187 réponses à ce sujet

[andy6915]

Because I don't know if I want to support mages fully, but at the same time I think the Chantry is corrupt and way too powerful and I definitely don't want to support it either. I'm worried DA3:I is going to be like DA2 where even if you think both Templars and mages are being foolish and moronic (I did and still do every time I play DA2), you had to choose one of them. I don't want to be forced to pick a side I don't fully agree with simply because the plot wants me to. At the very least, I want there to be an option to tell both sides to screw off and have the plot written to handle that choice too. Being forced to pick a side when you think both sides are full of sh*t is not fun, like having the choice between drinking bleach or drinking rat poison.

[Kidd]

How about if choosing to side with nobody lead to a game over screen?

[andy6915]

That would be stupid and pointless. The world wouldn't end just because I stayed neutral, and the entire point of letting you do so would be thrown out the window if that's the result. Do it right or don't do it at all.

[Renmiri1]

Err... If you dislike one of the main plot points in DA you might consider.. i don't know.. not playing DA ?

andy69156915 wrote...

That would be stupid and pointless. The world wouldn't end just because I stayed neutral, and the entire point of letting you do so would be thrown out the window if that's the result. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Think she was referring to ME3 ending you get when you shoot the Catalyst. And ya I agreee, that's trolling the player.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 11 avril 2013 - 09:45 .

[Face of Evil]

This assumes that you HAVE to pick up a side, of course.

Given what information we have about DA3, it could just as easily be about fighting a secret invasion of shape-shifting nugs or finding a restaurant that serves decent croissants in Val Royeaux.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 11 avril 2013 - 10:15 .

[Noctis Augustus]

I agree that there should be the neutral choice. Just watch the war unfold.

-Mages
-Neutral
-Templars

[Sir George Parr]

I've just played it again and i just wanted the option for Hawke to tell Meredith and Orsino that she didn't care anymore and was sick of being everyone's errand girl and was going back home with Isabela to make sweet sweet love, it could have faded to black at that point and cued the end credits. But you are forced to pick a side and they are just as bad as each other. i to would like the option for a third way.

[Malanek]

I can see where you are coming from but think you are making too many assumptions or really speaking about DA2. Speculation is fine but I feel you are speculating too far down the track based on inherent assumptions you haven't disclosed. For what it's worth I am not convinced the mage-templar conflict will be the main plot point in DA3 and I think a peaceful solution will be available that appeals, at least somewhat, to both sides.

[AstraDrakkar]

I agree that the should be a neutral option, with different consequences for not getting involved. This would give me a third playthrough, so i can see what not getting involved would lead to.

[-TC1989-]

I support this. Personally I'm more pro-temp, but I think a neutral stance should definitely be in there somewhere.

[Zarathiel]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

How about if choosing to side with nobody lead to a game over screen?

SO BE IT.

[andy6915]

Well I did ask in the form of a question in the title. If a Bioware poster wants to confirm if you do have more choices then "pick a side", I would be happy to learn that.

Modifié par andy69156915, 11 avril 2013 - 10:03 .

[Renmiri1]

-TC1989- wrote...

I support this. Personally I'm more pro-temp, but I think a neutral stance should definitely be in there somewhere.

 ** Throws fireball ** Mages FTW.  

How would a nutral party work in a full fledged civil war between mages and (Yuck!) Templars ?

[-TC1989-]

Renmiri1 wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I support this. Personally I'm more pro-temp, but I think a neutral stance should definitely be in there somewhere.

 ** Throws fireball ** Mages FTW.  

How would a nutral party work in a full fledged civil war between mages and (Yuck!) Templars ?

That's right, mages can use fire too. I thought they all just used blood magic, who knew? lol jk

On topic though...
I guess it would be just not really getting involved. I mean the civil war isn't the main plot of the game (I hope), and I would think there would be some middle ground. A lot of people really don't care one way or the other about either side. Just my two cents...

[Rawgrim]

Sided with the mages, as a mage, in DA2. At all times in the game, as well. Still got attacked by them at every turn. Going full Templar in the nest, if its possible. Killing mages on sight in a symphony of screams!!!!

[Face of Evil]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

How about if choosing to side with nobody lead to a game over screen?

BUT THE FUTURE REFUSED TO CHANGE …

[M Hedonist]

Rawgrim wrote...

Sided with the mages, as a mage, in DA2. At all times in the game, as well. Still got attacked by them at every turn. Going full Templar in the nest, if its possible. Killing mages on sight in a symphony of screams!!!!

If I took what I learned from DA2 to DA3, I would attempt to kill every single person I came across in DA3.
But I probably won't. Probably.

Modifié par Sauruz, 11 avril 2013 - 10:21 .

[Noctis Augustus]

Rawgrim wrote...

Sided with the mages, as a mage, in DA2. At all times in the game, as well. Still got attacked by them at every turn. Going full Templar in the nest, if its possible. Killing mages on sight in a symphony of screams!!!!

It's DAII... It's a very flawed game. That's a development problem not the mages fault. It's what you get when, as it seems, the writers are pro-chantry/templars... Could be wrong though.

[Rawgrim]

ibbikiookami wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Sided with the mages, as a mage, in DA2. At all times in the game, as well. Still got attacked by them at every turn. Going full Templar in the nest, if its possible. Killing mages on sight in a symphony of screams!!!!

It's DAII... It's a very flawed game. That's a development problem not the mages fault. It's what you get when, as it seems, the writers are pro-chantry/templars... Could be wrong though.

Then their blood is on the developers hands. Not mine. Thanks. Now i can justify it even better. moohahahaha!!!

[Sutamina]

Because I don't know if I want to support mages fully, but at the same time I think the Chantry is corrupt and way too powerful and I definitely don't want to support it either.

okdoky

I'm worried DA3:I is going to be like DA2 where even if you think both Templars and mages are being foolish and moronic (I did and still do every time I play DA2), you had to choose one of them.

I do not know if your worry is valid or not, but the word of god is you should not think that what happened in DA2 will then there fore be what they will do again in DA3. Which I hope means no false choices in DA3.

I don't want to be forced to pick a side I don't fully agree with simply because the plot wants me to.

I agree, I found it to be very irksome.

At the very least, I want there to be an option to tell both sides to screw off and have the plot written to handle that choice too.

To me I would have perfered the option that was: mature, responsible, sane, and help save as many innocents(if there were any left alive).

Being forced to pick a side when you think both sides are full of sh*t is not fun, like having the choice between drinking bleach or drinking rat poison.

Yet for what ever reason thats what happened.
And the leason is "the universe hates you for trying to be a hero"

[lil yonce]

Just choose the lesser of two evils. A supposed hero can't run from decision making when its needed the most.

[Renmiri1]

I don't want to be forced to pick a side I don't fully agree with simply because the plot wants me to.

I personally dislike cartoon villains in every media but cartoons. Movies, books, videogames get much deeper stories when the villains have some redeeming qualities and the "good" side has some flaws.

In real life you rarely have black and white choices where you fully agree with one side and fully disagree with the opposing side.

Unless we are talking about sports. Greenbay Packers and Chicaog Bulls are always the good choice, the rest is EEEEVIL! 

Youth4Ever wrote...

Just choose the lesser of two evils. A supposed hero can't run from decision making when its needed the most.

Yup. And the decision has to be harder than chosing between Snow White and the Wicked Witch.

After you reach the tender age of 5, you are emotionally able to handle more ambivalence than fairy tales. Or at least you are expected to. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 11 avril 2013 - 10:41 .

[The Elder King]

ibbikiookami wrote...


It's DAII... It's a very flawed game. That's a development problem not the mages fault. It's what you get when, as it seems, the writers are pro-chantry/templars... Could be wrong though.

They're not. Both groups are portrayed badly in DA2. I hope to see both groups more similar as they were in DAO (with good and bad templar/mages) than the almost totally evil/insane composition of the two groups in DA2.

[Renmiri1]

I think David Gaider and other writers mentioned they went a bit overboard on blood mages on Kirkwall, in their effort to not make Templars / Chantry the obvious bad choice.

[Noctis Augustus]

hhh89 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...


It's DAII... It's a very flawed game. That's a development problem not the mages fault. It's what you get when, as it seems, the writers are pro-chantry/templars... Could be wrong though.

They're not. Both groups are portrayed badly in DA2. I hope to see both groups more similar as they were in DAO (with good and bad templar/mages) than the almost totally evil/insane composition of the two groups in DA2.

Really? I only played as a mage so I didn't know about that.