349 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

*giggles* But you said it didn't matter! So if you are free to express disgust at me why can't I express amusement fair is fair after all is it not? Oh well Anora's tears as she bows at her daddies corpse will have to do for me. I'll just HC the rest of it.

As for me day one buy for DA3 if only one thing? I probably said it here before but it'll need to be restated, diverging conversations with extremely little if not no autodialogue. Please don't be ME3. Please. Interactive conversations not this "well we need the game to be cinematic so have all this autodialogue!" Bleh. Never again.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Persephone]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
The PC should be able to be a monster. I had one who was and I would have liked to kill Anora with him.

Except killing Anora isn't a monstrous act. Anymore than her having Alistair executed. It's the prudent thing to do with someone who's a threat to your power. Which is why if Alistair lived I'm wondering why the warden can't suggest she be disposed of ASAP. Locking her up in a tower won't work for long.

This is actually true, yes. If I were to put a hardened Alistair in power, she has to be dealt with. There can be no half measures in that regard.

But I usually make them marry each other, so they'll have to get along. And Anora's already fond of him in the end, so I'm hopeful there. And the Epilogue confirms my hopes in more ways than one.

[Persephone]

Ryzaki wrote...

As for me day one buy for DA3 if only one thing? I probably said it here before but it'll need to be restated, diverging conversations with extremely little if not no autodialogue. Please don't be ME3. Please.

ME3 was an amazing game but I agree, that formula would not work in DAIII. And diverging conversations are always a big plus. Have you played the Games Of Thrones RPG? Now that is diverging dialogue done extremely well IMHO.

[Ryzaki]

Persephone wrote...
ME3 was an amazing game but I agree, that formula would not work in DAIII. And diverging conversations are always a big plus. Have you played the Games Of Thrones RPG? Now that is diverging dialogue done extremely well IMHO.

I disagree with you ont he first part. It *would've* been amazing but the auto dialogue, fedex quests, 2 choice system 99.99999% of the time and the ending ruined that. I find it skirting the edges of being a bad game actually. Only thing that saves it is the combat and the squadmates.

Sounds like fun.

Re: Anora and Alistair:  I didn't see fondness merely tolerance that happens in my games even on the 1% chance I have Anora stay queen. The one game she's married to Alistair the warden's his mistress. I see them being associates and working well together but nothing much more than that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 06:18 .

[Persephone]

Ryzaki wrote...

Persephone wrote...
ME3 was an amazing game but I agree, that formula would not work in DAIII. And diverging conversations are always a big plus. Have you played the Games Of Thrones RPG? Now that is diverging dialogue done extremely well IMHO.

I disagree with you ont he first part. It *would've* been amazing but the auto dialogue, fedex quests, 2 choice system 99.99999% of the time and the ending ruined that. I find it skirting the edges of being a bad game actually. Only thing that saves it is the combat and the squadmates.

Sounds like fun.

Re: Anora and Alistair:  I didn't see fondness merely tolerance that happens in my games even on the 1% chance I have Anora stay queen. The one game she's married to Alistair the warden's his mistress. I see them being associates and working well together but nothing much more than that.

I guess we're bound to disagree constantly....ah well.

Either way, I'd be curious to see your opinion on GOT.

[Annihilator27]

Qunari are playable.

[Ryzaki]

Oh god if I could play a Qunari female? <3<3<3<3

Or a female Qunari companion? :wub:

That's Actually QUNARI with horns. Not Tallis.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 07:22 .

[astreqwerty]

FACT=multiplayer requires resources that will be taken away from the main game and that SUX...i dont know why u people thought it was neccasary to put MP in mass effect but do you really think that multi is needed in a tactical rpg like dragon age??look at witcher 2, and TES(i hate that game)..while arguably different than da they all are rpgs...they didnt need multi to sell. Now if you think that da3 will need multip in order to appeal to its markets then we are in serious trouble here..if multiplayer is inevitable then i want reasurance from bioware that it wont be detrimental to sp or else no buy for me for sure...

on topic: origins

[mopotter]

That they will include heroic happy endings along with any sacrificial ones, I won't have to send my LI to have sex with someone else to get it and the endings will make sense. A guarantee like this, might make me pre-order it.

I've enjoyed both games and all the books. DA series may become my favorite series, who knows.

[Hurbster]

What would make it an instant buy ? A return to the ethics and style of the first game. A true neutral path between the two factions must be available. But mostly Ander's head on a goddamn pole.

[wsandista]

Hurbster wrote...

What would make it an instant buy ? A return to the ethics and style of the first game. A true neutral path between the two factions must be available. But mostly Ander's head on a goddamn pole.

I endorsethis post.

Return to the gameplay mechanics and artstyle of DAO as well.

[KDD-0063]

I mean, for me, I'm going to buy it.

Well, eventually. Other things just decide whether I buy a $60 copy, or a $5 copy.

but, in all seriousness, there's nothing that will make me buy a $60 copy no matter what.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 11 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[Midz]

astreqwerty wrote...

FACT=multiplayer requires resources that will be taken away from the main game and that SUX...i dont know why u people thought it was neccasary to put MP in mass effect but do you really think that multi is needed in a tactical rpg like dragon age??look at witcher 2, and TES(i hate that game)..while arguably different than da they all are rpgs...they didnt need multi to sell. Now if you think that da3 will need multip in order to appeal to its markets then we are in serious trouble here..if multiplayer is inevitable then i want reasurance from bioware that it wont be detrimental to sp or else no buy for me for sure...

on topic: origins

  Except multi player was put into Witcher to help the x box port and Microsoft link on which CDproject have placed a  lot of stress and there next cyberpunk game so you may not think so but it would seem CD did think was needed .

[Ihatebadgames]

I've played The Witcher 2 on 360..no multiplayer(Thank the Maker).

[The Sarendoctrinator]

I'll add my support for more Cassandra and more qunari (females too) in DA3.

Persephone wrote...

Playing GOT now. I really LIKE their dialogue wheel. (Clearly snagged from Bioware, heh!) There were no indicators as to what was the "right" or "wrong" answer, and they do lead to different outcomes, not just slightly different responses either!

I've been interested in this game since I read in a preview article that it used a BioWare-style dialogue wheel, which is kind of funny since I never had any interest in the TV series (but from what little I know about it, the game has a completely different story and characters anyway).

[nightscrawl]

mopotter wrote...

That they will include heroic happy endings along with any sacrificial ones, I won't have to send my LI to have sex with someone else to get it and the endings will make sense. A guarantee like this, might make me pre-order it.

I've enjoyed both games and all the books. DA series may become my favorite series, who knows.

So... you want them to spoil the endings before you buy the game? XD I somehow don't see that happening hehe.

I agree though. I like a variety of ending "types" and various methods to get there. (Edit in case this is necessary: various single player methods.)

Modifié par nightscrawl, 11 juin 2012 - 01:39 .

[Scarlet Rabbi]

Morrigan's story gets advanced or wrapped up.

[Persephone]

Hurbster wrote...

What would make it an instant buy ? A return to the ethics and style of the first game. A true neutral path between the two factions must be available. But mostly Ander's head on a goddamn pole.

DAO had ethics? Seriously...how? I mean....the game tells you very bluntly what is supposedly "good" or "evil". Except that DAII effectively unmasks some of these things as...well, untrue. I truly have begun to despise the Chantry and the idea of Circles Of Magi. DAO endorsed these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

[Sith Grey Warden]

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

What would make it an instant buy ? A return to the ethics and style of the first game. A true neutral path between the two factions must be available. But mostly Ander's head on a goddamn pole.

DAO had ethics? Seriously...how? I mean....the game tells you very bluntly what is supposedly "good" or "evil". Except that DAII effectively unmasks some of these things as...well, untrue. I truly have begun to despise the Chantry and the idea of Circles Of Magi. DAO endorsed these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

DAO tells you what is good or evil? Really? How exactly does it do that? (Especially with no Paragon-Renegade meter)

The game is filled with moral gray areas and decisions that vary based on what views your character holds. For example, choosing a king for the dwarves: Bhelen is clearly going to be a tyrant, but at the same time he is a reformer. Can he be trusted to actually act in his people's best interest? Would that justify his absolute power? Or do you choose Harrowmont, the possibly ineffectual leader who would preserve the destructive old traditions but can be trusted to behave honorably and follow through on his word? That's just one example. I can give more if you need them.

Regarding the Circle, it is in no way fully endorsed. In fact, it's far more morally ambiguous in DAO than DA2. In DAO, you see horrors like the Tranquil and how Jowan was essentially destroyed by the established system as he was forced to turn to blood magic, and thereby brought the doom on himself that he was fearing. Irving is seen as being able to enforce order to a great extent without the Templars, who become ineffective once there's an actual crisis. Is this relatively mild tyranny justified by the dangers of mages? Meanwhile, in DA2, we hear of the circle basically becoming an internment camp and thereby creating the very dangers it was meant to guard against as massive numbers of mages turn to demons and blood magic.

As for the Chantry outside the context of the Circle, there still is nothing in DAO saying "the Chantry is a completely benign organization that you should unquestioningly support." There are plenty of good things the Chantry does, but also a fair number of evil ones. Genitivi was nearly considered a heretic for his research into the urn, for example. The Chantry can end up threatening an exalted march against Orzammar for minor infractions. Also, the Revered Mother at Ostagar is shown in a purely negative light (shooting down Uldred's plan that might help the war effort and sending Alistair to antagonize a mage).

So how did DAO endorse these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

[Persephone]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Hurbster wrote...

What would make it an instant buy ? A return to the ethics and style of the first game. A true neutral path between the two factions must be available. But mostly Ander's head on a goddamn pole.

DAO had ethics? Seriously...how? I mean....the game tells you very bluntly what is supposedly "good" or "evil". Except that DAII effectively unmasks some of these things as...well, untrue. I truly have begun to despise the Chantry and the idea of Circles Of Magi. DAO endorsed these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

DAO tells you what is good or evil? Really? How exactly does it do that? (Especially with no Paragon-Renegade meter)

The game is filled with moral gray areas and decisions that vary based on what views your character holds. For example, choosing a king for the dwarves: Bhelen is clearly going to be a tyrant, but at the same time he is a reformer. Can he be trusted to actually act in his people's best interest? Would that justify his absolute power? Or do you choose Harrowmont, the possibly ineffectual leader who would preserve the destructive old traditions but can be trusted to behave honorably and follow through on his word? That's just one example. I can give more if you need them.

Regarding the Circle, it is in no way fully endorsed. In fact, it's far more morally ambiguous in DAO than DA2. In DAO, you see horrors like the Tranquil and how Jowan was essentially destroyed by the established system as he was forced to turn to blood magic, and thereby brought the doom on himself that he was fearing. Irving is seen as being able to enforce order to a great extent without the Templars, who become ineffective once there's an actual crisis. Is this relatively mild tyranny justified by the dangers of mages? Meanwhile, in DA2, we hear of the circle basically becoming an internment camp and thereby creating the very dangers it was meant to guard against as massive numbers of mages turn to demons and blood magic.

As for the Chantry outside the context of the Circle, there still is nothing in DAO saying "the Chantry is a completely benign organization that you should unquestioningly support." There are plenty of good things the Chantry does, but also a fair number of evil ones. Genitivi was nearly considered a heretic for his research into the urn, for example. The Chantry can end up threatening an exalted march against Orzammar for minor infractions. Also, the Revered Mother at Ostagar is shown in a purely negative light (shooting down Uldred's plan that might help the war effort and sending Alistair to antagonize a mage).

So how did DAO endorse these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

The Bhelen/Harrowmont choice wasn't ambigous to me. At all.

DAO hardly portrays Tranquils as "horrors". They are shown to be pretty content with their lot and almost nobody, even mages, questions the practice. Jowan? He brought destruction on himself by falling for an initiate (Poor Thorn Birds cover) and by lying to her as well as the PC. Irving enforces order how? Uldred sure had him in his clutches. The Templars, though regretfully, kept the demons and abominations locked away effectively. Does the PC swoop in to safe the day? Yes. But it's the Knight Commander in charge and keeping order, not Irving. (Whom I consider to be rather incompetent, sorry)

Yes. DAII shows that despair. There is no more sugarcoating of the actual abuses and horrible choices on both sides.

Wait, threats of heresy against a questionable exploitation (That's what Genetivi's research leads to, if you let it), sassing a mage and ONE Revered Mother not trusting a mage shows that the Chantry isn't all goody goody? Esp. when said Mage becomes a rabid Pride Abomination later? Huh.... And THREATS of an Exalted March after a priest was slain....yeah, hot air. The Exalted March doesn't happen.

[Wozearly]

"We've appointed Sylvius the Mad as Lead Designer."

[The Elder King]

Persephone wrote...



DAO had ethics? Seriously...how? I mean....the game tells you very bluntly what is supposedly "good" or "evil". Except that DAII effectively unmasks some of these things as...well, untrue. I truly have begun to despise the Chantry and the idea of Circles Of Magi. DAO endorsed these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

While I agree with you that the Chantry seemed indeed "good", I never thought that magic, or mages, were "evil". If happened before DAO that a Circle was taken over by abomination, and it would've happened in the future, if the events of DA2 haven't happened. It's the major risk of the Circle system, the fact that some mages will try to change the situation and use blood magic and, possibly, became abominations. That doesn't mean that the mages in DAO were intended to seem "evil". It means that magic (and mages) is dangerous.
And about DA2, if I have to judge mages and the Chantry/templars from DA2 alone, I'd say that they are all evil. Mages didn't show their good side in DA2, as well as templars (though we already knew from the informations given from Bioware prior release).

[Mr. C]

"We just fired Laidlaw."

SOLD.



Kidding....sort of.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Persephone wrote...

DAO had
ethics? Seriously...how? I mean....the game tells you very bluntly what is supposedly "good" or "evil". Except that DAII effectively unmasks some of these things as...well, untrue. I truly have begun to despise the Chantry and the idea of Circles Of Magi. DAO endorsed these abuse filled, hypocritical and cruel beliefs and systems almost full stop.

I don't think DAO did this, at all.  DAO features some characters who believed these things, but there was no reason for the player or the Warden to feel the same way.

Leliana goes on and on about how great the Chantry is, but any Mage Warden saw how true that isn't right from the start of the game.

All DA2 did was show you both sides explicitly.  It made the moral ambiguity more obvious.  Is that better?

Wozearly wrote...

"We've appointed Sylvius the Mad as Lead Designer."

The thing about this that I like best is the idea of managing a large team.  That would be... interesting.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 04:01 .