79 réponses à ce sujet

[EnforcerGREG]

As Inquisitor why not let us destroy them all!!
 
that way no one wins.  Exept us

[Sable Rhapsody]

LookingGlass93 wrote...
I just hope that DA3 is the last time Bioware makes mages vs templars a major plot point. As it is it's the third time so far.

I wouldn't say it was a major plot point in DA:O.  Sure, it was the focus of the Circle quest, but very little comes of it in the grand scheme of things.  It became a major plot point in DA2.

Faerunner wrote...
There are other peoples, cultures and conflicts in Thedas, so I'd like to be able to explore them for a change. If we do have to to deal with them (because it was so interesting in DA2), I'd like to at least be able to be neutral on some conflicts or tell both sides to sit down and shut up. No more of this "You always have to side with either one or the other fully" like in DA2.

I think a lot of the problem with the mage/templar conflict in DA2 is that it takes a very narrow view of the problem.  Mages on one hand, templars on the other, full stop.  But something like the mage war has to have broader consequences for everyone, not just the direct combatants, and I hope they at least explore that element in DA3.

Also, the two sides in DA2 are weirdly unsympathetic.  The templars were tyrannical arses, the mages were insane abominations...hell, I was tempted to just murder them all at the end.

[Dirty Whore]

i really don't think the game is gonna be about mages and templars...thats just gonna be the backdrop. There is bigger stuff brewing, mark my words.

[Eveangaline]

I dunno about neutral, neutrality is basically siding with whoever currently has the most power, by not speaking out against them.

[iSignIn]

Emzamination wrote...

If you're not with us, you're our enemy.

^ This is how most NPCs will respond.

Also, not taking sides will give you less side quests, and hence less content & XP. See DA2's Act 3.

In short, you will have the option to not take sides, but you will receive a giant "F-U" from BioWare a la Reject Ending of ME3.

[iSignIn]

EnforcerGREG wrote...

As Inquisitor why not let us destroy them all!!

that way no one wins.  Exept us

That should always be a welcome option.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Eveangaline wrote...

I dunno about neutral, neutrality is basically siding with whoever currently has the most power, by not speaking out against them.

Neutral was perhaps the wrong word.  "Balanced" might be a better way of putting it.  Having a PC who acknowledges that neither side is right, and the conflict is a lot more complex than freedom vs. oppression or order vs. chaos.  Hawke does it in DA2, and can continue to present that more sane perspective even when doing quests for Meredith and Orsino.  Not that anyone listens since Kirkwall's leadership has crap for brains, but it's the thought that counts.

[Dintonta]

Eveangaline wrote...

I dunno about neutral, neutrality is basically siding with whoever currently has the most power, by not speaking out against them.

That's why being the one who holds the most power should become the ultimate goal in DA3... For the sake of true neutrality only...

[Foolsfolly]

"I think I'm sick of mages and templars."

I know I'm sick of those two. I'm actually more interested in building a spy network and ferreting out secrets. Screw both sides. I don't like either one of them.

[joshko]

Foolsfolly wrote...

"I think I'm sick of mages and templars."

I know I'm sick of those two. I'm actually more interested in building a spy network and ferreting out secrets. Screw both sides. I don't like either one of them.

I would love it if you could be evil. Not a jerk, or mean, or anything like that. Just straight out evil.

[Lithuasil]

I'd love if a sufficiently successful inquisitor could just ursurp power over the chantry, Orlais or both.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Ha! Yes, the ability to be in it completely and totally for yourself; to be heartless and care not for the others you encounter - to be purposefully malicious and want to see the world burn.


I don't think we'll ever see a video game these days that does justice to this idea - at least, not a game that is simultaneously offering a main story dependent on being the hero. But hey... I could be wrong.

[Lithuasil]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't think we'll ever see a video game these days that does justice to this idea - at least, not a game that is simultaneously offering a main story dependent on being the hero. But hey... I could be wrong.

I couldn't think of many games doing justice to the idea back in the day - but hey, some Swtor campaigns do, as does Heroes 6 - and we know little enough of Dishonored's plot to hope 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I like the look of Dishonored, but I'm worried that the hype will be too much and it will just be DE:HR with magic/fantasy. They seemed focused on role playing and non-linear choice, but we'll see how it all plays out.

Regardless, I'd like a little more depth to the Mage/Templar war, as mages = crazy demon spwan and Templars = sadistic torturers is... well, pretty played out at this point.

[snackrat]

I understand it is a real story, but I kinda agree with you. The Ultimatum forced between Meredith and Orsino that ultimately means nothing and everything and everyone dies and it is your fault either way has turned me off from the whole thing.

[Korusus]

Dirty **** wrote...

i really don't think the game is gonna be about mages and templars...thats just gonna be the backdrop. There is bigger stuff brewing, mark my words.

You give them too little credit...if there's a coven of psychotic irrational blood mages and a gang of overzealous fascist blood-thirsty Templars than by god I won't be satisfied until we devote at least another 100 hours of gameplay to ineffectually trying to prevent them from brutally, sadistically, and resolutely slaughtering one another in a blood-fueled frenzy of epic proportions.  God knows we have not yet covered that from every single possible minute angle, we definitely need that to be the complete and overriding theme and plot of DA3.

[Dave of Canada]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I like the look of Dishonored, but I'm worried that the hype will be too much and it will just be DE:HR with magic/fantasy.

I'd kill for this.

[Foolsfolly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Ha! Yes, the ability to be in it completely and totally for yourself; to be heartless and care not for the others you encounter - to be purposefully malicious and want to see the world burn.


I don't think we'll ever see a video game these days that does justice to this idea - at least, not a game that is simultaneously offering a main story dependent on being the hero. But hey... I could be wrong.

I support Evil PC.

With the world falling apart why not help it along its way?

[Nomen Mendax]

If the game is going to involve mages and templars fighting each other with the population caught in the middle then I want an option to be Clint in A Fistful of Dollars.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 29 septembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[Arokel]

The Mage-Templar conflict was always going to boil over. I have a feeling that DA4 will shift the focus to Tevinter and the Qunari.

Might as well get into the spirit of the conflict while it lasts.

[Foolsfolly]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

If the game is going to involve mages and templars fighting each other with the population caught in the middle then I want an option to be Clint in A Fistful of Dollars.

I support this as well.

I can understand playing both sides against each other for profit. I can't really understand supporting the evil crazy mages or the evil fascist Templars. Whenever you have to pick in DA2 it comes down to, "Well some on this side aren't crazed monsters eating babies or raping the lobotomy victims in their prisons..."

You can't fully support either.

[TheBlackBaron]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I like the look of Dishonored, but I'm worried that the hype will be too much and it will just be DE:HR with magic/fantasy. They seemed focused on role playing and non-linear choice, but we'll see how it all plays out.

You say that like it's a bad thing.