182 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
I don't think about the protagonist being me either. But I want to define who he/she is. That makes it especially annoying if I lose control. At times I can accept it, but at times it is much harder to accept. I don't know how they could have done it. They could maybe have put more templars in there and really forced Hawke. But cowing to Petrice and her bodyguard stretches it too far for me. Or the could threaten to harm friends, etc. Or they could make it a trap to begin with. What bothers me is that the story implies that it is Hawke's decission to help Petrice. But it is not mine. And it's not the one of my Hawke if I had a say in regard of his/her personality.

Yeah, you have to figure out why Hawke would help Petrice.

I know that I, the player, must go talk to Petrice if I ever want to finish the game.  And I know that the game isn't forcing my Hawke to do it for reason X.  So I have to come up with that reason on the fly...I have to think about her character as I envisioned it in the past...I might have to tweak some things (which is why I said part of playing is discovering the character).  I just feel as I'm always active in defining the character...like it's an ongoing process instead of one I stopped doing after the CC phase.

When the motivation for everything my PC is doing comes down to 'duty' in pretty much every situation, I stop thinking about things like this and I get bored with the PC really quick.  That's my experience, at least.

[TEWR]

50 Cent: Bulletproof.

Probably one of the worst games I've ever played, but in my defense I was a very young teenager when I got it.

*shudders*

Hell the Sopranos video game was horrendous. I beat it in two hours. Waste of 10 bucks if you ask me.

[jlb524]

Aaleel wrote...
I know it's not just race, look at my example from earlier in the thread.  Starting as a Templar, mage, Seeker, or commoner.  But the game would split to where depending on your choices you would end up on a templar front somewhere, a mage front somewhere, or part of some faction that was trying to garner peace. 

But see, I don't think the multiple Origin thing is good even in this example, since I'd expect someone who started off as a Templar vs. Mage vs. Seeker would be vastly different characters and I'd want the game to take that into consideration instead of lumping them into the same character (or characters if their are multiple factions) down the road.  A mage who ends up siding with mages should be a different character from a templar who ends up siding with mages.  They'd probably take the easy route and lump all 'origins' into one character that sides with mages.  That's the same problem I had with the origins in DA:O.

Aaleel wrote...
Hawke is duty bound to Kirkwall and the Warden is to Ferelden.  They have the same mindset and motivations.  I'm the best equipped person to handle this situation, and if I don't ???? is going to hit the fan and chaos is going to ensue.  That's the long and short of it.

Hawke can also say she wants to gtfo of Kirkwall a lot.  Hawke doesn't have to give a crap about Kirkwall and can be in it for money and power.

[RagingCyclone]

jlb524 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I don't think about the protagonist being me either. But I want to define who he/she is. That makes it especially annoying if I lose control. At times I can accept it, but at times it is much harder to accept. I don't know how they could have done it. They could maybe have put more templars in there and really forced Hawke. But cowing to Petrice and her bodyguard stretches it too far for me. Or the could threaten to harm friends, etc. Or they could make it a trap to begin with. What bothers me is that the story implies that it is Hawke's decission to help Petrice. But it is not mine. And it's not the one of my Hawke if I had a say in regard of his/her personality.

Yeah, you have to figure out why Hawke would help Petrice.

I know that I, the player, must go talk to Petrice if I ever want to finish the game.  And I know that the game isn't forcing my Hawke to do it for reason X.  So I have to come up with that reason on the fly...I have to think about her character as I envisioned it in the past...I might have to tweak some things (which is why I said part of playing is discovering the character).  I just feel as I'm always active in defining the character...like it's an ongoing process instead of one I stopped doing after the CC phase.

When the motivation for everything my PC is doing comes down to 'duty' in pretty much every situation, I stop thinking about things like this and I get bored with the PC really quick.  That's my experience, at least.

Funny thing is you two are arguing the same point but about the different games...and neither I think realizes you are both making the same choices in both games. The warden isn't just 'duty' if you play the character a certain way just like Hawke is 'forced' to progress through the game. You can imagine the personality and rationale behind the warden just as much as you can Hawke. THe warden is given 'x' amount of choices just like Hawke is.

In the case you both mention about Petrice---you can imagine the rationale of Hawke all you want but the end result is the same no matter what the rationale is....the dialogue is fixed with a limited number of choices. Same goes for the warden. The rest of both your arguments are based on which game you personally like better, but the same rules apply to both the warden and Hawke. I am surprised after almost a year you both still do not understand that.

[jlb524]

RagingCyclone wrote...
Funny thing is you two are arguing the same point but about the different games...and neither I think realizes you are both making the same choices in both games. The warden isn't just 'duty' if you play the character a certain way just like Hawke is 'forced' to progress through the game. You can imagine the personality and rationale behind the warden just as much as you can Hawke. THe warden is given 'x' amount of choices just like Hawke is.

In the case you both mention about Petrice---you can imagine the rationale of Hawke all you want but the end result is the same no matter what the rationale is....the dialogue is fixed with a limited number of choices. Same goes for the warden. The rest of both your arguments are based on which game you personally like better, but the same rules apply to both the warden and Hawke. I am surprised after almost a year you both still do not understand that.

We've agreed that the mechanics are the same between the two games (the player must do X to advance the story and a limited set of choices are given).

The discussion is about presentation of motivation and not about the 'end results'.  I don't really like 'duty bound' characters while he thinks they fit best into this structure...which is completely subjective, of course.

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
Funny thing is you two are arguing the same point but about the different games...and neither I think realizes you are both making the same choices in both games. The warden isn't just 'duty' if you play the character a certain way just like Hawke is 'forced' to progress through the game. You can imagine the personality and rationale behind the warden just as much as you can Hawke. THe warden is given 'x' amount of choices just like Hawke is.

In the case you both mention about Petrice---you can imagine the rationale of Hawke all you want but the end result is the same no matter what the rationale is....the dialogue is fixed with a limited number of choices. Same goes for the warden. The rest of both your arguments are based on which game you personally like better, but the same rules apply to both the warden and Hawke. I am surprised after almost a year you both still do not understand that.

We've agreed that the mechanics are the same between the two games (the player must do X to advance the story and a limited set of choices are given).

The discussion is about presentation of motivation and not about the 'end results'.  I don't really like 'duty bound' characters while he thinks they fit best into this structure...which is completely subjective, of course.

Actually I don't really prefer duty bound characters. But if they are not, I want the scene to play out in a way that explains to me why a forced decision is forced in the game. I understand that the plot needs to be forced at times, but that's not an explaination my ingame Hawke can live with. I want to see with my own eyes, in the game, why this decission has to be the way it is.

I am not argueing about the fact that there are decisions you can have. They are there in both games. I am not argueing that there are decisions who are forced. They are also there. I am argueing how Bioware 'sells' those decisions to us. I want to be convinced that there is no choice. And in many decisions of DA2 I can think of alot of better ways to solve the problem. And no, it didn't happen in DA:O or even other Bioware games as much.

The fact that you have a goal to achieve as a Spirit Monk, Jedi, Warden, Bhaalspawn, etc. forces you sometimes to do certain things to not fail this goal. This makes it easy for the writers/devs to control the story, to lead the player in a certain direction. If you don't have this duty, you are in essence 'free'. Now in DA2 this freedom gets taken away again at some points and I am not happy with the lack of in-game/story reason for it. That's really all I meant to say.

[RagingCyclone]

jlb524 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
Funny thing is you two are arguing the same point but about the different games...and neither I think realizes you are both making the same choices in both games. The warden isn't just 'duty' if you play the character a certain way just like Hawke is 'forced' to progress through the game. You can imagine the personality and rationale behind the warden just as much as you can Hawke. THe warden is given 'x' amount of choices just like Hawke is.

In the case you both mention about Petrice---you can imagine the rationale of Hawke all you want but the end result is the same no matter what the rationale is....the dialogue is fixed with a limited number of choices. Same goes for the warden. The rest of both your arguments are based on which game you personally like better, but the same rules apply to both the warden and Hawke. I am surprised after almost a year you both still do not understand that.

We've agreed that the mechanics are the same between the two games (the player must do X to advance the story and a limited set of choices are given).

The discussion is about presentation of motivation and not about the 'end results'.  I don't really like 'duty bound' characters while he thinks they fit best into this structure...which is completely subjective, of course.

The key word here is "bound"--you see the warden as bound by duty only, but that is not necessarily the case---it's your perception.  Hawke is just as bound in DA2. The arguments are about that presentation...and it is subjective...but in the end both are bound to a certain path no matter what the motivations are. You are saying you do not like the warden being bound by a duty to end the Blight...and for some players Hawke is bound to Kirkwall and all of it's troubles despite a possible desire to leave the place. So which motivation schema is better? It comes to perception. Neither Origins or DA2 do that better than the other. I am just suggesting that the two sides shake hands and return to a neutral corner since neither is right nor is the other wrong.

[Aaleel]

jlb524 wrote...

But see, I don't think the multiple Origin thing is good even in this example, since I'd expect someone who started off as a Templar vs. Mage vs. Seeker would be vastly different characters and I'd want the game to take that into consideration instead of lumping them into the same character (or characters if their are multiple factions) down the road.  A mage who ends up siding with mages should be a different character from a templar who ends up siding with mages.  They'd probably take the easy route and lump all 'origins' into one character that sides with mages.  That's the same problem I had with the origins in DA:O.

Well let's look.  It would be.  Let's say you're a seeker and you chose the mage front.  You could start by going there to garner some peace.  They don't trust you, so have to earn their trust by decisions made around that setting. But maybe during your time see some stuff that makes you feel sympathetic to mages, and you start speaking differently about the situation.  Then next thing you know if you do too many pro mage acts you have seekers and templars after you now, which may force you all in with the mages.  If you can't convince the mages by your acts to follow yorur plan for peace you're forced to fight against them in the end.

Now say you're a mage who goes to join the mages.  They take you as one of their own right away due to you being a mage.  You could rise up through the ranks and unite the mage factions and start working with those looking for peace, and help them eliminate the hard line, rogue mage groups at the end.  Or you could you unite the mages for the purpose of standing together and engaging in all out war at the end.

This would make a more intersting game then just choosing a race and playing a story, and then picking another race next time and playing a new story.  Seeing the same event/situation from different views and having it react to you in different ways depending on your PC is better to me.

Hawke can also say she wants to gtfo of Kirkwall a lot.  Hawke doesn't have to give a crap about Kirkwall and can be in it for money and power.

But he can't.  that's what I'm saying the game uses the exact same mechanic in both games to stop you from saying, why am I even staying in Kirkwall, I'm leaving.  Or your warden from saying, I'm not dealing with this Blight right now, I'm going to find Howe and avenge my parents first.

Both games it's a if you don't do it bad things will happen situation so you have no choice but to follow the story.

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 novembre 2011 - 08:02 .

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
Actually I don't really prefer duty bound characters. But if they are not, I want the scene to play out in a way that explains to me why a forced decision is forced in the game. I understand that the plot needs to be forced at times, but that's not an explaination my ingame Hawke can live with. I want to see with my own eyes, in the game, why this decission has to be the way it is.

Oops, I should have said 'in this particular situation'.  Sorry.

AlexXIV wrote...
The fact that you have a goal to achieve as a Spirit Monk, Jedi, Warden, Bhaalspawn, etc. forces you sometimes to do certain things to not fail this goal. This makes it easy for the writers/devs to control the story, to lead the player in a certain direction. If you don't have this duty, you are in essence 'free'. Now in DA2 this freedom gets taken away again at some points and I am not happy with the lack of in-game/story reason for it. That's really all I meant to say.

Yeah, I understand that.  I'm just okay with it for my reasons.

We have to agree to disagree on that.

RagingCyclone wrote...
The key word here is "bound"--you see the warden as bound by duty only, but that is not necessarily the case---it's your perception.  Hawke is just as bound in DA2. The arguments are about that presentation...and it is subjective...but in the end both are bound to a certain path no matter what the motivations are. You are saying you do not like the warden being bound by a duty to end the Blight...and for some players Hawke is bound to Kirkwall and all of it's troubles despite a possible desire to leave the place. So which motivation schema is better? It comes to perception. Neither Origins or DA2 do that better than the other. I am just suggesting that the two sides shake hands and return to a neutral corner since neither is right nor is the other wrong.

But there's still a difference.  In DA:O you will always have at least one motivation to do something your character may not want to do because it can fall back on 'duty' as a Grey Warden for all players.  DA2 lacks something like this.

It's not that I'm saying all Wardens have the exact same spectrum of motivations but if there's a situation in which you the player don't like any of the choices and don't know why your Warden would do X or Y, you can insert 'duty' as motivation and not feel like you're being forced to do something simply to advance the plot.

I know neither side is right or wrong as these are just preferences, but I don't see a problem with discussing them online.  I like to hear the reasons why people didn't like X (or did like X).   It seems most people just want to hate on things with no good reason (especially when it comes to DA2).  But if you can provide good reasons/justifications than I can respect that.

Modifié par jlb524, 29 novembre 2011 - 08:11 .

[Persephone]

AlexXIV wrote...


I will stick with the Petrice example. What if you don't want to do her quest? What are you gonna do? You can wait watching time pass by, because it is a main quest and the plot won't move a bit until you do it. So who is making this choice? Hawke is making it, but not the player. And don't even get me started with hollow threats you can throw at Petrice just to find yourself unable to follow through. I mean it's basically a slap in the face. How could Bioware think to get through with it is beyond me. It's like they render you helpless and then laugh at you. I can fully understand that people felt it at times being insulting. To their intelligence and otherwise.

I am not against forcing certain plot events. I know it is necessary, don't get me wrong. And I realize that you cannot have ultimate freedom. But what you can have is a story that makes sense. You can have a proper explaination why you have no choice. Other than 'the plot needs to be pushed forward'. Because that's the only reason I accepted and did the quest. It had nothing to do with my Hawke.

Much as helping Eamon and finding that goddam urn had nothing to do with my Warden. I only did that because there was no other way to move the plot forward, even though I didn't want to do either. My Warden did not believe in the idea of Eamon being necessary to challenge Loghain (She is a Cousland after all) and she agreed with Sten re: chasing unfounded myths being a waste of time.

You can find situations like this in ANY game.

[AlexXIV]

jlb524 wrote...
Yeah, I understand that.  I'm just okay with it for my reasons.

We have to agree to disagree on that.

It is entirely subjective indeed. The only reason I think I have a point to say there is a 'lack' of something is that I feel that way and I see many others voice the same concern. In theory, if you have half of the customers have the same subjective concern then it shouldn't matter to Bioware whether it is subjective because it simple concerns a huge number of customers.

It's basically just me standing here waving my hand to get the attention of Bioware and say 'This bothers me.'.

Tbh the Leandra zombie thing was for me the part that just let it be 'too much' to bear. There wasn't even any reason why Hawke couldn't save her. And at this point I have already noticed that I can't do much in the story aside from at least keeping the family safe. And then this, which let me feel like Hawke being an utter fail. Because even if Hawke failed in the grand scale, I could at least have said at least he/she kept the family safe, but no.

It's just a case of too much negativity imo, which still keeps me from replaying and buying DLCs. For all I care they could have let Hawke fail in the grand scale but succeed in small scale, or the other way round. But fail in both is a tough cookie to swallow. Imo.

[AlexXIV]

Persephone wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...


I will stick with the Petrice example. What if you don't want to do her quest? What are you gonna do? You can wait watching time pass by, because it is a main quest and the plot won't move a bit until you do it. So who is making this choice? Hawke is making it, but not the player. And don't even get me started with hollow threats you can throw at Petrice just to find yourself unable to follow through. I mean it's basically a slap in the face. How could Bioware think to get through with it is beyond me. It's like they render you helpless and then laugh at you. I can fully understand that people felt it at times being insulting. To their intelligence and otherwise.

I am not against forcing certain plot events. I know it is necessary, don't get me wrong. And I realize that you cannot have ultimate freedom. But what you can have is a story that makes sense. You can have a proper explaination why you have no choice. Other than 'the plot needs to be pushed forward'. Because that's the only reason I accepted and did the quest. It had nothing to do with my Hawke.

Much as helping Eamon and finding that goddam urn had nothing to do with my Warden. I only did that because there was no other way to move the plot forward, even though I didn't want to do either. My Warden did not believe in the idea of Eamon being necessary to challenge Loghain (She is a Cousland after all) and she agreed with Sten re: chasing unfounded myths being a waste of time.

You can find situations like this in ANY game.

It's still bad. I didn't like this Urn thing either tbh. My Warden didn't believe in it either. But you are wrong in one thing. You need Eamon, whether you believe it or not. Simply because you cannot get Loghain on your side and neither call a Landsmeet or convince the nobles to support you. You are a Grey Warden upstart and if the Regent (Loghain) doesn't give a damn about your treaty, since he outlawed the Wardens anyway, what are you going to do?

Getting Eamon is no different than getting the dwarves and elves. We could argue how much support the Warden needs to defeat the blight. But it is not such a bad idea to get as much as possible to make sure you have done everything you could. It may not mean much if you can succeed without Eamon. But if you try without Eamon and then fail to stop the Blight you are quite the fool, aren't you?

I think though the option should have been there to try without eamon, or the elves, or dwarves for that matter and then fail. This would answer this question, whether it was really necessary to get Eamon's support. But you can't compare it to the Petrice quest. Because after telling Petrice that you don't help her you can just walk back home go to bed and have a nice dream. Because there is no threat that you need to deal with. There is nothing that makes it even plausible for Hawke to stick his/her head into any danger after Act1. Unlike the Warden who is doing everything to defeat a Blight.

[Sylvianus]

Err, for Eamon.

Your warden would refuse to help the only one powerful enough who can help you and do not consider you as an enemy?

Because you think your Loghain trying to kill you by all the means would listen to you when he has the power in his hands ? You think that your little influence of Warden or noble, without the support of a powerful noble could have played a bit in the turmoil facing his fame ?

Well, I think at this level, we could say that Mass Effect sucked because it didn"t let us to be friends with the reapers trying to destroy all life in the galaxy.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[AlexXIV]

Well to be fair there would be a possible way without Eamon or Loghain. Let the Blight swallow them at Denerim then come riding in with the orlesians, elves and dwarves and end the Blight. Though Ferelden belongs to the orlesians again then ...

[Sylvianus]

I do not see the relevance of going to Orlais. It would take a long time to get there, and I'm not at all convinced that they would believe only two small warden alone. I recall that Orlais doesn't know anything about ferelden's situation and wardens. Not even our order.

It's a waste of time for me, when the urgency is to act is now. And the urgency is to convince the forces available in the country before it's too late.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[AlexXIV]

Well yes it would take more time. I am just saying there is a way without Eamon or Loghain. Of course it would be a bit harder then if the darkspawn have already taken Denerim. You don't need to go to Orlais though, the Orlesian forces (and Wardens) are already waiting at the borders. It's Loghain who keeps them out because he does not trust them. They could be helping in Denerim already if they were let in. Riordan is the only one who made it this far and even he was caught and imprisoned.

[Persephone]

Sylvianus wrote...

Err, for Eamon.

Your warden would refuse to help the only one powerful enough who can help you and do not consider you as an enemy?

Because you think your Loghain trying to kill you by all the means would listen to you when he has the power in his hands ? You think that your little influence of Warden or noble, without the support of a powerful noble could have played a bit in the turmoil facing his fame ?

Well, I think at this level, we could say that Mass Effect sucked because it didn"t let us to be friends with the reapers trying to destroy all life in the galaxy.

Except that Eamon matters zero in the Landsmeet. No matter what happens, he bows to the Warden's choices. He is no more useful than any other ally.

And comparing Loghain to the Reapers.....that's beyond hyperbole.

[Sylvianus]

Well, Orlais has no one to trust anymore. Cailan died. No information anymore except the two wardens ( I am not sure Allistair would follow you, leaving Ferelden ). They certainly won't rush to help Ferelden now, rather collect as many forces as possible to be sure of winning. Meanwhile, Ferelden burns.

Also, Loghain is paranoid, and you decided to snub a potential ally. You are a member of an order, charged of treason. Who in the population and the nobility will accept the entry of Orlais and listen to you ? They might think they are able to defend themselves their country, alone their nationalist fiber is strong.

[Sylvianus]

Persephone wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Err, for Eamon.

Your warden would refuse to help the only one powerful enough who can help you and do not consider you as an enemy?

Because you think your Loghain trying to kill you by all the means would listen to you when he has the power in his hands ? You think that your little influence of Warden or noble, without the support of a powerful noble could have played a bit in the turmoil facing his fame ?

Well, I think at this level, we could say that Mass Effect sucked because it didn"t let us to be friends with the reapers trying to destroy all life in the galaxy.

Except that Eamon matters zero in the Landsmeet. No matter what happens, he bows to the Warden's choices. He is no more useful than any other ally.

And comparing Loghain to the Reapers.....that's beyond hyperbole.

That's what you said :

Much as helping Eamon and finding that goddam urn had nothing to do with my Warden. I only did that because there was no other way to move the plot forward

At this moment you can't say to yourself, I wouldn't help him, that's just ridiculous. You are alone, all try to kill you.

And you are missing the point. I didn't compare Loghain to the Reapers. The point was that as much as roleplay is important, we need us, players to be reasonable and don't expect anything. It was just a joke by the way, don't be upset.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 09:45 .

[Persephone]

Sylvianus wrote...

Well, Orlais has no one to trust anymore. Cailan died. No information anymore except the two wardens ( I am not sure Allistair would follow you, leaving Ferelden ). They certainly won't rush to help Ferelden now, rather collect as many forces as possible to be sure of winning. Meanwhile, Ferelden burns.

Also, Loghain is paranoid, and you decided to snub a potential ally. You are a member of an order, charged of treason. Who in the population and the nobility will accept the entry of Orlais and listen to you ? They might think they are able to defend themselves their country, alone their nationalist fiber is strong.

Where did I mention Orlais? 

Snub an ally who's comatose to begin with....in a time of crisis, no less. If only they had not ditched the Empress Celene plotline midway through....with remnants of it all over the place.

[Sylvianus]

@ Persephone I answered to Alex IV on this, not you.

[Persephone]

Sylvianus wrote...

@ Persephone I answered to Alex IV on this, not you.

Ah, my apologies then.

[AlexXIV]

Oh ... well ... I was thinking that once the Blight overruns Denerim and Loghains army there, there wouldn't be many nobles or anyone left to stop the Orlesians. Not to mentions what remains probably is not opposed to outside help, even from Orlais. I actually think one reason the Orlesians were still waiting one year after Ostagar that they maybe secretly hoped that the Blight would devastate Ferelden enough so that they could retake it without resistance from the remaining citizens.

[Sylvianus]

You would still have to convince Orlais that forcing the border without permission of Ferelden is a good thing. They could not want for example to be stuck with fereldan traitors behind their line, like in the last war, and darkspawn on the front. Two enemies to fear and fight together.

The hatred of fereldan for Orlesian is so powerful that they could be considered as bad as Darkspawn lol.

@ Persephone : no problem

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 novembre 2011 - 10:10 .

[eyesofastorm]

Persephone wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I blame the Origin stories, though.  While each one of these crafted an interesting character, that character was quickly lost when they all merged into a single, generic, 'Warden' person about an hour into the game.

I could not disagree with this more vehemently.  DA:O was probably the most re-playable game I have ever played because of the origin stories... they changed the whole complexion of the game for me.  Alistair was my mage character's boy... he LOVED that fool, but even so, he couldn't bring himself to kill or let Alistair kill probably the most valuable military mind in all of Ferelden even if it meant losing Alistair's friendship.  My human noble character on the other hand watched his parents sacrifice themselves to Howe's men so that he could escape.  This character would have fought Alistair tooth and nail for the opportunity to kill Loghain.  My dust town Dwarf on the other hand was my only character to make the ultimate sacrifice because he was so thankful to the Grey Wardens for giving him an opportunity to be something more than a thug for the Carta.  The origin stories were brilliant and they made for the best, most engrossing roleplaying I've ever experienced in a computer game... period.  

All of which is head canon, nothing of that emotional growth is shown IN GAME. At all.

What you are apparently calling "head cannon" I call role playing.  I don't want them (devs) to show everything in game.  The more they show, the less roleplaying and replayability there is.  What I want them to do is enable my imagination which they did with the origins in Origins rather than limit it by showing it in game, which they have done with DA2.  There is of course a balance, but I thought they struck that balance in Origins better than any other game ever.  DA2 was too heavy handed.  It crushed my imagination like a grape in a vice... or it would have if I had played it.  I value my imagination afterall... I don't want it to be crushed. 

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 29 novembre 2011 - 11:25 .