310 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'll have to hope for DA:IV to be that sequel, which won't be able to come out until 2017 at the earliest.....  So it looks like I'm waiting nearly ten years anyway.

....Do you bother reading at all?  DA4 is going to be ANOTHER story with ANOTHER protagonist.  Bioware has been exceedingly clear on this point.  There is NOT going to be the kind of sequel to Origins that you are hoping for. 

We'll see.

Dude.  Bioware has said repeatedly that the Dragon Age games are about the world of Thedas, not the Grey Wardens or The Hero of Ferelden, and they have also said that each game will have a new protagonist.  Why is this not good enough for you?  What exactly is the point of hoping for something that Bioware has said time and time and time again that you are not going to get, because it's NOT the story they want to tell?  Yes, indeed, Bioware was clear on this point long before you claim they were, because I learned about the "DA is about the world/each new game will have a new PC" when I was playing Origins, several months prior to DA2 being announced.

I understand liking one game above the others, and especially liking one PC over all the others.  But I don't for the life of me understand the point of clinging to "hope" when Bioware said from the start that that's NOT what you were going to get.  Do you think for some reason that Bioware is going to change its direction just because you and the people you allegedly speak for weren't listening during all those times when they spelled out what the Dragon Age games were going to be?

[Jerrybnsn]

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'll have to hope for DA:IV to be that sequel, which won't be able to come out until 2017 at the earliest.....  So it looks like I'm waiting nearly ten years anyway.

....Do you bother reading at all?  DA4 is going to be ANOTHER story with ANOTHER protagonist.  Bioware has been exceedingly clear on this point.  There is NOT going to be the kind of sequel to Origins that you are hoping for. 

We'll see.

Dude.  Bioware has said repeatedly that the Dragon Age games are about the world of Thedas, not the Grey Wardens or The Hero of Ferelden, and they have also said that each game will have a new protagonist. ......

Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 11:07 .

[bEVEsthda]

Silfren wrote...

...That said, I recall that Origins, not DA in general, was supposed to be the successor. 

Nah, I was here all along. The whole time. (I wasn't Bevesthda then, ofc) Waiting and waiting for ever, posting and discussing ideas for game elements. It was emphatically stated, both that DA would be exclusively developed for PC, no compromise for consoles, and that DA was a way to find a way back to BG'ish games. Modern such of course, with KotOR type of perspective. The problem with BG was that the world was licenced IP. Primarily that they couldn't do what they wanted in and with that world, but also the fee, I suppose. So DA was created as a way for Bioware to have their own Baldur's Gate'ish IP.

But plans change, of course. Particularly after so long time. I know that. I don't much mind including the consoles, though it probably changes the game somewhat, because they bring in more revenue. One thing I've learned from TES III, was that an ambitious PC game has  to be planned also for the consoles, no matter how much it hurts. It's the financial foundation for the game.

Going forward, it's time to STOP beating the same dead horse about DA2.  People really need to let it go and move on already.

Which was my point. Thus drop the 3. They should never have called DA2 "2" either.

[Jerrybnsn]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Which was my point. Thus drop the 3. They should never have called DA2 "2" either.

DA2?....never heard of it.

[addiction21]

Jerrybnsn wrote...


Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

Prove it.

[bEVEsthda]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
DA2?....never heard of it.

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.

[Silfren]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Silfren wrote...

...That said, I recall that Origins, not DA in general, was supposed to be the successor. 

Nah, I was here all along. The whole time. (I wasn't Bevesthda then, ofc) Waiting and waiting for ever, posting and discussing ideas for game elements. It was emphatically stated, both that DA would be exclusively developed for PC, no compromise for consoles, and that DA was a way to find a way back to BG'ish games. Modern such of course, with KotOR type of perspective. The problem with BG was that the world was licenced IP. Primarily that they couldn't do what they wanted in and with that world, but also the fee, I suppose. So DA was created as a way for Bioware to have their own Baldur's Gate'ish IP.

But plans change, of course. Particularly after so long time. I know that. I don't much mind including the consoles, though it probably changes the game somewhat, because they bring in more revenue. One thing I've learned from TES III, was that an ambitious PC game has  to be planned also for the consoles, no matter how much it hurts. It's the financial foundation for the game.

Going forward, it's time to STOP beating the same dead horse about DA2.  People really need to let it go and move on already.

Which was my point. Thus drop the 3. They should never have called DA2 "2" either.

I maintain that this is a silly thing to waste time on.  DA2 was the second DA game.  DA:I is the third one.  Calling either of them 2 or 3 doesn't imply anything about the games being direct continuations of the DA1 story.  That may be the conclusion that some people draw, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily inherent in the naming convention.  The only thing it obviously conveys is the order in which they were released.  While I can see why Bioware would choose to go with naming conventions like Dragon Age: Inquisition instead of Dragon Age 3, in order to minimize gamers' confusion, I still say that the confusion is brought to the table by those buyers in the first place, since they apparently are incapable of following Bioware news about the product, or of reading the product info on the damn box of the game when they buy it.

[bEVEsthda]

Silfren wrote...
I maintain that this is a silly thing to waste time on.  DA2 was the second DA game.  DA:I is the third one.  Calling either of them 2 or 3 doesn't imply anything about the games being direct continuations of the DA1 story.  That may be the conclusion that some people draw, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily inherent in the naming convention.  The only thing it obviously conveys is the order in which they were released.  While I can see why Bioware would choose to go with naming conventions like Dragon Age: Inquisition instead of Dragon Age 3, in order to minimize gamers' confusion, I still say that the confusion is brought to the table by those buyers in the first place, since they apparently are incapable of following Bioware news about the product, or of reading the product info on the damn box of the game when they buy it.

But all that is just how you perceive things. And that is all fine and well, but it's more important - much more important - to consider how the bulk of the market would perceive it. Regardless of how you feel about that.
And calling it 2, implied that it was a sequel game to DA:O, which it wasn't. It was a completely different game, set in a cartoon version of the DA universe. Which made people angry and made them hate the game for utterly different reasons than that it wasn't about the Warden.

Calling it 3, would imply that it is a sequel game to DA:II, which few would want, thus hurting sales. Dropping the 3, is a suggestion that it is something different, significantly different.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 juin 2013 - 11:40 .

[Silfren]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'll have to hope for DA:IV to be that sequel, which won't be able to come out until 2017 at the earliest.....  So it looks like I'm waiting nearly ten years anyway.

....Do you bother reading at all?  DA4 is going to be ANOTHER story with ANOTHER protagonist.  Bioware has been exceedingly clear on this point.  There is NOT going to be the kind of sequel to Origins that you are hoping for. 

We'll see.

Dude.  Bioware has said repeatedly that the Dragon Age games are about the world of Thedas, not the Grey Wardens or The Hero of Ferelden, and they have also said that each game will have a new protagonist. ......

Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

I wasn't part of the fandom until Origins had been out for a few months,so I can't speak to this, but I think there's a bit of a difference between having a plan in place when you're developing the very first game, that changes before that game is released, versus having 2.5 games out with a third on the way, and having iterated and re-iterated the same plan all along for years.  It would be odd for Bioware to announce a change in its intention for the franschise now after several years of making the same assertions, but the same wouldn't be true during the development of the first game, since that's the period when much of the initial structure is still being put into place.  Just like it wouldn't surprise me for DA:I to undergo a few major directions in its story throughout its development, regardless of Bioware's original plan for it: this is just the nature of storytelling. 

That said, I've never once heard here or elsewhere that Bioware originally planned for all its games to allow you to import the same character, and I've been reading this and other DA forums since months before DA2 was announced, and you are the first person I've heard make this claim, so I really can't bring myself to give it any merit.  Moreover, neither of these points have a thing to do with the larger question of whether Bioware always intended each new game to be about a different PC, given that you can be a different PC whether or not you can choose a different race, and we've always been able to import our characters from previous games...it just uses that import to set certain world states rather than letting us play as that character.

Modifié par Silfren, 23 juin 2013 - 01:33 .

[Silfren]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I maintain that this is a silly thing to waste time on.  DA2 was the second DA game.  DA:I is the third one.  Calling either of them 2 or 3 doesn't imply anything about the games being direct continuations of the DA1 story.  That may be the conclusion that some people draw, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily inherent in the naming convention.  The only thing it obviously conveys is the order in which they were released.  While I can see why Bioware would choose to go with naming conventions like Dragon Age: Inquisition instead of Dragon Age 3, in order to minimize gamers' confusion, I still say that the confusion is brought to the table by those buyers in the first place, since they apparently are incapable of following Bioware news about the product, or of reading the product info on the damn box of the game when they buy it.

But all that is just how you perceive things. And that is all fine and well, but it's more important - much more important - to consider how the bulk of the market would perceive it. Regardless of how you feel about that.
And calling it 2, implied that it was a sequel game to DA:O, which it wasn't. It was a completely different game, set in a cartoon version of the DA universe. Which made people angry and made them hate the game for utterly different reasons than that it wasn't about the Warden.

Calling it 3, would imply that it is a sequel game to DA:II, which few would want, thus hurting sales. Dropping the 3, is a suggestion that it is something different, significantly different.

On the contrary, DA2 WAS a sequel to DA:O.  It astounds me that people don't think it was.  The fact that it was not The Further Adventures of the Hero of Ferelden is irrelevant.  It is the second story put out by Bioware for its Dragon Age franchise.  That alone makes it a sequel.  But to drive the point home further, here:

Per Wikipedia: A sequel (also called a follow-on or follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

Given that DA2 actually begins in the earliest stages of the previous story and follows the life of a Blight refugee--all the while referencing events from the previous story--it qualifies well enough.

Modifié par Silfren, 23 juin 2013 - 12:01 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

That said, I've never once heard here or elsewhere that Bioware originally planned for all its games to allow you to import the same character, and I've been reading this and other DA forums since months before DA2 was announced, and you are the fist person I've heard make this claim, so I really can't bring myself to give it any merit. 

[In Exile]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Nah, I was here all along. The whole time. (I wasn't Bevesthda then, ofc) Waiting and waiting for ever, posting and discussing ideas for game elements. It was emphatically stated, both that DA would be exclusively developed for PC, no compromise for consoles, and that DA was a way to find a way back to BG'ish games. Modern such of course, with KotOR type of perspective. The problem with BG was that the world was licenced IP. Primarily that they couldn't do what they wanted in and with that world, but also the fee, I suppose. So DA was created as a way for Bioware to have their own Baldur's Gate'ish IP.

So you were here for the part when the qunari had tails and we thought they were lizard people? Or when TheDAS was being used? Or when we were going to have nemeses? Or even back when DA (the part got added on very late - after the logo changed, I think) was going to be multiplayer? 

What about when all of the threads about origins killing roleplay were around? Or that the gameplay was a WOW MMO clone? 

I'm not trying to be snarky - but I was here for all of it, since I tracked the game on the old, old forums. So I'm curious, because while the spiritual successor stuff to BG was thrown around, so were lots of other features. And it's not quite right to say that DA was going to be a BGish game, though it was called a spiritual succesor, like ME was the spiritual sucessor to KOTOR. 

edit:

Whoops, re-read the post and what I said wasn't quite accurate. I was there since the absolute start. I'm not sure if the part about the multiplayer was publically announced, because I heard about it from other posters (and I believe there is an article floating about on it). That might have been a dev. idea rather than an actual substantive thing. 

I came in via E3 (I think it was E3) promos, back when they used the Aurora engine to render Ostagar and the Sacred Ashes templte. 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 juin 2013 - 12:54 .

[addiction21]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

That said, I've never once heard here or elsewhere that Bioware originally planned for all its games to allow you to import the same character, and I've been reading this and other DA forums since months before DA2 was announced, and you are the fist person I've heard make this claim, so I really can't bring myself to give it any merit. 

Proves nothing. Try again.

[Qyla]

What they planned doesn't matter anymore, what they plan now is what we should concentrate on. Will they do a sequel for the warden? Great! They won't? Great!

Can't you just embrace the idea that we will have a brand new game and it will be awesome? "Que serà serà, whatever will be will be" Doris Day FTW.

[Silfren]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Things change.  Originally, you were going to be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took over.

That said, I've never once heard here or elsewhere that Bioware originally planned for all its games to allow you to import the same character, and I've been reading this and other DA forums since months before DA2 was announced, and you are the fist person I've heard make this claim, so I really can't bring myself to give it any merit. 

So basically you have no argument to make. 

[Cigne]

In Exile wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Nah, I was here all along. The whole time. (I wasn't Bevesthda then, ofc) Waiting and waiting for ever, posting and discussing ideas for game elements. It was emphatically stated, both that DA would be exclusively developed for PC, no compromise for consoles, and that DA was a way to find a way back to BG'ish games. Modern such of course, with KotOR type of perspective. The problem with BG was that the world was licenced IP. Primarily that they couldn't do what they wanted in and with that world, but also the fee, I suppose. So DA was created as a way for Bioware to have their own Baldur's Gate'ish IP.

So you were here for the part when the qunari had tails and we thought they were lizard people? Or when TheDAS was being used? Or when we were going to have nemeses? Or even back when DA (the part got added on very late - after the logo changed, I think) was going to be multiplayer? 

What about when all of the threads about origins killing roleplay were around? Or that the gameplay was a WOW MMO clone? 

I'm not trying to be snarky - but I was here for all of it, since I tracked the game on the old, old forums. So I'm curious, because while the spiritual successor stuff to BG was thrown around, so were lots of other features. And it's not quite right to say that DA was going to be a BGish game, though it was called a spiritual succesor, like ME was the spiritual sucessor to KOTOR. 

edit:

Whoops, re-read the post and what I said wasn't quite accurate. I was there since the absolute start. I'm not sure if the part about the multiplayer was publically announced, because I heard about it from other posters (and I believe there is an article floating about on it). That might have been a dev. idea rather than an actual substantive thing. 

I came in via E3 (I think it was E3) promos, back when they used the Aurora engine to render Ostagar and the Sacred Ashes templte. 

Weren't you Virgil Romulus...? or not; that was a long time ago.

Anyway, the old DA forum was opened really early in the dev cycle. A new IP, designed for the PC, with a new in-house engine, with a toolkit much more powerful than NWN's yet still easy to use (well, the devs calling it easy might be a bit of an exaggeration;)). 

A new IP so they wouldn't have to run everything be Lucas or WotC. Have a sandbox where they could build something, and then were free to 'kick it over'.

designed for the PC, because after a string of console first games (KotOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1) they wanted to let their PC fans know that they weren't forgotten.

A toolkit (here I'm extrapolating--ok, guessing) because they wanted to recreate some of the success they had with NWN, as a shopping place for the Prestige(?) Packs. Bioware even flew a bunch of modders (pre-DAO's release) to their offices for a weekend, for some hands-on with the toolkit.

The only impact EA had on DAO was pushing back the PC's spring release date about six months, so it would coincide with the fall console release. Then it ended up selling better on console (despite poorer reviews) and was not considered a very attractive game (too long a development time on the engine) and it seems harder to create story driven mods, and the long dev time meant that while successful, DAO wasn't that profitable, and..... a rushed DA2 with a reworked engine.

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Things change.  Originally, you were going to
be allowed to continue to import your character or make a new one from
any race...that changed just before Origins was released when EA took
over.

Yeah...No.

[addiction21]

Silfren wrote...


So basically you have no argument to make. 

They never had one to make in the first place.

[In Exile]

Cigne wrote...

Weren't you Virgil Romulus...? or not; that was a long time ago.

Yes! I was a long-time lurker, and then made the account based off an NWN mod elf name I played. I actually did it to respond to a post that... Grobnak was it? I think he ended up being banned  ... talked about how someone ended up having a serious roleplaying moment with a created party in BG2 just by opening and closing a vendor screen. It was super alien, so I posted. 

I didn't really post seriously until I played ME, and really felt that PC VO led to reactivity, which was the most important RP feature for me, and then I really started having those debates with Sylvius. 

Also, do you remember who the person who called Shepard "Eddie" was? I remember how mad she was that the marketing for DA:O switched with the violence trailer. 

...  I miss the Bio boards. 

A toolkit (here I'm extrapolating--ok, guessing) because they wanted to recreate some of the success they had with NWN, as a shopping place for the Prestige(?) Packs. Bioware even flew a bunch of modders (pre-DAO's release) to their offices for a weekend, for some hands-on with the toolkit.

Well, I recall that there was talk that the origins started as a starter area, kind of like SW:TOR,  and that each of the protagonists were going to meet up at Ostagar and form a GW party. The game came a long way since then. 

The only impact EA had on DAO was pushing back the PC's spring release date about six months, so it would coincide with the fall console release. Then it ended up selling better on console (despite poorer reviews) and was not considered a very attractive game (too long a development time on the engine) and it seems harder to create story driven mods, and the long dev time meant that while successful, DAO wasn't that profitable, and.....
a rushed DA2 with a reworked engine.

*Note: This is now all speculation. 

I really think Bioware got very skittish when ME was a success. I think they called DA "Origins" to distance it from the ME-like follow-up they were planning on. 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 juin 2013 - 03:28 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

So basically you have no argument to make. 

????

You--

Yeah, you're right.  "Mass Effecting" the Dragon Age protagonists could mean anything.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they had any plans of allowing importation of characters, or allowing for race customization, because it's not like Bioware has ever done that before.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 23 juin 2013 - 07:57 .

[thebigbad1013]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

So basically you have no argument to make. 

????

You--

Yeah, you're right.  "Mass Effecting" the Dragon Age protagonists could mean anything.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they had any plans of allowing importation of characters, or allowing for race customization, because it's not like Bioware has ever done that before.

Why do you insist on continuing to bang your head against the wall? Dragon Age and Mass Effect are two seperate franchises. The Mass Effect trilogy was intended to be all about Shepard, the Dragon Age franchise was intended to be about the world of Thedas and the events of the Dragon Age. If you keep expecting them to change the mission statement for the Dragon Age series just because you would prefer it to be something else then you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

[bEVEsthda]

In Exile wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Nah, I was here all along. The whole time. (I wasn't Bevesthda then, ofc) Waiting and waiting for ever, posting and discussing ideas for game elements. It was emphatically stated, both that DA would be exclusively developed for PC, no compromise for consoles, and that DA was a way to find a way back to BG'ish games. Modern such of course, with KotOR type of perspective. The problem with BG was that the world was licenced IP. Primarily that they couldn't do what they wanted in and with that world, but also the fee, I suppose. So DA was created as a way for Bioware to have their own Baldur's Gate'ish IP.

So you were here for the part when the qunari had tails and we thought they were lizard people? Or when TheDAS was being used? Or when we were going to have nemeses? Or even back when DA (the part got added on very late - after the logo changed, I think) was going to be multiplayer? 

What about when all of the threads about origins killing roleplay were around? Or that the gameplay was a WOW MMO clone? 

I'm not trying to be snarky - but I was here for all of it, since I tracked the game on the old, old forums. So I'm curious, because while the spiritual successor stuff to BG was thrown around, so were lots of other features. And it's not quite right to say that DA was going to be a BGish game, though it was called a spiritual succesor, like ME was the spiritual sucessor to KOTOR. 

edit:

Whoops, re-read the post and what I said wasn't quite accurate. I was there since the absolute start. I'm not sure if the part about the multiplayer was publically announced, because I heard about it from other posters (and I believe there is an article floating about on it). That might have been a dev. idea rather than an actual substantive thing. 

I came in via E3 (I think it was E3) promos, back when they used the Aurora engine to render Ostagar and the Sacred Ashes templte. 

Well, I don't remember the details exactly the same way as you. But yes. I was here long before, actually. I was here during the buildup for Throne of Bhaal, then again for the buildup to NWN. And that disaster with the NWN OC. So it's not like Bioware haven't been through the 'DA2 experience' before. That time their ass was saved by the tool kit and DM-tools.

[bEVEsthda]

Silfren wrote...

On the contrary, DA2 WAS a sequel to DA:O.  It astounds me that people don't think it was.  <SNIP>  It is the second story put out by Bioware for its Dragon Age franchise.  That alone makes it a sequel.  But to drive the point home further, here:

Per Wikipedia: A sequel (also called a follow-on or follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

Given that DA2 actually begins in the earliest stages of the previous story and follows the life of a Blight refugee--all the while referencing events from the previous story--it qualifies well enough.

So, John Boorman's Excalibur is a sequel to Disney's The Sword in the Stone ?

No, you're wrong. Because when it comes to games, a sequel is supposed to be aimed at the same audience. The game also has to offer the same kind of gameplay, be the same kind of game. I'm well aware that some people think it was. But really - they should realize that if a majority have a different experience, then there really is something substantially wrong. What is more likely? You being insensitive to the difference? Or everybody else just suddenly very negative for no good reasons at all?

(Remarkably, the later assumption has a few followers here on the forums.)

Further, I would argue that DA2 does not continue in the same universe as DA:O. Thedas was remade, to be cheaper, to better suit comics and animated movies, and to conform to the taste of current teenage fantasy fashion.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 23 juin 2013 - 09:13 .

[Plaintiff]

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...
So, John Boorman's Excalibur is a sequel to Disney's The Sword in the Stone ?[/quote]

[quote]Silfren wrote...
In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work[/quote]

[quote]a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work[/quote]

[quote]the same fictional universe as an earlier work[/quote]

[quote]the same fictional universe[/quote]

From now on, you don't get to accuse other people of not reading your posts.

[quote]No, you're wrong. Because when it comes to games, a sequel is supposed to be aimed at the same audience.[/quote]
Nobody claimed otherwise.

DA2 is aimed at the same audience as its predecessor.

[quote]The game also has to offer the same kind of gameplay, be the same kind of game.[/quote]
DA2 is the same kind of game with the same kind of gameplay.

[quote]I'm well aware that some people think it was.[/quote]
Because it was. 

[quote]But really - they should realize that if a majority have a different experience, then there really is something substantially wrong. What is more likely? You being insensitive to the difference? Or everybody else just suddenly very negative for no good reasons at all?[/quote]
What "majority"? Who is "everybody else"? How did you poll all the people who purchased both games?

What's more likely is that this imaginary "majority" only exists on the internet, only consists of a tiny fraction of the people who played DA:O or DA2, and that any consensus it reaches is indicative of nothing that pertains to reality.

[quote](Remarkably, the later assumption has a few followers here on the forums.)[/quote]
I don't see anyone assuming anything here except you.

[quote]Further, I would argue that DA2 does not continue in the same universe as DA:O.[/quote]
You would also be wrong.

[quote]Thedas was remade, to be cheaper, to better suit comics and animated movies[/quote]
This is moronic. The Mushroom Kingdom of the Mario games changes appearance constantly, sometimes it's even three-dimensional. It is still the Mushroom Kingdom.

The Pokemon games have made similar stylistic changes as the series progressed, they still all occur in the same fictional universe.

The visual style of Thedas and the reasons behind its change are irrelevent. This is all meta information that has no bearing whatsoever on the internal reality of the setting.

DA2 is a sequel to DA:O. Get over it.

[quote]and to conform to the taste of current teenage fantasy fashion.[/quote]
"Current teenage fantasy fashion"? What the hell?

I'm absolutely certain that this is a thing that exists only in your mind.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 juin 2013 - 11:47 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Considering they've been rather adamant that Dragon Age has no central protagonist like Mass Effect since the start...

clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.  And yet since DAII, we've had one, as we'll have one for DAIII.