, nor is the endless repeat of waves in *every* combat.
3. Virtually *every* game and story borrows from *other* stories or mythology or even *gasp* other game ideas!! It was pretty clear that LoTR was *an* inspiration for ideas in DAO, but to baldly claim that the entire plot of DAO is a rip-off of the LoTR is just ludicris.
4. After 7 years in Kirkwall, and having known most of your companions for 6 what exactly do you know about them, really?
a. Izzy likes to sleep around, gets STD's she has treated at Anders clinic, she 'likes big boats' and she has commitment issues.
b. Varric - well, we actually "know" stuff about him, which is a credit for good writing on his character at least.
c. Anders - not more than just hates Templars and misses Ser Pounce-a-Lot.

Do we know what Izzy calls her favorite dagger or if she's given it a name? Does she actually have someplace she stays at or does she sleep at the bar? We see the NPC's dealing with *each other* but *Hawke* does not interact with them. Why does Fenris *not* move the dead bodies in the mansion after 6 years? Where is Aveline/Donnic's mansion and where were we during the mansion warming or even the bachlor/bachlorette party? To name a few off-hand.

5. The 'personal' story of DA2 was an interesting idea poorly implemented in 2 parts and filled with too many pointless side quests that did not add anything to the overall stories of Q v C in Act 2 or M v T in Act 3. The ending act allowed no player decisions to make any impact on the ending and the OTT end game behaviour of the two bosses made ZERO sense when placed against what little we did see of those two in Act 3. 

You can say what you want, but if you actually go over to the registered users criticism thread and try posting this nonsense they'd laugh you out the door as no-one but a blind sheep herder would believe it.

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...

I am not sayin the lore is comaprable to the LOTR however, elements of the main plot in DAO are comparable too much so to simply ignore. You cannot deny the Ostagar was inspired and similiar (not the same, similiar) to Osgilith of ROTK.

A fanatsy story should offer something fresh and new, and outside of some of the side plots, DAO just doesn't do that while its peers like The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer did.

Wait, Osgiliath and not Helm's Deep?  Because they both start with O?  LOL  I can and do deny it.  You're full of crap.

If you're going to criticize Origins for ripping off another story, why not point to the story the writers have actually said inspired it, i.e. A Song of Ice and Fire?  Let me help:  See, there's this king who dies, leaving the kingdom in turmoil... meanwhile there's an order of ruffian warriors who renounce kin and title and take vows to fight an ancient evil, but no one believes the threat is real...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Wait, Osgiliath and not Helm's Deep?  Because they both start with O?  LOL  I can and do deny it.  You're full of crap.

:happy:

[txgoldrush]

Addai67 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I am not sayin the lore is comaprable to the LOTR however, elements of the main plot in DAO are comparable too much so to simply ignore. You cannot deny the Ostagar was inspired and similiar (not the same, similiar) to Osgilith of ROTK.

A fanatsy story should offer something fresh and new, and outside of some of the side plots, DAO just doesn't do that while its peers like The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer did.

Wait, Osgiliath and not Helm's Deep?  Because they both start with O?  LOL  I can and do deny it.  You're full of crap.

If you're going to criticize Origins for ripping off another story, why not point to the story the writers have actually said inspired it, i.e. A Song of Ice and Fire?  Let me help:  See, there's this king who dies, leaving the kingdom in turmoil... meanwhile there's an order of ruffian warriors who renounce kin and title and take vows to fight an ancient evil, but no one believes the threat is real...

 
How am I full of crap? Ostagr screams LOTRs. Its ruins are even very similiar to LOTR style setting from the movie....you can't deny this.

Yes, they ripped off and borrowed heavily from Song of Ice and Fire as well. Not nearly as much to me as LOTR, but it does SOIAF as well. Also see The Witcher as well with the City Elf storyline, but The Witcher does elf discrimination far better.

Face it, compared to other WRPGs, DAO is the KING of generic, along with Oblivion. And like I have said, its one thing to borrow from the influence, its another to borrow so heavily from it that you lack a real identity. Does DAII give the series a real identity? Not fully, but the series got more of an identity.

[txgoldrush]

Uzzy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I am not sayin the lore is comaprable to the LOTR however, elements of the main plot in DAO are comparable too much so to simply ignore. You cannot deny the Ostagar was inspired and similiar (not the same, similiar) to Osgilith of ROTK.

A fanatsy story should offer something fresh and new, and outside of some of the side plots, DAO just doesn't do that while its peers like The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer did.

Why?

Seriously, what do you have against the use of an excellent formula such as the Heroes Journey? You may not like it, but you cannot deny that Dragon Age: Origins is a very good example of it, creating a deeply involving and well written fantasy epic.

Now, if you prefer a more personal story such as that offered in Mask of the Betrayer, that's great. Mask of the Betrayer was amazing. Dragon Age II, however, was utter cack in comparison, and fails on just about every level.

DAO is NOT well written...its unfocused, with very many tangents, some very silly scenarios, and has a formaulaic main plot. Really, it doesn't even establish a theme until the very end. It was a mish mash of ideas sloppily thrown together. Some of the stories are well written. The Nature of the Beast was one of them and so is Leliana's story. But the main plot is poor, with party members siting on the sideline and not contributing (other than Alistair or Morrigan, very little).

Lets take the KOTOR midgame and match it with DAO's. In KOTOR, the planets have their own storylines, but they also involve the main plots story and themes heavily. They never let you forget who is hunting you or who is your enemy. Hell, you even go to the Sith Academy. DAO midgame quests are far more disconnected and only the dwarf section features darkspawn in any great number...but they are not the focus. Other Bioware mid games are more focused as well. Jade Empire main quests always deal with either the Emporer and his thugs or the fallout from the imprisionment of the Water Dragon. They stick to the story. Mass Effect 1's main quest planets all deal with Saren, Benezia, or the Geth. In DAO however, all you get is tangents. The mid game quests do not mesh well with the main plot except to get an alliance. Unlike Bioware's other works, the midgame is divorced from the beginning an dend game. once again a mish mash of ideas not properly sown together. And really in DAO, the parts are greater than the sum.

I call even NWN2 vanilla very generic, but its far better written than DAO. Mask of th eBetrayer blows DAO away and I do think except for characters, its much better than DAII as well. Not as good as The Witcher 2 however.

[Maverick827]

I'm not even going to read this thread, but I just want to pop in here to ask a question:

After the OP made his or her post, with ideas stated and defended with a decent amount of detail and consideration, how long did it take before someone actually addressed the topics of the post, rather than responding with something stupid like "lol DAII sucked, since you liked it your opinions are wrong?"

[txgoldrush]

Slayer299 wrote...

HawkeN7x wrote...

i agree with the OP. his posts are fact imho. too many bash DA2

The OP's claims of 'fact' are about as real as mine that I'm secretly the heir to the throne of Asgard

But to the OP's list of things;

1. Ordering items from Walmart.com does not make a better crafting system. If I or (any of my party) isn't doing the crafting or even a specific person I'm going to then Hawke is using the Theadas version of the Internet to get his runes/potions/poisons.
2. It's Raining Men - Men in plate-mail armor falling from the open sky or a ceiling is not a combat improvement, nor is the endless repeat of waves in *every* combat.
3. Virtually *every* game and story borrows from *other* stories or mythology or even *gasp* other game ideas!! It was pretty clear that LoTR was *an* inspiration for ideas in DAO, but to baldly claim that the entire plot of DAO is a rip-off of the LoTR is just ludicris.
4. After 7 years in Kirkwall, and having known most of your companions for 6 what exactly do you know about them, really?
a. Izzy likes to sleep around, gets STD's she has treated at Anders clinic, she 'likes big boats' and she has commitment issues.
b. Varric - well, we actually "know" stuff about him, which is a credit for good writing on his character at least.
c. Anders - not more than just hates Templars and misses Ser Pounce-a-Lot.

Do we know what Izzy calls her favorite dagger or if she's given it a name? Does she actually have someplace she stays at or does she sleep at the bar? We see the NPC's dealing with *each other* but *Hawke* does not interact with them. Why does Fenris *not* move the dead bodies in the mansion after 6 years? Where is Aveline/Donnic's mansion and where were we during the mansion warming or even the bachlor/bachlorette party? To name a few off-hand.

5. The 'personal' story of DA2 was an interesting idea poorly implemented in 2 parts and filled with too many pointless side quests that did not add anything to the overall stories of Q v C in Act 2 or M v T in Act 3. The ending act allowed no player decisions to make any impact on the ending and the OTT end game behaviour of the two bosses made ZERO sense when placed against what little we did see of those two in Act 3. 

You can say what you want, but if you actually go over to the registered users criticism thread and try posting this nonsense they'd laugh you out the door as no-one but a blind sheep herder would believe it.

1. I don't liek the crafting system in DAII, its way to simple, but DAOs crafting is tedious as well. The Witcher 2's crafting sytem is what the DA team should implement for DAIII.

2. I do like waves, but DAII does do them mostly wrong. The demon group waves are fine, the mercs are silly. Waves force players to actually reposition their party which is not a bad thing.

3. It rips off several ideas from LOTR, just enough to lose its uniqueness.

4. Anders - boy does his character deteroriate. Pay attention and you will find that his relationships with every character, even Varric, become strained. Notice how he loses his senseof humor.

The characters do grow and change throughout the years, and so do their relationships with eachother. In fact, the comradrie between characters in DAII is something they did RIGHT. Wish Mass Effect 2 had this.

5. Because the Qunari vs The City and Mages vs Templars were not the overall conflict....the conflict is more conceptual. Not every conflict is man vs man....its really "Hawke vs the human nature to escalate conflicts and bad situations". This covers all three acts storylines, the bone pit mine quests, almost every companion quests, and more. Thats why both Orsino and Meredith fall, because madness and despair consume them. Now, I think they botched Orsino in the ending, but the idea to fight both characters isn't flawed.

I can hammer almost any RPG, for instance, I can rag on New Vegas for even allowing my female to even join Caesar's Legion. Every RPG has inconsistancies and DAII is no exception. But the story is far from terrible and many people actually like it. Look at Gamespy's reviewer....and no he did not give DAII an excellent score, he gave it an 80%.

[dujh]

txgoldrush wrote...

Why does everyone hold this game in such high regard than bash DAII?

Really DAO is highly overrated, while DAII while having some serious flaws, is underrated.

Lets start with story. DAO is basically LOTR's with gore. Thats it. The Darkspawn are gonna burn everything, we must stop them. Its very generic, very cliched, very boring. Its also a Lord of the Rings rip...compae the Warden to Frodo (and The Ring his Wardeness), while Loghain is the regent of Gondor, Alistair is Aragorn, The Archdemon is Sauron, and the Darkspawn are the orcs of Mordor, while Denerim is Minas Tirith. Lets not also forget the lack of focus in that the 4 main mid quests's narratives overpower the main quests, while Nature of the Beast and the Urn Of The Sacred Ashes were great, the Broken Circle and  Paragon Of Her Kind stumble due to pacing and poor game design. Its also too bad that they have nothing to do with the story except for gathering plot coupons. Very little reminders of the main threat as well. Its like the Spawn aren't even attacking. ME3 will have a similiar story, but at least The Reapers and indoctrinated Cerberus troopers will remind Shepard of the main threat. And then, unlike its sequel, the party members have barely anything to do with the main plot outside of Alistair and Morrigan.

Now for the characters....one dimensional clones of Bioware characters. Its that Carth? No, its Alistair. Hey Oghren is Black Whirlwind as a Dwarf and if HK47 was an elf, he'd be Zervan. Morrigan and Viconia are like twins, Leliana is Dawn Star. Sten is just like Sagacious Zu, a very untalkative character with a dark past. Only Wynne and Shale seem to be like original characters and Shale has HK47 qualities as well. And almost all of them are one dimensional to boot, or sometimes two dimensional in the case of Morrigan and Allistair. The exceptions are Wynne and Leliana, who is really one of Bioware's best written characters. Everyone else has one personality, one angle, nothing more, and Zervan's DAII appearance proves how one dimensional he is. DAII on the other hand, has more fleshed out and more multi dimensional characters. Varric, along with Leliana, is the most multidimensional character in the series. Isabela has multiple angles on her and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect. Aveline has complex views on law and order and is not afraid to extrajudically execute criminals. Anders becomes a true dynamic character and someone that goes from likable to unlikable as the game progresses, thats profound. Only Fenris do I say is more one dimensional and he has more dynamics to him than most of Origins cast. The friendship/rivalry system also gives the characters new angles. Far better cast than the one in Origins or Awakenings. And except for Merril, no clones either.

Gameplay and combat in DAO is so broken and clunky its not even funny. This is far from Baldur's Gate II it tries to be. The skills are so unbalanced especially for a mage that it ceases to be any sort of a tactical masterpiece it wants to be. Mana clash for instance is telling a mage, your dead. Its too easy when you know what you are doing. Not only that, why does my Arcane Warrior fight like she has a pole shoved up her butt? DAII is far from perfect, but its better, especially with patch 1.3. I like how you are actually encouraged to use class combos and that the classes are more balanced. Lets not forget that the dialogue system is much better in DAII (except for the sarcastic option) and Hawke is now actually a character. Far from Geralt of Rivia or Nameless One level, but much better than the listless Warden who was a step back from Shepard. Character customization is overrated anyway...Id rather be a real more fleshed out protagonist  with emotions that can make decisions than a listles splayer avatar who every character talks AT, and not WITH.

Fans that hate on DAII while praising the first just fail to admit that DAO has significant flaws. DAO played it safe and as a result its a boring effort, especially compared to games like The Witcher and NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer which tells a far better written tale with better characters. DAII isn't afraid to fail and in many cases it does, but it also succeeds overall. While the recycled environments and the rushed production values is a huge determent, the story is smarter, has more soul, with better characters, better written side quests, etc. While DAII was rushed to release, DAO was in development too long and got surpassed in quality long before release.

The Dragon Age franchise has yet to achieve greatness...its just not there yet.

dao>witcher 2>da2

[bobthecrusher]

So, are the moderators even paying attention? I mean, 14 pages in a day screams flame war to me. This thread has run out of its usefulness, it has (and has been from about page 2) just the same arguments rebuttled by 'Nun-uh!' whether it's someone in support of DA:O or DAII

that's my two cents

[Lokirth]

Slayer299 wrote...

HawkeN7x wrote...

i agree with the OP. his posts are fact imho. too many bash DA2

The OP's claims of 'fact' are about as real as mine that I'm secretly the heir to the throne of Asgard

But to the OP's list of things;

1. Ordering items from Walmart.com does not make a better crafting system. If I or (any of my party) isn't doing the crafting or even a specific person I'm going to then Hawke is using the Theadas version of the Internet to get his runes/potions/poisons.
2. It's Raining Men - Men in plate-mail armor falling from the open sky or a ceiling is not a combat improvement, nor is the endless repeat of waves in *every* combat.
3. Virtually *every* game and story borrows from *other* stories or mythology or even *gasp* other game ideas!! It was pretty clear that LoTR was *an* inspiration for ideas in DAO, but to baldly claim that the entire plot of DAO is a rip-off of the LoTR is just ludicris.
4. After 7 years in Kirkwall, and having known most of your companions for 6 what exactly do you know about them, really?
a. Izzy likes to sleep around, gets STD's she has treated at Anders clinic, she 'likes big boats' and she has commitment issues.
b. Varric - well, we actually "know" stuff about him, which is a credit for good writing on his character at least.
c. Anders - not more than just hates Templars and misses Ser Pounce-a-Lot.

Do we know what Izzy calls her favorite dagger or if she's given it a name? Does she actually have someplace she stays at or does she sleep at the bar? We see the NPC's dealing with *each other* but *Hawke* does not interact with them. Why does Fenris *not* move the dead bodies in the mansion after 6 years? Where is Aveline/Donnic's mansion and where were we during the mansion warming or even the bachlor/bachlorette party? To name a few off-hand.

5. The 'personal' story of DA2 was an interesting idea poorly implemented in 2 parts and filled with too many pointless side quests that did not add anything to the overall stories of Q v C in Act 2 or M v T in Act 3. The ending act allowed no player decisions to make any impact on the ending and the OTT end game behaviour of the two bosses made ZERO sense when placed against what little we did see of those two in Act 3. 

You can say what you want, but if you actually go over to the registered users criticism thread and try posting this nonsense they'd laugh you out the door as no-one but a blind sheep herder would believe it.

It's pronounced "sheep hoarder." 

Nothing to add to this thread, really, aside from maybe stating how surprised I am that this thread has even gone on long enough to warrant a "kids, stop fighting or I'll turn this thread around."

That being said...

Kids, stop fighting or I'll turn this thread around.

I suppose in relation to the topic, I still think Dragon Age: Origins is better than 2, but that's because I'm more fond of the Baldur's Gate gameplay model than I am the Mass Effect 2. They're both great games in my opinion, but they are different beasts entirely. I think the characterization was actually better in Origins and Awakening. The conversation wheel and the "advent" of a fully voice acted main character means that some conversational freedom was traded off as a result. Interactions with the characters in 2 feels a little more... dry to me. Still good. Just dry.

I don't know, maybe I just thought my Grey Warden made a better smartass mage than Hawke did...

[Slayer299]

txgoldrush wrote...

DAO is NOT well written...its unfocused, with very many tangents, some very silly scenarios, and has a formaulaic main plot. Really, it doesn't even establish a theme until the very end. It was a mish mash of ideas sloppily thrown together. Some of the stories are well written. The Nature of the Beast was one of them and so is Leliana's story. But the main plot is poor, with party members siting on the sideline and not contributing (other than Alistair or Morrigan, very little).

Where is there a correlation between Osgilliath and Ostagar beyond the letter "O" and fighting overwhelming enemy numbers? And why are you using the *movie* of all things as a basis between the two?
1 - Osgillaith - a city on opposite banks of the Anduin (Ostagar, no rivers there at all, but lots of forest).
2 - Cailan died & Faramir - doesn't.
3 - both lose the battle, but the end is diff't for both. Ostagar is regarded as an utter disaster and a rout. Osgilliath is tactical victory, the Orcs lose 5000 men and Gondor's forces are able to withdraw without total losses (only 1/3 of 1500)
4. How much more focused does DAO have to be? Get allies, find Archdemon, kill Archdemon, Stop Blight. Sounds pretty focused there to me.
5. Do you mean the DLC, because that's not part of DAO.
6. So, because party members are in the camp they're sitting on the sidelines? Is this any different from not using anyone in DA2 as they hang out in their homes?

The mid game quests do not mesh well with the main plot except to get an alliance. Unlike Bioware's other works, the midgame is divorced from the beginning an dend game. once again a mish mash of ideas not properly sown together. And really in DAO, the parts are greater than the sum.

Are you certain you played DA2 because that's what the plot of DA2 was for most of the game I found, "does not mesh well", "midgame divorced from the beginning to end game", "mish mash of ideas not properly sown together".

Yeah, that sounds like DA2...

Modifié par Slayer299, 26 juin 2011 - 05:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
Because the Qunari vs The City and Mages vs Templars were not the overall conflict....the conflict is more conceptual. Not every conflict is man vs man....its really "Hawke vs the human nature to escalate conflicts and bad situations". This covers all three acts storylines, the bone pit mine quests, almost every companion quests, and more. Thats why both Orsino and Meredith fall, because madness and despair consume them. Now, I think they botched Orsino in the ending, but the idea to fight both characters isn't flawed.

Except it isn't, when you keep involving demons, the idiotic idea of the idol and insanity. That is not human nature.
And how is the bone pit representative of Hawke struggling against human nature? What?

Furthermore, the concept also fails when they make almost everyone involved almost completely incompetent. That's no longer a fight against human nature, but against human stupidity taken to the extreme and there's nothing interesting in that for me.  I am all for a conflict escallating and people succumbing to their fears and hatreds, as long as they can still be called human at the end, not insane lunatics like Meredith and Orsino. And as logn as they remain more or less reasonable and competent. Act 2 did it better. Act 3 and the Mage / Templar conflict was a disaster.

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...
How am I full of crap? Ostagr screams LOTRs. Its ruins are even very similiar to LOTR style setting from the movie....you can't deny this.

Now you're talking about the movie visuals?  If they had stuck to a "generic" art style, we might have actually gotten something with character and visual interest, not the cartoon mess we actually did get.

Yes, they ripped off and borrowed heavily from Song of Ice and Fire as well. Not nearly as much to me as LOTR, but it does SOIAF as well. Also see The Witcher as well with the City Elf storyline, but The Witcher does elf discrimination far better.

The Witcher was developed concurrently with the Dragon Age IP and Gaider has said in the forums it was not an influence.  You're full of crap because you're making stuff up and drawing conclusions that don't follow.

Face it, compared to other WRPGs, DAO is the KING of generic, along with Oblivion. And like I have said, its one thing to borrow from the influence, its another to borrow so heavily from it that you lack a real identity. Does DAII give the series a real identity? Not fully, but the series got more of an identity.

An identity as a mediocre game.  Whoopee.

Why do you even care if people don't like DA2?  You're not going to change anyone's mind, so proselytizing and dissing on Origins is just going to annoy people.  To each her own.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 juin 2011 - 05:30 .

[txgoldrush]

[quote]Slayer299 wrote...

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...

DAO is NOT well written...its unfocused, with very many tangents, some very silly scenarios, and has a formaulaic main plot. Really, it doesn't even establish a theme until the very end. It was a mish mash of ideas sloppily thrown together. Some of the stories are well written. The Nature of the Beast was one of them and so is Leliana's story. But the main plot is poor, with party members siting on the sideline and not contributing (other than Alistair or Morrigan, very little).

[/quote]

Where is there a correlation between Osgilliath and Ostagar beyond the letter "O" and fighting overwhelming enemy numbers? And why are you using the *movie* of all things as a basis between the two?
1 - Osgillaith - a city on opposite banks of the Anduin (Ostagar, no rivers there at all, but lots of forest).
2 - Cailan died & Faramir - doesn't.
3 - both lose the battle, but the end is diff't for both. Ostagar is regarded as an utter disaster and a rout. Osgilliath is tactical victory, the Orcs lose 5000 men and Gondor's forces are able to withdraw without total losses (only 1/3 of 1500)
4. How much more focused does DAO have to be? Get allies, find Archdemon, kill Archdemon, Stop Blight. Sounds pretty focused there to me.
5. Do you mean the DLC, because that's not part of DAO.
6. So, because party members are in the camp they're sitting on the sidelines? Is this any different from not using anyone in DA2 as they hang out in their homes?


Lets take the KOTOR midgame and match it with DAO's. In KOTOR, the planets have their own storylines, but they also involve the main plots story and themes heavily. They never let you forget who is hunting you or who is your enemy. Hell, you even go to the Sith Academy. DAO midgame quests are far more disconnected and only the dwarf section features darkspawn in any great number...but they are not the focus. Other Bioware mid games are more focused as well. Jade Empire main quests always deal with either the Emporer and his thugs or the fallout from the imprisionment of the Water Dragon. They stick to the story. Mass Effect 1's main quest planets all deal with Saren, Benezia, or the Geth. In DAO however, all you get is tangents. The mid game quests do not mesh well with the main plot except to get an alliance. Unlike Bioware's other works, the midgame is divorced from the beginning an dend game. once again a mish mash of ideas not properly sown together. And really in DAO, the parts are greater than the sum.

I call even NWN2 vanilla very generic, but its far better written than DAO. Mask of th eBetrayer blows DAO away and I do think except for characters, its much better than DAII as well. Not as good as The Witcher 2 however.[/quote]
[/quote]

1,2,3. Notice I said similiar not the same....similiar enough to be heavily borrowed.
4. Its the getting allies part which the game loses its focus, thats the problem. KOTOR had a get star maps section, but they always reminded you of the main threats and the main antagonists. It even has a major plot interruption between planest 3 and 4. DAO does not do this. Mass Effect 3 will have a similiar story to DAO in which you have to get allies, but from what I have seen, the Reapers and their allies will constantly attack Shepard while he is getting those allies. DAO's midsection is very poorly paced.
5.
6. Yes, they are sitting on the sidelines. What party members, other than Alistair or Morrigan, play a very significant role in the story? None. Leliana, Sten, and Shale can be skipped over entirely. Zervan and Oghren play one small role then they have no impact on the story. Wynne play a small role in the mage quest but can be offed very early and the plot of the quest doesn't change much. Contrast this with DAII characters, with Witcher characters, with Mass Effect characters (especially the first game), or how about KOTOR II characters when Exile gets captured on Nar Shadaa. Instead of just existing in the party, they play roles IN THE PLOT!!!!!! They will even force members into the party so that they can play their role in KOTOR II (like Canderous and Visas when you confront Nihilis), and HK47 gets his own section of the game in the restored mod!!!!. None of this in DAO. Leliana is such a great character that I found it a travesty she plays no role at all in the main plot and people even missed her and lost her permenantly. The problem with DAO characters is that they tell, not show. All their interesting aspects have already happened, they get one very little sidequest, and play very little to no role in the plot outside Alistair and Morrigan, and Morrigan is not really vital to the plot anyway other than one choice.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Because the Qunari vs The City and Mages vs Templars were not the overall conflict....the conflict is more conceptual. Not every conflict is man vs man....its really "Hawke vs the human nature to escalate conflicts and bad situations". This covers all three acts storylines, the bone pit mine quests, almost every companion quests, and more. Thats why both Orsino and Meredith fall, because madness and despair consume them. Now, I think they botched Orsino in the ending, but the idea to fight both characters isn't flawed.

Except it isn't, when you keep involving demons, the idiotic idea of the idol and insanity. That is not human nature.
And how is the bone pit representative of Hawke struggling against human nature? What?

Furthermore, the concept also fails when they make almost everyone involved almost completely incompetent. That's no longer a fight against human nature, but against human stupidity taken to the extreme and there's nothing interesting in that for me.  I am all for a conflict escallating and people succumbing to their fears and hatreds, as long as they can still be called human at the end, not insane lunatics like Meredith and Orsino. And as logn as they remain more or less reasonable and competent. Act 2 did it better. Act 3 and the Mage / Templar conflict was a disaster.

But demons do not cause humans to embrace dark aims and goals....humans do that themselves. Demons aid, but demons can be resisted. Bartrand's greed caused him to go mad and so did Meredith's extreme ideolgue.

The Bone Pit is about how man continued to knowingly work a dangerous era to so their boss can make money, running into bigger and bigger monsters, and finally, they hit a High Dragon nest and get wiped out, while the boss cares for money and productivity of the mine more than the workers safety. Then he ends up with nothing. It relates to the theme easily.

"am all for a conflict escallating and people succumbing to their fears and hatreds, as long as they can still be called human at the end, not insane lunatics like Meredith and Orsino."

Some do go insane, like Bartrand, Orsino and Meredith, some lose everything, like the mine boss I just mentioned, some can learn from their mistakes like several of your party members, and some don't like Anders. Some characters succumb to it, learn from it, and some don't. Not everyone goes mad.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
But demons do not cause humans to embrace dark aims and goals....humans do that themselves. Demons aid, but demons can be resisted. Bartrand's greed caused him to go mad and so did Meredith's extreme ideolgue.

Not in DA2, where mages succumb to demons in seconds and you have demons coming up in the wave load, and abominations popping up from the ground as if to add insult to injury. The entire concept of resisting temptation is thus gone, when they can take over in one second.

Bartrand's  madness has nothing to do with greed when the idol made him a sadist mass murderer.

The Bone Pit is about how man continued to knowingly work a dangerous era to so their boss can make money, running into bigger and bigger monsters, and finally, they hit a High Dragon nest and get wiped out, while the boss cares for money and productivity of the mine more than the workers safety. Then he ends up with nothing. It relates to the theme easily.

That's just makes Hawke an idiot who is investing in a doomed business. Why philosophize over it when it's just supposed to be a series of stupid exp grinding side quests that bears no relevence to the plot? 

Some do go insane, like Bartrand, Orsino and Meredith, some lose everything, like the mine boss I just mentioned, some can learn from their mistakes like several of your party members, and some don't like Anders. Some characters succumb to it, learn from it, and some don't. Not everyone goes mad.

All because of the idol.
And mostly everyone is either mad, or just stupid. Other than Bethany, no mage was shown to be sensible. And other than Thrask (who is foolish), there might be Cullen for Templars, if he wasn't such an idiot. And then there is the Chantry being completely incompetent and passive.  And no, not just Elthina.

You say you like the Witcher. Can you honestly and seriously compare TW2 with DA2 in that regard? Really?  
TW2 had sensible characters, each more or less reasonable, pursuing their own goals, desires and ambitions, while still being human. In a web of complex political intrigue that makes sense. DA2 had none of that.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 05:55 .

[Realmzmaster]

The point that DAO borrows from fantasy literature is not unusual. All CRPGs borrows from each other and other p n p RPGs especially the granddaddy of them all D & D.
DAO is a good game that deserves its accolades. DA2 is a good game in my opinion.

Both of them have plot holes that stretch credibility. The bottom line for any game is did you have fun. Some gamers did not have fun with DA2 and they have the right to voice their opinion. Just as much as the OP has the right to voice his opinion.

But if you post your opinion on the forum you must be ready to defend it with a reasoned argument. And forum mates who disagree with your opinion should have a reasoned rebuttal.

I do not mean DA2 sucks or DAO sucks or the TW2 is better than both because I said so. Those types of responses add nothing to the discussion.

EDit: changed ducks to sucks. Thank you MrCrusty

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 26 juin 2011 - 06:14 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The point that DAO borrows from fantasy literature is not unusual. All CRPGs borrows from each other and other p n p RPGs especially the granddaddy of them all D & D.
DAO is a good game that deserves its accolades. DA2 is a good game in my opinion.

Both of them have plot holes that stretch credibility. The bottom line for any game is did you have fun. Some gamers did not have fun with DA2 and they have the right to voice their opinion. Just as much as the OP has the right to voice his opinion.

But if you post your opinion on the forum you must be ready to defend it with a reasoned argument. And forum mates who disagree with your opinion should have a reasoned rebuttal.

I do not mean DA2 ducks or DAO sucks or the TW2 is better than both because I said so. Those types of responses add nothing to the discussion.

DA 2 ducks?



Otherwise, I do agree.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
But demons do not cause humans to embrace dark aims and goals....humans do that themselves. Demons aid, but demons can be resisted. Bartrand's greed caused him to go mad and so did Meredith's extreme ideolgue.

a) Not in DA2, where mages succumb to demons in seconds and you have demons coming up in the wave load, and abominations popping up from the ground as if to add insutlt to injury. The entire concept of resisting temptation is thus gone, when they can take over in one second.

Bartrand's  madness has nothing to do with greed when the idol made him a sadist mass murderer.

The Bone Pit is about how man continued to knowingly work a dangerous era to so their boss can make money, running into bigger and bigger monsters, and finally, they hit a High Dragon nest and get wiped out, while the boss cares for money and productivity of the mine more than the workers safety. Then he ends up with nothing. It relates to the theme easily.

That's just makes Hawke an idiot who is investing in a doomed business. Why philosophize over it when it's just supposed to be a series of stupid exp grinding side quests that bears no relevence to the plot? 

Some do go insane, like Bartrand, Orsino and Meredith, some lose everything, like the mine boss I just mentioned, some can learn from their mistakes like several of your party members, and some don't like Anders. Some characters succumb to it, learn from it, and some don't. Not everyone goes mad.

c) All because of the idol.
And mostly everyone is either mad, or just stupid. Other than Bethany, no mage was shown to be sensible. And other than Thrask (who is foolish), there might be Cullen, if he wasn't such an idiot. And then there is the Chantry being completely incompetent and passive.  And no, not just Elthina.

You say you like the Witcher. Can you honestly and seriously compare TW2 with DA2 in that regard? Really?  
TW2 had sensible characters, each more or less reasonable, pursuing their own goals, desires and ambitions, while still being human. In a web of complex political intrigue that makes sense. DA2 had none of that.

a) however, it is the mages choice to fall into temptation and blood magic, and not all blood mages become demons, and some can be turned away.

No Barttrand's greed led him to gain possession of the idol, an idol he did not know would warp his mind. Bartrand's greed and treason lead to his insanity.

Hawke can also pledge to protect the workers as well, investing in the mine is a player choice as well. The series of quests do fit the games themes. Hubert only cares about money, Hawke may or may not care about the workers as well. However, regardless of Hawkes choices, Hubert and the workers continously escalate the situation until they mine is wiped out.

c) No Meredith allowed to be affected by the idol. It is through her actions she becomes insane. The idol alone is not to blame. Had Meredith not been such a zealot, she wouldn't even need the idol. Once again, her actions opened her up to get affected by an artifact, just like Bartrand.

The Grand Cleric is far from stupid. She is actually one of the best written characters in the series. She doesn't heed Leliana's advice because she is dedicated to her faith and to her flock. It is a reasonable and realistic choice. And really, the Cleric is killed before she could work things out. Cullen is smarter in the sequel than he is in the first game and he is really not that stupid in the sequel. The mage who rescues your kidnapped party member isn't stupid.

Humans can be very stupid, its not unrealistic, its actually pretty realistic. There are plenty of idiots in the Witcher games as well. Is it done better than DAII's third act? Yes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) however, it is the mages choice to fall into temptation and blood magic, and not all blood mages become demons, and some can be turned away.

No Barttrand's greed led him to gain possession of the idol, an idol he did not know would warp his mind. Bartrand's greed and treason lead to his insanity.

Except DA2 did not show us blood mages resisting except maybe one, who was useless and stupid.

No, Bartrand's greed led him to take the idol, which alone is responsable for his madness. So it's not human nature. It's an idol making him insane. How he got it is irrelevent, when it can turn him into a maniac that has nothign to do with greed. That's no longer human nature. 

Hawke can also pledge to protect the workers as well, investing in the mine is a player choice as well. The series of quests do fit the games themes. Hubert only cares about money, Hawke may or may not care about the workers as well. However, regardless of Hawkes choices, Hubert and the workers continously escalate the situation until they mine is wiped out.

And fails miserably at that. Because apparently he can't hire guards, the imbecile.
They don't escallate the situation at all. It's just random monsters popping up. 

c) No Meredith allowed to be affected by the idol. It is through her actions she becomes insane. The idol alone is not to blame. Had Meredith not been such a zealot, she wouldn't even need the idol. Once again, her actions opened her up to get affected by an artifact, just like Bartrand.

Which again, same as Bartrand, does not change the fact that she was warped by an outside element that has nothing to do with human nature. If Bioware wanted a real complex develoment of human nature, they wouldn't need the stupid idol as a fail plothammer in the first place.

The fact that human nature opened her to possess the idol, does not mean that what happened to her because of the idol is a result of human nature. I might as well say that Mario is representative of human nature and of the hormonal desire of men to have women, even if they are annoying brats that keep getting themselves in trouble. And that all the searcing in castles where the pricness is revealed not to be there is representative of Mario liking **** teasing.

The Grand Cleric is far from stupid. She is actually one of the best written characters in the series. She doesn't heed Leliana's advice because she is dedicated to her faith and to her flock. It is a reasonable and realistic choice. And really, the Cleric is killed before she could work things out. Cullen is smarter in the sequel than he is in the first game and he is really not that stupid in the sequel. The mage who rescues your kidnapped party member isn't stupid.

The Grand Cleric is a useless passive sack of meat that doesn't do anything except pray to a god that her own faith says does not care anymore. That does not bother to bring Meredith in line when she turned almost everyone in Kirkwall against her because of her incompetence when it's her duty to.

Cullen:

The mage is an idiot for following Grace in the first place, who is clearly obsessed with Hawke (and who wants to lure him in the middle of nowhere. What could possibly go wrong).

Humans can be very stupid, its not unrealistic, its actually pretty realistic. There are plenty of idiots in the Witcher games as well. Is it done better than DAII's third act? Yes.

Making almost everyone an idiot is not realistic.

All of DA2 is nothing compared to just 1 act of TW2.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 06:33 .

[Slayer299]

txgoldrush wrote...

6. Yes, they are sitting on the sidelines. What party members, other than Alistair or Morrigan, play a very significant role in the story? None. Leliana, Sten, and Shale can be skipped over entirely. Zervan and Oghren play one small role then they have no impact on the story. Wynne play a small role in the mage quest but can be offed very early and the plot of the quest doesn't change much. Contrast this with DAII characters, with Witcher characters, with Mass Effect characters (especially the first game), or how about KOTOR II characters when Exile gets captured on Nar Shadaa. Instead of just existing in the party, they play roles IN THE PLOT!!!!!! They will even force members into the party so that they can play their role in KOTOR II (like Canderous and Visas when you confront Nihilis), and HK47 gets his own section of the game in the restored mod!!!!. None of this in DAO. Leliana is such a great character that I found it a travesty she plays no role at all in the main plot and people even missed her and lost her permenantly. The problem with DAO characters is that they tell, not show. All their interesting aspects have already happened, they get one very little sidequest, and play very little to no role in the plot outside Alistair and Morrigan, and Morrigan is not really vital to the plot anyway other than one choice.

You can't count Shale since she's DLC. But what major role does Fenris or Merrill have? Answer: None. You can leave them both at home and not lose anything plot-wise to DA2.  
You can say that Anders, Varric and Izzy (to the extent of Act 2) have plot roles to fill, but that still leaves Bethany/Carver (both of whom are pointless plot and family-wise), Sebastian does add but you cannot count him since he's DLC and optional.

You're really comparing ME2 char's to DA2? Miranda, Jacob, Thane, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara/Morinth, Jack, are all empty as far as plot (Reapers) in ME2. So you're point there doesn't stand. In ME only Wrex/Tali and Garrus were needed plot wise at some point in the game. Ash was not and neither was Liara, since you could get Liara after Noveria and Feros without any problems.

PLease do not use "mods" as an example, others may not have played them or consider them any good, so as a point of reference they are useless outside of your own personal experience.

How could you have the DAO char's 'show' all the background info instead of telling? The game is already (for me over 80-90 hours for a full run) and that would require a huge amount of resources to 'show' all those events for each character for you to enjoy.

edit

Modifié par Slayer299, 26 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) however, it is the mages choice to fall into temptation and blood magic, and not all blood mages become demons, and some can be turned away.

No Barttrand's greed led him to gain possession of the idol, an idol he did not know would warp his mind. Bartrand's greed and treason lead to his insanity.

Except DA2 did not show us blood mages resisting except maybe one, who was useless and stupid.

a) No, Bartrand's greed led him to take the idol, which alone is responsable for his madness. So it's not human nature. It's an idol making him insane. How he got it is irrelevent, when it can turn him into a maniac that has nothign to do with greed. That's no longer human nature. 

Hawke can also pledge to protect the workers as well, investing in the mine is a player choice as well. The series of quests do fit the games themes. Hubert only cares about money, Hawke may or may not care about the workers as well. However, regardless of Hawkes choices, Hubert and the workers continously escalate the situation until they mine is wiped out.

And fails miserably at that. Because apparently he can't hire guards, the imbecile.
They don't escallate the situation at all. It's just random monsters popping up. 

c) No Meredith allowed to be affected by the idol. It is through her actions she becomes insane. The idol alone is not to blame. Had Meredith not been such a zealot, she wouldn't even need the idol. Once again, her actions opened her up to get affected by an artifact, just like Bartrand.

c) Which again, same as Bartrand, does not change the fact that she was warped by an outside element that has nothing to do with human nature. If Bioware wanted a real complex develoment of human nature, they wouldn't need the stupid idol as a fail plothammer in the first place.

The fact that human nature opened her to possess the idol, does not mean that what happened to her because of the idol is a result of human nature. I might as well say that Mario is representative of human nature and of the hormonal desire of men to have women, even if they are annoying brats that keep getting themselves in trouble. And that all the searcing in castles where the pricness is revealed not to be there is representative of Mario liking **** teasing.

The Grand Cleric is far from stupid. She is actually one of the best written characters in the series. She doesn't heed Leliana's advice because she is dedicated to her faith and to her flock. It is a reasonable and realistic choice. And really, the Cleric is killed before she could work things out. Cullen is smarter in the sequel than he is in the first game and he is really not that stupid in the sequel. The mage who rescues your kidnapped party member isn't stupid.

d) The Grand Cleric is a useless passive sack of meat that doesn't do anything except pray to a god that her own faith says does not care anymore. That does not bother to bring Meredith in line when she turned almost everyone in Kirkwall against her because of her incompetence when it's her duty to.

Cullen:

The mage is an idiot for following Grace in the first place, who is clearly obsessed with Hawke (and who wants to lure him in the middle of nowhere. What could possibly go wrong).

Humans can be very stupid, its not unrealistic, its actually pretty realistic. There are plenty of idiots in the Witcher games as well. Is it done better than DAII's third act? Yes.

Making almost everyone an idiot is not realistic.

All of DA2 is nothing compared to just 1 act of TW2.

a) Do you even get it? Bartrand's greed LEAD HIM TO CORRUPTION BY THE IDOL IN THE FIRST PLACE. Insanity was the price of his greed.  And really, its Varrics humanity, not Bartrand's that is focused on in his Act II quest.

The area is well known to be a monster lair but rich in minerals. They are not random.

c) "The fact that human nature opened her to possess the idol, does not mean that what happened to her because of the idol is a result of human nature."

But it does...its well known fact that lyrium in the lore kills mages and thats why she seeked it. Its like a drug. It was not just a simple random magic artifact, it was a pure form of a material that the Templars routinely used. And once again Meredith paid the price for seeking power. And not to mention the fact that the idol amplified traits she already possessed. Its human nature the reason why she was influenced by the idol in the first place, you cannot deny this. And unlike bartrand, she was at least somewhat competent before attempting to release its full power.

Its like using drugs...sure the drugs can change the behavior of a man....but it was his choice to use the drug in the first place for pleasure or to get ahead.

d) Lets call Dethmold and Geralt stupid now along with Cullen....Geralt can actually ask Dethmold where Seltkirk's Armor is WHILE GERALT IS WEARING IT. Dethmold in return idiotically will not realize that Geralt is wearing it and still tells him that the traitor still has it. This is an error in the game, like the Cullen scene you showed as well. Almost RPGs have this inconsistancy.

The Grand Cleric's failure to step in does help escalate the conflict, she is not completely innocent in all that, however, she is also afraid of taking sides, a rational reason. She tries to be nuetral on a moving train and it became to late. But she is far from a stupid character, just not a courageous one in the end in stopping the conflict. She was also late in reigning in fanatics in Act II as well. She represents a moderate who is afraid to mediate a growing crisis.

Actually, the group accuses Hawke of working for Meredith, thats why they kidnap one of his allies an dlure him to the coast. They believed him to be their enemy, which is rational as he basically was. Its Grace that goes to far, unexpecting to half the group. The other half follows her to their deaths however.

[txgoldrush]

Slayer299 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

6. Yes, they are sitting on the sidelines. What party members, other than Alistair or Morrigan, play a very significant role in the story? None. Leliana, Sten, and Shale can be skipped over entirely. Zervan and Oghren play one small role then they have no impact on the story. Wynne play a small role in the mage quest but can be offed very early and the plot of the quest doesn't change much. Contrast this with DAII characters, with Witcher characters, with Mass Effect characters (especially the first game), or how about KOTOR II characters when Exile gets captured on Nar Shadaa. Instead of just existing in the party, they play roles IN THE PLOT!!!!!! They will even force members into the party so that they can play their role in KOTOR II (like Canderous and Visas when you confront Nihilis), and HK47 gets his own section of the game in the restored mod!!!!. None of this in DAO. Leliana is such a great character that I found it a travesty she plays no role at all in the main plot and people even missed her and lost her permenantly. The problem with DAO characters is that they tell, not show. All their interesting aspects have already happened, they get one very little sidequest, and play very little to no role in the plot outside Alistair and Morrigan, and Morrigan is not really vital to the plot anyway other than one choice.

You can't count Shale since she's DLC. But what major role does Fenris or Merrill have? Answer: None. You can leave them both at home and not lose anything plot-wise to DA2.  
You can say that Anders, Varric and Izzy (to the extent of Act 2) have plot roles to fill, but that still leaves Bethany/Carver (both of whom are pointless plot and family-wise), Sebastian does add but you cannot count him since he's DLC and optional.

You're really comparing ME2 char's to DA2? Miranda, Jacob, Thane, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara/Morinth, Jack, are all empty as far as plot (Reapers) in ME2. So you're point there doesn't stand. In ME only Wrex/Tali and Garrus were needed plot wise at some point in the game. Ash was not and neither was Liara, since you could get Liara after Noveria and Feros without any problems.

PLease do not use "mods" as an example, others may not have played them or consider them any good, so as a point of reference they are useless outside of your own personal experience.

How could you have the DAO char's 'show' all the background info instead of telling? The game is already (for me over 80-90 hours for a full run) and that would require a huge amount of resources to 'show' all those events for each character for you to enjoy.

edit

Didn't I already say that Fenris was the exception? He is the only party member that doesn't play a role in the main plot. However, in many quests, he can take over a scene, especially if slavers are involved. His presence can limit your choices!!! Wayward Son is an example.

Merril plays a role in the plot in regards to Flemeth, who gives advice to her as well as Hawke. She is a more minor character in relation to the plot, however, she plays a more significant role than most DAO members.

Aveline, Varric, Isabela, and Bethany/Carver all play major roles in the plot.

The difference between ME2 and DAO is that the plot really revolves around the cast of ME2. Notice the story is more about how Shepard and his crew prepare for the suicide mission, much more than the mission itself. Also all six crew members play major roles in the plot at certain times in the first ME, even Liara if you bring her to Noveria. Oh and you say Ashley didn't factor in th emain plot? Wow...did you know their was a scene in Virmire where you have to choose between her and Kaiden who lives and who dies?

Not only is KOTOR II's TSLRM hailed, its content is considered CANON. Mod makers didn't creat the droid factory, Obsidian did. Even without the TSLRM, party members play a very significant role in the plot...way more so than DAO.

Its okay for a character to tell their background, but they also need to play roles in the plot. DAO characters outside of Allistair and Morrigan play little to no role in the plot.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) Do you even get it? Bartrand's greed LEAD HIM TO CORRUPTION BY THE IDOL IN THE FIRST PLACE. Insanity was the price of his greed.  And really, its Varrics humanity, not Bartrand's that is focused on in his Act II quest.

No, it led him to get the idol, which turns him into a homocidal maniac which has nothign to do with greed. Insanity being the price of greed is as illuminating on human nature as LOTR's one ring of power, except that one was much better. I'd much rather have a focus on human nature only without bs like that.

The area is well known to be a monster lair but rich in minerals. They are not random.

So that just makes Hawke and company stupid.

But it does...its well known fact that lyrium in the lore kills mages and thats why she seeked it. Its like a drug. It was not just a simple random magic artifact, it was a pure form of a material that the Templars routinely used. And once again Meredith paid the price for seeking power. And not to mention the fact that the idol amplified traits she already possessed. Its human nature the reason why she was influenced by the idol in the first place, you cannot deny this. And unlike bartrand, she was at least somewhat competent before attempting to release its full power.

Lyrium doens't kill mages, it powers them. That's first.
Second, Templar powers come from blue lyrium in a process that involves something other than forging lyrium swords. Third, that red lyrium thing is pure lyrium that Templars do not use. And one wonders why no one noticed.

It's irrelevent to me why she wants it (barring the fact that it's stupid to want it in the first place), as it turns her into a maniac at the end. So it's not human nature at the end. Her human nature might have faciliated the idol turning her nuts, but at the end of the day, it's the idol turnign her nuts. So why not scrap it and let it really be about human nature? And it becomes even mroe irrlevent wwhen we dont' even know of Meredith as a character until the last 10 minutes of the game.

And Meredith was always incomeptent, for the first time in Thedas' history, common folk spit on templar faces and help mages and that's in Act 2. Not to mention how bad a job she is doing seeing how the city is infested with blood mages and demons.

Lets call Dethmold and Geralt stupid now along with Cullen....Geralt can actually ask Dethmold where Seltkirk's Armor is WHILE GERALT IS WEARING IT. Dethmold in return idiotically will not realize that Geralt is wearing it and still tells him that the traitor still has it. This is an error in the game, like the Cullen scene you showed as well. Almost RPGs have this inconsistancy.

This is a stupid scene yes, but unlike that of Cullen, it's an error. It's the convo not recognizing having the armor on.
In DA2, it's the game giving you the choice to denounce Anders, while knowing full well that Cullen will do nothing about it. This goes beyond dialogue not recognizing equipment. Cullen even looks at Anders and says he knows who Hawke is talking about.

So it's not an error. It's lazy crappy writing.

The Grand Cleric's failure to step in does help escalate the conflict, she is not completely innocent in all that, however, she is also afraid of taking sides, a rational reason. She tries to be nuetral on a moving train and it became to late. But she is far from a stupid character, just not a courageous one in the end in stopping the conflict. She was also late in reigning in fanatics in Act II as well. She represents a moderate who is afraid to mediate a growing crisis.

So one who is incompetent and not fit to have her place (whom the Chantry tolerates for 7 years). Which I wouldn't mind if DA2 had people who were competent.

Actually, the group accuses Hawke of working for Meredith, thats why they kidnap one of his allies an dlure him to the coast. They believed him to be their enemy, which is rational as he basically was. Its Grace that goes to far, unexpecting to half the group. The other half follows her to their deaths however.

Actually, they don't. They kidnap to lure Hawke to try and get him to join them. Even if Hawke demonstrated that he is pro-mage, so they have no reason to do so and no reason to believe he was an enemy. They are just being stupid.

Grace was clearly an obssesed lunatic who was also the lvoer of a weird cult leader. Why does any mage want to follow her? Idiocy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 07:50 .