56 réponses à ce sujet

[tehturian]

motomotogirl wrote...

If you don't have any interest in the game's plot, why would you buy it?

The plot in DA:O was to save the country from the Blight; the plot in ME3 is to save the galaxy from the reapers. If you don't find those interesting, then why would you buy those games?

Because the Mage-Templar conflict is much less black and white than the blights or the reaper war.

Something tells me we won't be taking a specific side in the conflict per say. 

Modifié par tehturian, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[nightscrawl]

tehturian wrote...

Because the Mage-Templar conflict is much less black and white than the blights or the reaper war.

Something tells me we won't be taking a specific side in the conflict per say.

Oh I don't know... the Architect in DAA seemed to be morally ambiguous to me.

The way my Warden looked at that issue in a way that no one else there could (I always bring Justice, Anders, and Nate) was that none of the people there trying to take the moral high ground (Justice in particular, who mainly wanted "vengeance" for Kristoff's death) where there during the blight, much less as a Warden. For a long time it was me and Alistair and that was IT. I cannot tell you how it pisses me off when they start in with their arguments while I'm talking to the Architect. The dialogue options are woefully lacking in that scene.

At any rate, I went off on a tangent. My Warden looks at a deal with the Architect as a means to an end to prevent another Blight, and she takes it. Some people just kill him outright. It all depends on your perspective, really.

[MichaelStuart]

tehturian wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

If you don't have any interest in the game's plot, why would you buy it?

The plot in DA:O was to save the country from the Blight; the plot in ME3 is to save the galaxy from the reapers. If you don't find those interesting, then why would you buy those games?

Because the Mage-Templar conflict is much less black and white than the blights or the reaper war.

Something tells me we won't be taking a specific side in the conflict per say. 

For me its not the morality of a war that makes it interesting or not. Its what you have to do in the war that makes it interesting.

I suppose if I hear exactly what I will be doing, I would be more inclined to join the war.
So, does anyone have any ideas about what exactly I will be doing if join the war?

Hopefully it won't just be a rehash of Dragon Age Origins (and Mass Effect 3's) "go to different places, meet some people, get them to work with some other people, then have big final battle" plot.

[nightscrawl]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Hopefully it won't just be a rehash of Dragon Age Origins (and Mass Effect 3's) "go to different places, meet some people, get them to work with some other people, then have big final battle" plot.

There are very few plot scenarios a game of this type can take. The thing that sets any given game apart from another, Bioware games in particular, is how it deals with relationships, character interaction (that you both like and dislike), enjoyment of class mechanics, and immersion in the environment.

I hope we are going to be made to choose sides, and hope that the choice happens early on, within the first third of the game. Then we can spend the rest of the game working with our chosen side. Despite trying my very hardest, you cannot maintain a neutral or situation-based (letting these mages go, but turning in those mages) stance in DA2. They made you choose. Despite our choice, we ended up in war anyway. So we have war. Attempting to have the PC try for some neutrality, or playing both ends against the middle in an attempt to sabotage each side is incredibly lame IMO.

The only thing that will work, and it's not even a guarantee, is for a common enemy to appear. It satisfies the "pick a side" problem, and also the oft-used "final boss" design.

[MichaelStuart]

nightscrawl wrote...

I hope we are going to be made to choose sides, and hope that the choice happens early on, within the first third of the game. Then we can spend the rest of the game working with our chosen side. Despite trying my very hardest, you cannot maintain a neutral or situation-based (letting these mages go, but turning in those mages) stance in DA2. They made you choose. Despite our choice, we ended up in war anyway. So we have war. Attempting to have the PC try for some neutrality, or playing both ends against the middle in an attempt to sabotage each side is incredibly lame IMO.

The only thing that will work, and it's not even a guarantee, is for a common enemy to appear. It satisfies the "pick a side" problem, and also the oft-used "final boss" design.

I presonally have always been a big fan of having a "Omnicidal Neutral" option.
Some times, wiping out both sides is just the most logical choice.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[schalafi]

In Origins we had a common enemy, the Blight, with lots of lesser enemies, Arl Howe, Logain, etc. But on DA2 we had the choice of picking sides, Templar vs. Mage. Some say Meridith was the common enemy, but unfortunately defeating her didn't lead to any resolution, just speculation. I like a game to have a satisfactory ending that wraps up everything, not just leaves me scratching my head and wondering what just happened.