108 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike3207]

You can't really compare Bethesda and DA games because they're two different kind of games. Having said that, I will try and compare them. I have to say the Bethesda approach is better than DA. Why do I say this-unresolved storylines. It does Bioware no good to make good and interesting characters like the Warden if they then leave their storyline unresolved at the end of DA2. If this is the sort of character development you can expect from Bioware, might as well stick with the limited character development you have in Skyrim.

[Get Magna Carter]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

BioWare's focus on story is going to require taking players down a certain path and a full on sandbox like Skyrim just can't accomplish what BioWare wants to do with their games.  However that being said, there is no reason why there can't be two or three different paths to go down in a BioWare game.  I don't think anyone would have complained about recycled environments if the same environments were in different potential story arcs.  THEN BioWare can say the recycled environments are an innovative feature allowing them to put in more content, because then it actually would be.

Bioware never claimed the recycled environments were an innovative feature..they said that they were rushed for deadlines and limited in resources and forced so to either re-use environments or drop quests.

Maybe the thing they should take from Skyrim is to increase the development time and budget to get the game to be up to the expected standard rather than rush it out asap

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

In this article BioWare states that recycled environments were a choice, and not forced on them due to deadlines or "limited" resources.  Before we get into this I just wanted to make a point that limited resources does not equal inadequate resources.  All games have limited resources as no game has ever received unlimited resources.  You have limited resources to make a game.  Even a large amount of resources is limited, as it is not infinate.  I don't remember any article in which BioWare specifically states that they had insufficient resources to adequatly finish making this game and as such had to cut corners, such as recycling environments.

BioWare stated that the choice was made to recycle environments to maximize resources they had and focus resorces to other areas that were considered more important. So the choice was made to shift resources away from level design to other elements that BioWare considered more important.  Changing what you are doing in a new way with the intention of making an improvement is an innovation (well, it's an innovation if what you do is actually an improvement, but BioWare's intention was to make an innovation), and that is what BioWare is claiming that they are doing here. 

http://www.eurogamer...l-us-what-to-do

Here's another article where BioWare stated that they control what they do and not EA.  So who is this mysterious force rushing them then?

I don't recall ever reading an article in which BioWare stated that they were FORCED to cut corners.  They have always stated that everything in the game was done by choice.  The closest thing I've ever read was Inon Zur, the game's music composer, stating that the score was rushed.  No official statement from BioWare has ever stated that the game was rushed. 

That being said I agree that I think the game was rushed, but BioWare is making all sorts of claims to the contrary and making claims about artistic choices.  My post was to illustrate that recycling environments can actually be used to inhance a game if it is used appropriatly, to add more wanted content (in this case player freedom) while not negativly detracting from the game itself.

Firstly, I don't get all my information from interviews - I also read what developers post here and distinctly remember one developer saying how they had developed lots of quests, found they did not have the "resources" to develop unique maps for all of them and did not want to remove the quests and so re-used maps (sorry, I don't remember who or in which thread...it must have been about 8 or so months ago)

6 months ago Mike Laidlaw posted a statement about the subject stating   ".While -some- assets will be reused in the course of any
game (and should be, otherwise games would simply be too expensive to create),
they should be done so with considerably more discretion. In retrospect,
I probably should have just cut content to reduce the re-use, but that's a
tough call to make in the moment."

this is supported in the interview you link to which says "
the re-use of the levels is something we knew was a bit of a risk, but we wanted to make sure there was more content rather than less"
i.e. the re-use of areas was an alternative to loss of quests.

the whole suggestion of it being an innovation is people reading interviews in which Bioware people talking about innovations (such as framed narrative/unreliable narrator, friendship/rivalry, etc) and labelling as one.

on the "EA doesn't tell us what to do" they say they are EA thus the statement is meaningless..which is confusing as it means that if anyone at Bioware tells them what to do then they are receiving instructions from EA..
Of course, divisions within Bioware can be rushed or restricted in resources by someone high up in Bioware (and accountants and Market analysts within EA can make suggestions without actually telling anyone what to do).
At the end of the day, it is very rare for anyone to badmouth their current boss or speak negatively about their company's product (unless they are resigning or being sacked or want to be sacked...)

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 30 décembre 2011 - 10:14 .

[Tryynity]

Playing Skyrim makes me appreciate DA2 so much better now LOL - Maybe Bethseda only had enough money for the graphics team. Huge amount of content though, kind of like an MMO without the extra peeps around.

Seriously Bethseda & Bioware should get together and have babies - that would be an awesome game.

Modifié par Tryynity, 01 janvier 2012 - 09:05 .

[Sinuphro]

plz and plz stop comparing da 2 to skyrium. da 2....is trash. And what is this nonesense about no choices in skyrium??? lmao that person saying that there are no choices in skyrium...am i and that person playing the same skyrium??

[Sinuphro]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Dungeon design is a place I really disagree. Massive re-use of assets (all Draugar tombs look the same, not similar the same) - now in fairness doing however many dungeons they do all of each type will look the same.  Almost all spaces are the same layout - linear hall->room-->hall-->room layout.  They camoflauge that by making things twist and turn but it is basically one long line. The "deeper" dungeons are just terrible crawls through a mass of all look same foes. The encounter design is really not good. There are too many one dude alone in a  room type fights and not many interesting tactical situations.

Now, none of that is to say DA2 was better (or even close to good) but what Skyrim does isn't a highlight of the game for me.

The world  design, the enemy design, armor and weapons look are all things I love. I just got to Markath and was blown away by that city and how it felt - it was what I wanted Orzammar to feel like. I also like the "not on the map" stuff that you trip over. I like not everything being tied to a quest and something are just "there".

Ok, reading your posts on the subject recently, I got the impression that you simply weren't very Wowed by Skyrim.  Which is fine.  People have different tastes.

But here you've crossed that line, and are now posting ridiculously false information.    (aah Screw the minced wording,   You're LYING.)   So I'm going to correct you.

-We'll start with Draugr tombs, since you specifically mentioned them.  They DON'T look the same, unless your definition of "the same" is:  well, hehehehe, they all got draugrs in them and coffins, and urns and Nord carvings  on the walls, therefore, they're the  same!"      And if that's what you're trying to say then your  vocabulary  needs help.  Because that's not "sameness".  That's called a *THEME*  It's to let you know that you're in a damn Nord  tomb.  But as far as  layouts, the Draugr tombs are as varied as they could possibly be and still be called tombs.     There are some that have clusterphobically narrow passages and darkened rooms filled with cobwebbing.  And then  there are some  who's layout is the complete opposite:  Huge and cavernous, winding and water-filled, with Gorges and bridges, steep inclines and  ceilings  high enough to almost make you feel like you're outside  (Visit Laberynthian sometime, then come back an apologise for, you know... Lying.)

-Then there are Dwemer Ruins.... very blatantly and obviously different from   Draugir ruins  (and  each other, for that matter) in both theme and layout.  Some  seem decidedly older-looking and more "ruined" than others.  Some are small and shiny, others are Massive spralling campuses, bigger than any city in the game.  Some even contain  sections that  deliberately deviate from the Dwemer theme  (Mzuft, for example, has a bizzare open area filled with colorful vegetation and a flowing waterfall)

-There are Snow caves, large and small.  They're white and filled with snow.  Some look  to have natural, uncarved rock walls, ceilings and passages, while  others  have very obvious   man-made layouts.  Size-wise, thse caves vary wildly, some are just one area, others are a few LEVELS in size.  Some have rooms.  Others are just  a plain cavernous  area with no rooms at all.


-Falmer Ruins.  You don't bother to even mention those, even though there are at least a dozen of them in the game.  They're dark.  But sometimes the walls glow  with glowing mushrooms.  It's difficult to even pinpoint a theme with falmer dungeons since they're all so wildly chaotic in looks, size, layout.  In fact, the only thing they have in common with each other is their inhabitants:  Falmer.  Although I once visited what I thought was a falmer ruin and it  ended up having Vampires in it instead.

-Castles.  This one doesn't even need to be mentioned.  That I'm even defining them as castles is already a point of contention, because some don't look like castles at all,   from the inside or the outside.

-Grottos -  There are "dungeons"  in this game that aren't even dungeons.  They're semi-enclosed areas with no ceiling.  Some look like ruins.  others look like Gardens,  Some are level, others have cliffs, bridges, gorges, and winding paths.

-Submerged dungeons.  I've found 2 in this game.  Yes, Submerged, they're mostly underwater.  Best explored by waterbreathing items.

City Building interiors.  There are  Tents, there are  cabins, there are stone dwellings, there are sewers,  there are fancy noble estates, there are farm houses,  and government buildings.    There's a Government building inside a   giant cave that decends to a giant  ancient Dwemer ruin comprised of a  half dozen buildings connected by a series of bridges, on different levels, stretching over  a  large river.  There's a fancy, well lit  Jarl's castle that has an entire wing which is, itself a dark ancient ruin.

-There are lighthouses, and towers with spiral staircases.  Some are free standing, others are connected by a long bridge that takes you over a river and to another tower.  Some have no stairs at all.  Others have stone stair cases that aren't spiraling.  Some are mixed.  There's a tower that decends into a Draugr tomb.

-There's the monestary, too.  Cant forget that one.  It's way way up in the mountains., yet it manages to have a back yard.

-There are stranded/abandoned/occupied  Ships you can swim to and explore.  SHIPS.  with rooms and levels.

This, of course,  is all aside from the *Miles* of vastly differing (and interactive) outdoor terrains that you can spend 100+ hours traversing.      And this all  goes without saying for any honest person who's played Skyrim.

all those critics of skyrium need to read this

[AliceTheGiraffe]

 Skyrim is a beautiful game. I have spent hours in that game just wandering around, exploring the world. I have never done that in any Bioware game. I play Bioware and Bethesda games though, for different reasons. I play Bethesda, Elder Scrolls games, to make a character, explore a world, and be whatever I want to be. The options are really limitless. I can do as much, or as little as I want. I am not controlled in a linear fashion. Bioware games on the otherhand, are driven more by story and characters, (and *I personally think* the game is holding my hand), pulling me along. It is much more linear, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I LOVED Kotor, ME, DA:O), but I cannot RPG in anyway I wish in those games. Which is fine with me. But to get to my point, I think it is completely unfair to compare the games in this way when they are so unalike, and are striving to meet different expectations.

I expect to explore and RPG in a Besthesda game, while I expect to get emotionally involved and connected to the story and characters of a Bioware game. I kinda question the purpose of this thread...if not to bash on Skyrim. However, if this thread truly is about comparing the games (even though I find it difficult to), here is my take. I enjoyed Skyrim more than DA2. I found the art style, exploration, story, and combat more engaging. The only thing I  can say at this time (opinions are always evolving ) that I liked better in DA2 were the characters (companions). Another reason I have to rate Skyrim higher is because Skyrim did not recycle maps, or give me pointless junk gear to sell. Skyrim made exploring fun and not tedious/painful, and it also offered multiple playthroughs for different characters I want to see evolve. Whereas my expectations of DA2 are not to explore as much, but to get connected to the story and characters. I am unable to say I was at this time (I liked most of the compansions, but feel iffy about Hawke and story). DA2 is not a bad game by any means, but I really have no desire to replay it. Why? I have no choice in the outcome of the story. Whatever choices I make, make absolutely no difference. Which is completely fine in a Japanese RPG, such as Final Fantasy, where I expect that. But in to see that in DA2, where I thought I was going to make choices that impacted the ending, and not see that come to fruitation was disappointing. 

I understand that some people will disagree with me, and that is totally okay. I can see where some people feel and think that picking mages vs templars is having an impact on the story. However, to me, that is not because most of the choices I made in the game had nothing to do with Act 3 of the story. 
So this is what it boils down to for me. I can replay and enjoy Final Fantasy games (very linear, story driven, no choices really) because I love the lore, characters and story. I can replay Bethesda Elder Scroll games because I can create new interesting, different characters each playthrough. I can replay and enjoy DA:O because my choices have an impact on the end of the game, and the characters and story is spectacular. I want and wish I could say I could replay DA2 and enjoy it, but I watched the credits roll by after my playthrough not feeling satisfied, but confused. AND then I was frustrated that I was confused about what to make of it. 

I just want to end my post by saying though I cannot say DA2 is one of my favorite games (I only replay favorite games), I do not regret playing it. I am glad I was able to play it, and appreciate what it offered. Bioware is one of my favorite gaming companies, and many of their games are my favorites. Keep up the good work! I plan to continue to buy your games. 

Modifié par AliceTheGiraffe, 01 janvier 2012 - 10:42 .

[deatharmonic]

AliceTheGiraffe wrote...

 Skyrim is a beautiful game. I have spent hours in that game just wandering around, exploring the world. I have never done that in any Bioware game. I play Bioware and Bethesda games though, for different reasons. I play Bethesda, Elder Scrolls games, to make a character, explore a world, and be whatever I want to be. The options are really limitless. I can do as much, or as little as I want. I am not controlled in a linear fashion. Bioware games on the otherhand, are driven more by story and characters, (and *I personally think* the game is holding my hand), pulling me along. It is much more linear, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I LOVED Kotor, ME, DA:O), but I cannot RPG in anyway I wish in those games. Which is fine with me. But to get to my point, I think it is completely unfair to compare the games in this way when they are so unalike, and are striving to meet different expectations.

I expect to explore and RPG in a Besthesda game, while I expect to get emotionally involved and connected to the story and characters of a Bioware game. I kinda question the purpose of this thread...if not to bash on Skyrim. However, if this thread truly is about comparing the games (even though I find it difficult to), here is my take. I enjoyed Skyrim more than DA2. I found the art style, exploration, story, and combat more engaging. The only thing I  can say at this time (opinions are always evolving ) that I liked better in DA2 were the characters (companions). Another reason I have to rate Skyrim higher is because Skyrim did not recycle maps, or give me pointless junk gear to sell. Skyrim made exploring fun and not tedious/painful, and it also offered multiple playthroughs for different characters I want to see evolve. Whereas my expectations of DA2 are not to explore as much, but to get connected to the story and characters. I am unable to say I was at this time (I liked most of the compansions, but feel iffy about Hawke and story). DA2 is not a bad game by any means, but I really have no desire to replay it. Why? I have no choice in the outcome of the story. Whatever choices I make, make absolutely no difference. Which is completely fine in a Japanese RPG, such as Final Fantasy, where I expect that. But in to see that in DA2, where I thought I was going to make choices that impacted the ending, and not see that come to fruitation was disappointing. 

I understand that some people will disagree with me, and that is totally okay. I can see where some people feel and think that picking mages vs templars is having an impact on the story. However, to me, that is not because most of the choices I made in the game had nothing to do with Act 3 of the story. 
So this is what it boils down to for me. I can replay and enjoy Final Fantasy games (very linear, story driven, no choices really) because I love the lore, characters and story. I can replay Bethesda Elder Scroll games because I can create new interesting, different characters each playthrough. I can replay and enjoy DA:O because my choices have an impact on the end of the game, and the characters and story is spectacular. I want and wish I could say I could replay DA2 and enjoy it, but I watched the credits roll by after my playthrough not feeling satisfied, but confused. AND then I was frustrated that I was confused about what to make of it. 

I just want to end my post by saying though I cannot say DA2 is one of my favorite games (I only replay favorite games), I do not regret playing it. I am glad I was able to play it, and appreciate what it offered. Bioware is one of my favorite gaming companies, and many of their games are my favorites. Keep up the good work! I plan to continue to buy your games. 

i completely agree.

[Sylvianus]

I agree, they are not comparable and each has its strength and weakness. But I hope they can learn from each other. Nothing prevents to improve its weaknesses, while continuing on its strength, that's what makes the difference on the curve.

I do not regret playing DA2, because DA2 taught me one thing. What I want for an rpg, and what I do not want. What I can buy, or what I can not buy. Before I didn't have any idea, I just knew that I liked this kind of game.

Now I know, that even for an rpg, if the graphics aren't decent for example, I just can't buy it. Maybe it's useless for an rpg, but it's a must now.

I've never been interested in the semantic, I did not know what an RPG should be, and I was not interested to know that. Now I know specifically what I want and that's what count. XD

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 janvier 2012 - 04:27 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sinuphro wrote...

plz and plz stop comparing da 2 to skyrium. da 2....is trash. And what is this nonesense about no choices in skyrium??? lmao that person saying that there are no choices in skyrium...am i and that person playing the same skyrium??

I like DA2. I do not consider it trash. I also like DAO. I have played all the TES games. Morrowind has the best story out of all of them. Skyrim for me pales in comparison to Morrowind. I like DA2 better than Skyrim or Oblivion. I have played cRPGs for a long time. I know what I like and what I do not like. I did not care for Skyrim or Oblivion.

Dragon age games can be controlled with a mouse and has a better mouse friendly UI. TES games since Morrowind are not mouse friendly nor do they have a good UI on a PC.
Dragon Age games actually tell a story and have excellent companions. DA2 actually have NPCs that do not act like cardboard cutouts ahd are more than bland or boring.  TES games have a paper thin story that holds together like wet tissue paper. You are right I would not compare DA2 to Skyrim. I actually like DA2.

[Sylvianus]

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

[Tryynity]

Why not compare DA2 to Skyrim? This is a Bioware forum not a Bethseda forum.

Yes they are comparable and yes they do have strengths and weaknesses.

Just like ingredients, if developers the time to read about what is popular and what is not - its all feedback.

I cannot blatantly say either game sucked - they have good & bad points. Both developers are great imho. I preferred DAO to DA2 to Skyrim all for different points.

I would take out the poopy story, gameplay & relationships of Skyrim but keep the open world/graphics - add the RPG style, companions/relationships, elves, of DAO - then add the animations from DA2 - get the Bioware writers to write the story and BAM make gazillions from ppl like me LOL

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

[Bryy_Miller]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Dungeon design is a place I really disagree. Massive re-use of assets (all Draugar tombs look the same, not similar the same) - now in fairness doing however many dungeons they do all of each type will look the same.  Almost all spaces are the same layout - linear hall->room-->hall-->room layout.  They camoflauge that by making things twist and turn but it is basically one long line. The "deeper" dungeons are just terrible crawls through a mass of all look same foes. The encounter design is really not good. There are too many one dude alone in a  room type fights and not many interesting tactical situations.

Now, none of that is to say DA2 was better (or even close to good) but what Skyrim does isn't a highlight of the game for me.

The world  design, the enemy design, armor and weapons look are all things I love. I just got to Markath and was blown away by that city and how it felt - it was what I wanted Orzammar to feel like. I also like the "not on the map" stuff that you trip over. I like not everything being tied to a quest and something are just "there".

Ok, reading your posts on the subject recently, I got the impression that you simply weren't very Wowed by Skyrim.  Which is fine.  People have different tastes.

But here you've crossed that line, and are now posting ridiculously false information.    (aah Screw the minced wording,   You're LYING.)   So I'm going to correct you.

...

And this all  goes without saying for any honest person who's played Skyrim.

Oh, Ykroon. I can always count on you to viciously slander someone for daring to have a different opinion. 

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 01 janvier 2012 - 11:12 .

[Sylvianus]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

No. I do not consider DA2 npcs better than those of Skyrim. All are almost useless, and those restricted to the story were boring and bland and often crazy even if bioware focused more on them. It's almost even worse.

But if you are talking about companions, yes.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 janvier 2012 - 11:41 .

[Yrkoon]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

Really?  Those stone pillars NPCs in DA2, that just stand in one place,  that don't react to anything, that don't have their own lives, that you can't talk to or  engage in a conversation with are "the life of the party" compared to Skyrim's NPCs?  REALLY?

Call me when you find an NPC in Dragon Age 2 that  notices that you are a mage when you walk by them... or when you're wielding a flaming weapon, or when you're wearing a nice set of full plate armor, or when you're diseased.

Because they ALL do in Skyrim.

[Addai]

Tryynity wrote...
I would take out the poopy story, gameplay & relationships of Skyrim but keep the open world/graphics - add the RPG style, companions/relationships, elves, of DAO - then add the animations from DA2 - get the Bioware writers to write the story and BAM make gazillions from ppl like me LOL

Skyrim is making gazillions all on its own.

[tmp7704]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

Don't know if you mean the companions or the NPCs in general, but if it's about the latter then one thing which struck me when playing Skyrim was how much alive the cities felt with the NPCs frequently interacting with one another and moving around. Even if it was just simple snippets of dialogue it was like night and day compared to how Kirkwall felt with most of its denizens doing at best some little shuffle of two steps forward, three steps back from their anchor spot, and pretty much never reacting to anything going around them.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 janvier 2012 - 05:40 .

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

Really?  Those stone pillars NPCs in DA2, that just stand in one place,  that don't react to anything, that don't have their own lives, that you can't talk to or  engage in a conversation with are "the life of the party" compared to Skyrim's NPCs?  REALLY?

Call me when you find an NPC in Dragon Age 2 that  notices that you are a mage when you walk by them... or when you're wielding a flaming weapon, or when you're wearing a nice set of full plate armor, or when you're diseased.

Because they ALL do in Skyrim.

I have to say that I agree that the NPCs in Skyrim's cities and villages are definitely better than anything the DA series has ever done.

I mean, I'm wearing friggin' Dwarven armor for most of the game and they commented on it!

"Fine armor you got there. Dwarven make, am I right?"

And hell, noticing I'm a werewolf even if they don't realize it

"I find your wolfish grin... unsettling."

But for companions, Bioware definitely wins.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 janvier 2012 - 05:58 .

[Realmzmaster]

tmp7704 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

DA2 npcs are bland and boring.

Compared to Skyrim's DA2 NPCS are the life of the party.

Don't know if you mean the companions or the NPCs in general, but if it's about the latter then one thing which struck me when playing Skyrim was how much alive the cities felt with the NPCs frequently interacting with one another and moving around. Even if it was just simple snippets of dialogue it was like night and day compared to how Kirkwall felt with most of its denizens doing at best some little shuffle of two steps forward, three steps back from their anchor spot, and pretty much never reacting to anything going around them.

Let me be more specific. I consider any character I do not create or is not the main protagonist as an NPC. But to make it more specific the companions in DA2 are much better than the ones in Skyrim. The general NPCs are dull and boring in both games.

[megski]

If Skyrim's beautiful and vast environments had a baby with bioware's character animation and interactions, and that baby was DA3. Oh, and Origin's quality story was the grandma, it would be the most epic.game.ever.

However OP, you saying that a linear storyline makes the game better is absolute blasphemy. Paarthurnax is also my favorite character.

[Yrkoon]

Mike Smith wrote...

You can't really compare Bethesda and DA games because they're two different kind of games.

 Indeed.  Someone should probably send that message to  Bioware CEO,  Ray Muzyka, then.  Because he appears to have not gotten it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 janvier 2012 - 11:47 .

[alex90c]

Tryynity wrote...

Why not compare DA2 to Skyrim? This is a Bioware forum not a Bethseda forum.

Yes they are comparable and yes they do have strengths and weaknesses.

Just like ingredients, if developers the time to read about what is popular and what is not - its all feedback.

I cannot blatantly say either game sucked - they have good & bad points. Both developers are great imho. I preferred DAO to DA2 to Skyrim all for different points.

I would take out the poopy story, gameplay & relationships of Skyrim but keep the open world/graphics - add the RPG style, companions/relationships, elves, of DAO - then add the animations from DA2 - get the Bioware writers to write the story and BAM make gazillions from ppl like me LOL

No.

I'm quite happy with Skyrim's combat the way it is, I do not need warriors lunging forward with sparks flying from them, jumping 10ft in the air to slam a sword in to the ground, rogues zipping around the place, mages doing a twirling routine, exploding bodies and lego bricks.

Just no.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wynne didn't just object to you romancing Allistair, she pretty much objected to any romance option across the board. And her converns were quite valid, being in the middle of a struggle for survival with a small, tight knit group of people can create some strife if romance problems arise.

And she voiced concerns about the Chantry's involvement with mages, but honestly? I'm not a pro-Chantry/Templar sort, but NONE of the free mages we've seen are any indication that the Chantry/Tower solution isn't the best.

We've got Jowan, a blood mage who winds up poisoning an Arl. You've got Morrigan, who will get snooty if you actually try to help anyone and will wind up wanting to absorb an arch demon into her uterus. The crazy old man in the Brecillian Forest, who tries to kill you if you don't play his crazy riddle game. Anders who does REALLY bad things at the end of DA2. Merril, who seems intent on repairing a corrupted artifact with blood magic and demons and makes everyone pay for her choices. A host of NPC bad guys/villains from both DAO and DA2 who Abominate and Blood Mage at the slightest hint of nothing. A Dream Walker who can't control his powers worth squat. And anyone from Tevinter, who are either slavers, blood mages or a combination of both.

The only people in the entire DA franchise who had been apostates (or at least non-Circle members) and HAVEN'T done extremely horrifying things are Bethany, Ethan and Mage Hawke. So, apparently, the Hawke's are the only legitimate argument for anything outside of Templar control of mages.

Those situations are all highly subjective and open to interpretation.

There are at least as many perfectly non-mgical characters who commit worse crimes.

If a system creates a culture of rape and abuse, I think it's safe to say that it needs to change, regardless of whether or not a better one is actually available.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 janvier 2012 - 04:01 .