79 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

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. 

Considering DE:HR is what happens if the "HLAP, hey're dumbing down our rpgs"-crowd is actually right - it kind of *is* a bad thing.

[ShallowlLife9871]

Merdeith: you must choose
Orsino: yes...choose....

Hawke:....... Frack you both,i'm going to the pub...

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Asunder created a third faction, the Divine which seeks to recreate the Circles with more leniant tendancies. She'd probably be the closest thing to "neutral" you get.

The Divine, so far as I can tell, is the moderate repressive side compared to the mainstream mage rebellion's moderate libertarian side. The templars' counterparts are the likes of Tarohne and possibly Tevinter operatives.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

TBH I'm not really sure how the "neutral" option will end up panning out.  In DA2, it mostly involved pointing out how both sides had good and bad elements, and trying to get them to shut up long enough to realize that.

But the word "Inquisition" doesn't exactly come with warm fuzzy feelings, so it might be possible to play a more callous form of "neutral" where you really just don't give a damn about the conflict beyond how it serves your interests.  The opportunity to play Littlefinger in Dragon Age would be so, so much fun.

[RedWulfi]

Templars and mages both have good reasons to what they do.
Both as bad as eachother.
I want to be able to create peace.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Well I hope you don't throw up when the class selection menu shows up then!

[Fast Jimmy]

Lithuasil wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

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. 

Considering DE:HR is what happens if the "HLAP, hey're dumbing down our rpgs"-crowd is actually right - it kind of *is* a bad thing.

Well, I enjoyed DE:HR for what it was, but the game's plot was incredibly linear (different than, say, it's gameplay, which was definitely not). All paths led to the same overall road, with the choices you did have not affecting things much more than two seconds right after you made them. 

Not a bad game, but a game with, for me, no replayability. If a game had real choice, it would immediately have replay value in my book. 

Again, not a knock on DE:HR, but it is not what I hope Dishonored is. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

 So there's been a lot of requests on the forums for DA3 to let us pick sides.  Mages, templars...bah.  I'd like DA3 to preserve a dialogue option we had in DA2--a roleplaying choice that sides with neither.

I'm with you here.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Sure, you eventually had to throw your lot in with either Meredith or Orsino, but DA2 didn't automatically assume that Hawke sympathized with either based on that final decision.

Yeap. Unfortunately Hawke was forced to coup with extremist companions who do take sides with their constant whinning.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 
Throughout the game, and especially in Act 3, Hawke can try and act as the voice of reason with middle dialogue options.

Which he failed at every attempt. No one listen to him. Not even the Arishok. Sigh.  

Sable Rhapsody wrote...


I'd like to see that continue with the new protagonist in DA3.

I don't know. Not after what already happen to the looser diplomatic neutral BioWare's Hawke in DA 2. The thing is BioWare's views on certain things such as diplomation and compromisation are weird. 

Sable Rhapsody wrote...



There's more to the conflict than just being pro-mage or pro-templar, and I hope the dialogue continues to reflect that.

Indeed. Like how to stop BioWare from killing PC's family members or how to present personal story a real personal story instead of mess up global conflict and bickering of two opposing factions irrelevant to PC's personal story.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

I would also like to draw a distinction between roleplaying a character who wants to end the war without picking sides, and actually being able to do so in-game.  IMO it makes sense that Hawke, who is just one person, can't really stop a war that's centuries in the making.

It make no sense that we are presented by the fact the world is already at the brink of world in the beginning when Hawke knows nothing about it. That's not roleplaying. That's Out Of Character. But then again, I don't think that bother BioWare much.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...


The point is that in trying to do so, we get to define Hawke's personality and beliefs as a person rather than having them pushed on us. Thoughts?

I agree. But force things on players is the only things BioWare know how to do. That's why their product mostly consist of infinite illusion of useless choices and railroading. They hide those choices well in the past. They cant hide them forever. Because it was never right to do so in first place.

[The Elder King]

IF one of the main plot of DA will be around the mage-templar war, I want to have the option to choose a third, neutral path. Because I don't fully support neither the mages and the templars.

Emzamination wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Asunder
created a third faction, the Divine which seeks to recreate the Circles
with more leniant tendancies. She'd probably be the closest thing to
"neutral" you get.

How sad that even the divine has succumbed to blood magic.Is there no moral ground too low for mages to stoop? smh... [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

If the Divine was controlled, she would've proclamed total freedom for the mages, and/or the mages wouldn't have left the Chantry.
Your opinion that everyone who isn't with the templars=pro-mage or being controlled by them isn't neither reasonable or logical.

[Felya87]

Darkin30 wrote...

I find all this mage vs templar stuff pretty boring, just give me some darkspawn to kill

Need a hand with some Ogre? I'm ready!

Seriously, the Inquisition and the the Templar/Mage conflict is not the most interesting of the premise. I think the world of DA have much better things than that. There are a lot of Thaig and all the Deep Raods to explore! and the secret of the Elluvian and the Elven secrets of the past...

I only hope that the war between the two faction is just where everything start, and there is a return of the various race and problematic autside the main quest.

[Big I]

Felya87 wrote...
Seriously, the Inquisition and the the Templar/Mage conflict is not the most interesting of the premise.

My problem is not that it's disinteresting. My problem is that about two minutes into the mage origin in DA:O I made up my mind to side with the mages and nothing since then has changed it. This means that for two games so far, and likely the next one to come, I've been reiterating that "yes, I agree with mages" everytime it comes up in dialogue, side quests or main plots. I'm feel like I'm about mage/templared out.

[Xilizhra]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Felya87 wrote...
Seriously, the Inquisition and the the Templar/Mage conflict is not the most interesting of the premise.

My problem is not that it's disinteresting. My problem is that about two minutes into the mage origin in DA:O I made up my mind to side with the mages and nothing since then has changed it. This means that for two games so far, and likely the next one to come, I've been reiterating that "yes, I agree with mages" everytime it comes up in dialogue, side quests or main plots. I'm feel like I'm about mage/templared out.

I'm similar in how long I've been on one side, but I'm not nearly tired of this conflict yet. I want to dive into it at full force.

[dragonflight288]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

 So there's been a lot of requests on the forums for DA3 to let us pick sides.  Mages, templars...bah.  I'd like DA3 to preserve a dialogue option we had in DA2--a roleplaying choice that sides with neither.

Sure, you eventually had to throw your lot in with either Meredith or Orsino, but DA2 didn't automatically assume that Hawke sympathized with either based on that final decision.  Throughout the game, and especially in Act 3, Hawke can try and act as the voice of reason with middle dialogue options.  I'd like to see that continue with the new protagonist in DA3.  There's more to the conflict than just being pro-mage or pro-templar, and I hope the dialogue continues to reflect that.

I would also like to draw a distinction between roleplaying a character who wants to end the war without picking sides, and actually being able to do so in-game.  IMO it makes sense that Hawke, who is just one person, can't really stop a war that's centuries in the making.  The point is that in trying to do so, we get to define Hawke's personality and beliefs as a person rather than having them pushed on us.  

Thoughts?

As for me, I don't really care for Elisif or Ulfric. I'm on the side of Whiterun...

Wrong game. lol.

I'm personally more in the mages camp at this point, but I'm open to seeing how things turn out as the story progresses. May or may not change my take on things.

[LPPrince]

Back in DAO, we had to go settle things between different groups along with little things and such.

But out of those, the one I didn't care for the most was The Circle Tower quest between mages and templars.

I just don't care for it. And DA2 was completely BASED around it.

So if it returns in DA3, I hope mages and templars take a massive backseat to something ELSE.

[Dhiro]

LPPrince wrote...

Back in DAO, we had to go settle things between different groups along with little things and such.

But out of those, the one I didn't care for the most was The Circle Tower quest between mages and templars.

I just don't care for it. And DA2 was completely BASED around it.

So if it returns in DA3, I hope mages and templars take a massive backseat to something ELSE.

Personally, I think the chances are slim. The Mage-Templar was is either here to stay or will, at least, play a big part in DA III and buildings its background... frankly, it's not like it's coming out of nowhere: this whole thing started in DA II and was expanded a bit in Asunder, I doubt they will just drop it.

[jackofalltrades456]

You know someone made an interesting theory a few months back that the whole Templar/Mage war was written as a method of placing PVP style multiplayer into Dragon Age 3.

[Fast Jimmy]

We know the Templars will lose (or, at least, the mages will not be confined to the Towers when the dust settles) as that was the deva stated goal of the conflct, back before DA2 came out.

They said it really tied their hands with story and combat of the majority of mages were supposed to be locked up. The goal of the war was to allow mages to turn up anywhere, for any reason, and abolishing the circles is the most sure fire way of doing that.

Granted, choosing the Templar side may not be automatic failure, but mages (at least a good amount of mages) won't be locked up in the towers when DA3 ends, one way or another.

So when you view the conflict through that lense, as merely a McGuffin to have mages in the world at large for later games, the conflict seems very boring.

[Marvin_Arnold]

Remember that the particular situation in Kirkwall had been driven to the extreme over decades of self-centered politics. It doesn't need to reflect the situation in other parts of Thedas (see Ferelden, where the templar/mages situation was far less strained. I Imagine Orlais would be in some kind of middle ground, too. Tevinter would be completely different as well, for obvious reasons.)

A terminal solution to the M/T conflict:

Flemeth, being the omnipotent being that she is, gives magic to EVERYONE in Thedas. So, stigmatisation would be impossible, the Templars would become obsolete, and people would have to deal with other problems for a change...

(it would also weaken the player class system, a la Skyrim, where everybody can decide whether to invest in magic or in other combat skills...)

[Dirty Whore]

i'm telling you guys, we're going back to the old gods on this one(it'll be our jobs as inquisitors to uncover the mystery)...mages and templars will undoubtedly be a big part of the game but not the main underlying movement, its just what everyone in the world "thinks" is going on.

[Felya87]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Felya87 wrote...
Seriously, the Inquisition and the the Templar/Mage conflict is not the most interesting of the premise.

My problem is not that it's disinteresting. My problem is that about two minutes into the mage origin in DA:O I made up my mind to side with the mages and nothing since then has changed it. This means that for two games so far, and likely the next one to come, I've been reiterating that "yes, I agree with mages" everytime it comes up in dialogue, side quests or main plots. I'm feel like I'm about mage/templared out.

You are right...the problem is that the Templar/mage has taken too much space in the DA universe. There are so many argument that could be used, even the old Darkspawn: there are a lot to say about that too. mages and Templars ara starting to feel...well...too used.

[DiebytheSword]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

 So there's been a lot of requests on the forums for DA3 to let us pick sides.  Mages, templars...bah.  I'd like DA3 to preserve a dialogue option we had in DA2--a roleplaying choice that sides with neither.

Sure, you eventually had to throw your lot in with either Meredith or Orsino, but DA2 didn't automatically assume that Hawke sympathized with either based on that final decision.  Throughout the game, and especially in Act 3, Hawke can try and act as the voice of reason with middle dialogue options.  I'd like to see that continue with the new protagonist in DA3.  There's more to the conflict than just being pro-mage or pro-templar, and I hope the dialogue continues to reflect that.

I would also like to draw a distinction between roleplaying a character who wants to end the war without picking sides, and actually being able to do so in-game.  IMO it makes sense that Hawke, who is just one person, can't really stop a war that's centuries in the making.  The point is that in trying to do so, we get to define Hawke's personality and beliefs as a person rather than having them pushed on us.  

Thoughts?

I rather agree with this OP, Templars are out of control in Kirkwall, no question.  The mages have demonstrated time and time again that operating with zero restraints is beyond their capability to do without occasional horrific results.  Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, and both sides take things way too far.

Change needs to come to thedas, just not change that either side is pulling for.

I'll side with neither in DA3 if its allowed.

[JamesStark]

 I agree completely Sable.

On the flip side, I'd like to be able to RP a character who supports one side to the extreme in addition to siding with one because you agree with there cause.

Multiple options are cool.

[nightscrawl]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

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

Amen!

Although, I probably wouldn't be as sick of it if I didn't read these forums. Lol... no one to blame but myself there. ;D

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Sure, you eventually had to throw your lot in with either Meredith or Orsino, but DA2 didn't automatically assume that Hawke sympathized with either based on that final decision.  Throughout the game, and especially in Act 3, Hawke can try and act as the voice of reason with middle dialogue options.  I'd like to see that continue with the new protagonist in DA3.  There's more to the conflict than just being pro-mage or pro-templar, and I hope the dialogue continues to reflect that.

I agree 100%. In fact, that is how I try to play most of the time. I decide quests on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the game doesn't really take that into account... oh well.

However, I think the option of neutrality will entirely depend on your character's backstory. It might not be possible to be neutral within the context of the game. War is on. The time for prevention is over. Those who try to be neutral might find themselves forced to choose based on circumstances beyond their control.

[DiebytheSword]

JamesStark wrote...

 I agree completely Sable.

On the flip side, I'd like to be able to RP a character who supports one side to the extreme in addition to siding with one because you agree with there cause.

Multiple options are cool.

Quite, more choice is always better.  I would expect a minimum of three resolutions, one supporting Mages, one Templars, and one that supports neither and tries to find a middle of the road approach to their madness.