137 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiden Crowe]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...


I never said that there should be no customization options at all and if we are going to argue against claims that neither of us have made I personally feel that replacing all the companion characters wih Ewoks while slightly amusing and in some cases would be better than the more unlikable companions in Dragon Age 2 probably isnt the best idea for Inquisition.

Is there no such thing as a middle ground? Does it have to be full control over your character's appearance or none at all? While I do enjoy being able to create and customize my own unique characters and use them to play through the game I do find it much more interesting to see them change and grow in ways I had not previously anticipated.

 

Oh come on? <_< I said I would rather chose to have scars or not and you replied that you usually get scars as a consiquence and not by choice. So I responded that most pof your physicla appearance is also not by choice. That was a perfeclty legitimate response to your agument, why lock one customization option because "it's not realistic to have a choice" but not another? 

That wasn't my argument, my argument was that scars are usually momentos of significant events in our lives and an RPG should be about the defining moments in a characters life, it would be nice to see our characters wear the scars associated with such moments.

Of course you could just add scars as part of the character creation but then they become little more than facial decoration, however if you add scars aquired over the journey they have more significance.

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Adding a scars system is just taking options and control away from players. Why are you portray the aquisition of scars as a punnishment for dying as "changeing and growing in ways I had not previously anticipated". There is much better character development that they could put in the game and it's really nothing special if it's just a system that adds scars. 

You call tell a lot about a person from their scars and scars can play a far greater role in character development than you might think.

mikeymoonshine wrote...
yes but why should I have to? and I know that there are people who would not do that and play on easy to avoid it. 
If you play on anything other than casual (even on casual with the no level scaling) you will most liklely die at some point and end up with scars. Look even the fable devs toned down this mechanic because it wasn't even that popular in their own game.

While I already said that this isnt the idea I had in mind I would not be against such a thing provided the scarring is relatively minor, personally though I would rather see scars as the consequences of certain actions or the result of certain events.

mikeymoonshine wrote...
Oh right so it's another you get ugly for making the bad choices and pretty for making the good one's?

Thats not what this is at all, are you purposefully misreading my posts or do you just suck at reading?

Modifié par Maiden Crowe, 16 février 2014 - 01:52 .

[Tarek]

ames4u wrote...



The tone of the two games are different from each other. So I fail to see why they would pay attention to Fable in the first place.

THIS

[mikeymoonshine]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

That wasn't my argument, my argument was that scars are usually momentos of significant events in our lives and an RPG should be about the defining moments in a characters life, it would be nice to see our characters wear the scars associated with such moments.

Of course you could just add scars as part of the character creation but then they become little more than facial decoration, however if you add scars aquired over the journey they have more significance.

Well you didn't argue that untill later on but ok. That's not really a Fable thing though and they already did that in ME. I just don't really see much point in it tbh. Maybe it's because all my scars heal even the really bad one's I got from falling in a fire as a child. 

You call tell a lot about a person from their scars and scars can play a far greater role in character development than you might think

well maybe but not from a fable style system which was always my point. I guess being noticed for physical aspects can be interesting, scars/red hair/ hornless qunari ect. 

While I already said that this isnt the idea I had in mind I would not be against such a thing provided the scarring is relatively minor, personally though I would rather see scars as the consequences of certain actions or the result of certain events.

Well idk about that. I still feel that if you are going to offer character creation/customization then you should respect it. Most games that have these systems do not allow you to create your own character either that or they have an out like in ME2 but I guess it could work if done well. 

Thats not what this is at all, are you purposefully misreading my posts or do you just suck at reading?

Sorry I thought I deleted that part once i reread your post and realized you hadn't said that. Obviously I didn't. 

Modifié par mikeymoonshine, 16 février 2014 - 02:05 .

[KaiserShep]

Acquiring scars in the game seems a bit tricky. Mass Effect went a bit out there with its terminator nonsense, but at the very least, it could be avoided outright by using some of the resources to give Shep reconstructive surgery, allowing you to do whatever the heck you want without becoming a disfigured space demon. How is it determined? How would these injuries be inflicted throughout the game?

[Thetford]

If they take DA out of the Medieval setting, I would prefer it if it was a spin off, set thousands of years later, so that none of your choices in DA would matter, and the writers won't write themselves into a corner, plus it would allow for both series to continue. I'm thinking set it in a Dieselpunk setting (Steampunk has been done to death, plus, it would be interesting to see a flapper Flemeth), with only locations, creatures, spells, religion, surnames and a few immortal characters etc returning from the DA, but with its own themes and plots, independent from DA.

[KaiserShep]

I can see something like dieselpunk, similar to the change between ATLA and Legend of Korra.

[St. Victorious]

Im a huge fan of Fable/Fable 2. Fable 3 was a disaster in plot, user interface, weapon system and design, and online aspects. The only thing I like in it was the spell combo system, which still felt a bit underwhelming. So those are your lessons of how to fail. Fable: Journey was a boring rail game that's not applicable.

One thing I actually did think was smart in Fable: Anniversary was that the dlc weapon packs went to vendors oppose to just magically appearing in your inventory. This addresses balance issues with some of the stronger equipment (though money is moot 10 hours into it). Pub games would also be a nice feature. Playing cards with companions would be very much enjoyable I think.

[dragonflight288]

Fable 1: Really interesting story. Good antagonist. Despite me knowing Jack of Blades would be the bad guy in the end despite him being heralded as the greatest of heroes. I liked that he killed our mother and we can possibly kill our sister.

Although that begs the question, if we kill Theresa for the Sword of Aeons, how does she live to guide our hero in Fable 2?

And the coliseum.

Fable 2: Seemed all right in its implementation. Us getting shot out a window from a very high tower, hitting our head and somehow surviving kind of stretched credulity. But the absolute lack of a boss fight with Lucien totally sucked. I couldn't even properly hear him rant before Reaver shoots him if I don't.

Fable 3: Watch Angry's Joe's top 40 reasons why it fails, and you'll have my opinion.

I do like the body changing over time aspect, and the weapon evolution was sort of interesting in Fable 3. Really sucky implementation.

I did LOVE that sidequest where you are shrunk down and put through a cardboard RPG for those geeks.

[St. Victorious]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Fable 1: Really interesting story. Good antagonist. Despite me knowing Jack of Blades would be the bad guy in the end despite him being heralded as the greatest of heroes. I liked that he killed our mother and we can possibly kill our sister.

Although that begs the question, if we kill Theresa for the Sword of Aeons, how does she live to guide our hero in Fable 2?

And the coliseum.

Fable 2: Seemed all right in its implementation. Us getting shot out a window from a very high tower, hitting our head and somehow surviving kind of stretched credulity. But the absolute lack of a boss fight with Lucien totally sucked. I couldn't even properly hear him rant before Reaver shoots him if I don't.

Fable 3: Watch Angry's Joe's top 40 reasons why it fails, and you'll have my opinion.

I do like the body changing over time aspect, and the weapon evolution was sort of interesting in Fable 3. Really sucky implementation.

I did LOVE that sidequest where you are shrunk down and put through a cardboard RPG for those geeks.

Because there is no world save for Fable, they picked a canon ending for each game. The Hero of Oakvale throws the Sword of Aeons away, sparing Theresa and claims Avo's Tears instead. I also like the ending of Fable 2. Reaver shooting Lucian just shows how well developed the characters were. I don't think you always need an epic boss fight if the story is written well enough. 

[dragonflight288]

St. Victorious wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Fable 1: Really interesting story. Good antagonist. Despite me knowing Jack of Blades would be the bad guy in the end despite him being heralded as the greatest of heroes. I liked that he killed our mother and we can possibly kill our sister.

Although that begs the question, if we kill Theresa for the Sword of Aeons, how does she live to guide our hero in Fable 2?

And the coliseum.

Fable 2: Seemed all right in its implementation. Us getting shot out a window from a very high tower, hitting our head and somehow surviving kind of stretched credulity. But the absolute lack of a boss fight with Lucien totally sucked. I couldn't even properly hear him rant before Reaver shoots him if I don't.

Fable 3: Watch Angry's Joe's top 40 reasons why it fails, and you'll have my opinion.

I do like the body changing over time aspect, and the weapon evolution was sort of interesting in Fable 3. Really sucky implementation.

I did LOVE that sidequest where you are shrunk down and put through a cardboard RPG for those geeks.

Because there is no world save for Fable, they picked a canon ending for each game. The Hero of Oakvale throws the Sword of Aeons away, sparing Theresa and claims Avo's Tears instead. I also like the ending of Fable 2. Reaver shooting Lucian just shows how well developed the characters were. I don't think you always need an epic boss fight if the story is written well enough. 

I did like that there were well-developed characters. But it seemed kind of odd that Lucien interrupts our ritual, shoots my dog dead, shoots me, I find the music box from our childhood, I go to Lucien almost magically without transportation, interrupt him, possibly shoot him or watch  him get shot. 

It felt quite odd. 

[DPSSOC]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

SgtSteel91 wrote...
I liked the pistols and rifles in Fable 2 and 3. They had some neat designs. Maybe they could bring that to Dragon Age?

I also liked how the time period moved from Medieval to Industrial between games. Maybe in a later game civilization in Thedas could move out of the Dark Ages?

Oh gawd no, why does there need to be guns in every fantasy rpg now? 

There doesn't, however it would be nice to see some evidence of progress.  The Dragon Age series has covered over 30 years (close to 40 if my counts right), and nothing's changed.  We've seen no new ideas, no new technologies, nothing.  The world's deadlocked and after two games and three books it's starting to feel stale.

For me the most depressing thing about there being no guns in DA is that it means there aren't fireworks, that's just sad.

mikeymoonshine wrote...

N0rke wrote...
I think the one thing they could learn from Fable is NPC reactions. As silly as it is having NPCs react to the thingslike farting in Fable, it is a neat concept in of itself. It'd be nice if in DAI they had NPCs that acted a certain away around the Inquisitor based on how the Inquisitor is morally aligned. For example, hiding in their homes versus cheering at the Inquisitors arrival.

NOOO, even that can stay in Fable!

Sure I want my choices to matter and impact the world but I don't want all the npc' villagers booing my Inquisitor or running away from him on sight just coz he did the evil thing that most of them probably shouldn't even know about. 

It gets old really fast tbh.

Well what about NPC reactions period?  How many times do you start a fight in Kirkwall or Denerim in DA and people just stand there, completely unmoving or just going through their little loop.  This is one thing Fable did really well, the minute you start swinging your sword, firing your bow/gun, or hurling magic people RUN.  Hell even if you have a weapon drawn they keep their distance.  No people don't need to react to your Inquisitor or their actions specifically, but it would be nice if every city we visit weren't populated by mannequins. 

What I think Bioware could learn most from Fable is make your world live.  We spend 7 years in Kirkwall, what changes?  Nothing.  Not a single house repainted, curtain changed, nothing.  I'm not saying they need to be that exact but it would be nice if something changed, especially if the game spans a considerable amount of time.

[St. Victorious]

You can play most of that off as "A Wizard Did It". The Music Box is a great maguffin as it has an unspecified purpose and really lets the plot twist however. Knothole Island lets you get you dog back if you dont choose Love, and honestly a statue or 1M gold are pretty much worthless compared to the dog.

[KaiserShep]

DPSSOC wrote...

There doesn't, however it would be nice to see some evidence of progress.  The Dragon Age series has covered over 30 years (close to 40 if my counts right), and nothing's changed.  We've seen no new ideas, no new technologies, nothing.  The world's deadlocked and after two games and three books it's starting to feel stale.

For me the most depressing thing about there being no guns in DA is that it means there aren't fireworks, that's just sad.

I agree with this. An example is the discovery of the qunari's use of gaatlok. When Javaris Tintop mentions it and compares it to the lyrium based explosives the dwarves have, there's a dialogue option to say that it sounds like magic, and the companions talk about it as though it's some mystical substance. With trade and exploration being rather prevelant in this universe, that sort of thing cannot be exclusive to the qunari forever. I see no reason why future installments, if any, can't include something like a flintlock along with swordplay.

Well what about NPC reactions period?  How many times do you start a fight in Kirkwall or Denerim in DA and people just stand there, completely unmoving or just going through their little loop.  This is one thing Fable did really well, the minute you start swinging your sword, firing your bow/gun, or hurling magic people RUN.  Hell even if you have a weapon drawn they keep their distance.  No people don't need to react to your Inquisitor or their actions specifically, but it would be nice if every city we visit weren't populated by mannequins. 

What I think Bioware could learn most from Fable is make your world live.  We spend 7 years in Kirkwall, what changes?  Nothing.  Not a single house repainted, curtain changed, nothing.  I'm not saying they need to be that exact but it would be nice if something changed, especially if the game spans a considerable amount of time.

I'd love for people to run and hide if a fight breaks out in the middle of a city. Heck I'd love if they did something similar to GTA and had people react if you so much as bumped into them. I don't want the ability to kill anyone and everyone I want, but I would like for them to seem like they're people living in the city than fixtures to populate it.

[Star fury]

Nefla wrote...

ames4u wrote...



The tone of the two games are different from each other. So I fail to see why they would pay attention to Fable in the first place.

I agree, DA2 and ME3 were absolute perfection and nothing could possibly be learned from well done elements of other games. I really hope BioWare just ignores positive elements that work well in other games and sticks to reusing dungeons/maps (hey, if there are more than 3 maps and if the maps are bigger than a postage stamp people will get confused!) having mages be just as big and beefy as warriors that swing around a giant warhammer like it was a toothpick, telling us things have happened rather than showing us, having zero reactivity from NPCs or the world, having quests end the same way with the same consequences no matter what you do (those who helped Grace escape the mages need not worry about missing out on her seeking her revenge on you later, anyone who sided with Orsino or Meredith will still get the pleasure of fighting their ally, and you get the same glorious and well thought out ending even if you aren't good at making choices) etc...

DA2 and Fable 3 are both crap. K thanx bye.

[mikeymoonshine]

DPSSOC wrote...


There doesn't, however it would be nice to see some evidence of progress.  The Dragon Age series has covered over 30 years (close to 40 if my counts right), and nothing's changed.  We've seen no new ideas, no new technologies, nothing.  The world's deadlocked and after two games and three books it's starting to feel stale.

For me the most depressing thing about there being no guns in DA is that it means there aren't fireworks, that's just sad.

It seems like some people want there to be. Pretty much every rpg forum for a game that doesn't have guns there is a bunch of people asking for them. 

Guns change everything, once guns exist it makes swords obsolete and pointless. Just look at Fable 3 for example, the gun is so much easier to use than the sword that there is just no point in even using the it. The only way you can really get guns to work is to either put heavy restrictions on their use (and why wouldn't more efficient guns eventually be invented?) or go all Final Fantasy. 

Also what is this idea that everything should have progressed technologically by now? 30-40 years is nothing, the dark ages lasted allot longer than that. Technology didn't advance in the past as fast as it has in recent times, most of the time it didn't advance much at all and we didn't even have things like magic. 

Well what about NPC reactions period?  How many times do you start a fight in Kirkwall or Denerim in DA and people just stand there, completely unmoving or just going through their little loop.  This is one thing Fable did really well, the minute you start swinging your sword, firing your bow/gun, or hurling magic people RUN.  Hell even if you have a weapon drawn they keep their distance.  No people don't need to react to your Inquisitor or their actions specifically, but it would be nice if every city we visit weren't populated by mannequins. 

What I think Bioware could learn most from Fable is make your world live.  We spend 7 years in Kirkwall, what changes?  Nothing.  Not a single house repainted, curtain changed, nothing.  I'm not saying they need to be that exact but it would be nice if something changed, especially if the game spans a considerable amount of time.

I have already said that I want NPC reactions and I even went into how I would like it to work. Of course DA2 had problems but that doesn't mean the fix is do things more like Fable. I don't mind npc's running away at a drawn weapon (although that also could be a mess if it's too over the top) but not for every npc and there are other things I care about more than that tbh. 

DA2 was rushed. I am sure allot of this stuff wouldn't be the case if they had more time and funds to fix these things. 

Modifié par mikeymoonshine, 16 février 2014 - 04:40 .

[Beyond2souls]

Their not alike. If anything it's how to not do co-op, but I doubt we will have that.

[Gwydden]

Seriously, what's so terrible about Fable 3's plot? I found it way superior to Fable's (haven't played Fable 2) where you got a cartoonishly evil villain doing Generic Evil Stuff who you could spot from a mile away.

Fable 3 had it's storytelling issues, but seeing the general tone of the series it had a really god story overall.

[mikeymoonshine]

Gwydden wrote...

Seriously, what's so terrible about Fable 3's plot? I found it way superior to Fable's (haven't played Fable 2) where you got a cartoonishly evil villain doing Generic Evil Stuff who you could spot from a mile away.

Fable 3 had it's storytelling issues, but seeing the general tone of the series it had a really god story overall.

Nothing. I thought the plot was fine, good even. It's the other stuff that sucks like everything after you become king/queen for example.

[Red Panda]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Seriously, what's so terrible about Fable 3's plot? I found it way superior to Fable's (haven't played Fable 2) where you got a cartoonishly evil villain doing Generic Evil Stuff who you could spot from a mile away.

Fable 3 had it's storytelling issues, but seeing the general tone of the series it had a really god story overall.

Nothing. I thought the plot was fine, good even. It's the other stuff that sucks like everything after you become king/queen for example.

But it had the greatest "be good while economically exploiting everyone through the shoddy free housing and epically priced common goods" exploit. 

[Spectre slayer]

Nothing as many have said they are two different types of games and as good as the first 2 were they still had some flaws that some talked about.
The npc interaction wasn't to good or bad until the third one when they put that ridiculous touch system and all the stupid expressions and silly thing's we had to do to further our relationships and the fetch quests "shudders" to to many of them.

There are Crossbows in origins but not in 2 and I remember hearing (allthough I have no source) that they wouldn't be available in Inquisition (other than for varric ofc) because it would mean having to create a whole new set of animations for the archer. I think they aren't ruled out as a future addition though I guess that means they could be DLC at some point.

They did say that, it's on one of the devs Twitter accounts I believe so we may indeed see them further down the line after DAI comes out.

 
That's another thing that I liked about Fable. You had an evolving weapon that changed depnding on how you played and eventually turned from your standard steel sword to and epic weapon. 
Maybe in a Dragon Age game they could have a personal weapon or armor that changes appearnce and properties depending on your choices and personality as you gain levels.

I didn't like those aspects, especially in Fable 3 mainly due to how tedious it was to make them better.

Besides the system DAI is implementing is way beyond that and if you like a certain weapon and armour you can keep customizing and crafting it, add runes to it until it's stats become on par with end game gear and not just aesthetic reasons though that's a part of it.

So if you like your early game gear you can just keep making it better and better if you want to.

The only thing at all I thought was well done in fable 3 was how when youre king or queen the promises you made had to be broken because you had to pick between two of the promises. Those choices felt really weighty, something ive missed from biowares recent games

 

Really? I though that it was one weaker parts that only boiled down to how much gold you had and if you could keep your promises and have more than enough to save everyone which was very very easy to exploit if you knew what you're doing.

By that point I owned almost everything and had no problem keeping my promises and getting the best ending playing as a strictly good and moral character.

[mikeymoonshine]

Spectre slayer wrote...

The only thing at all I thought was well done in fable 3 was how when youre king or queen the promises you made had to be broken because you had to pick between two of the promises. Those choices felt really weighty, something ive missed from biowares recent games

 

Really? I though that it was one weaker parts that only boiled down to how much gold you had and if you could keep your promises and have more than enough to save everyone which was very very easy to exploit if you knew what you're doing.

By that point I owned almost everything and had no problem keeping my promises and getting the best ending playing as a strictly good and moral character.

Yeah it doesn't take long to work out how to get the best ending and then it's easy. You don't even have to charge high rents to do it you just have to make sure you don't advance too much until you have enough money. 

[DPSSOC]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
There doesn't, however it would be nice to see some evidence of progress.  The Dragon Age series has covered over 30 years (close to 40 if my counts right), and nothing's changed.  We've seen no new ideas, no new technologies, nothing.  The world's deadlocked and after two games and three books it's starting to feel stale.

For me the most depressing thing about there being no guns in DA is that it means there aren't fireworks, that's just sad.

It seems like some people want there to be. Pretty much every rpg forum for a game that doesn't have guns there is a bunch of people asking for them. 

Guns change everything, once guns exist it makes swords obselete and pointless. Just look at Fable 3 for example, the gun is so much easier to use than the sword that there is just no point in even using the it. The only way you can really get guns to work is to either put heavy restrictions on their use (and why wouldn't more efficient guns eventually be invented?) or go all Final Fantasy.

Yes and no.  Guns change everything eventually but for a long time in their early development swords are still viable.  Now admittedly it's hard to balance out in a game, but the main issue with early guns is they're highly inaccurate and take a long time to reload.  So give guns a much higher chance to miss than say a bow or a sword but do much more damage and include a longer cooldown between attacks.

mikeymoonshine wrote...
Also what is this idea that everything should have progressedt technologically by now? 30-40 years is nothing, the dark ages lasted allot longer than that. Technology didn't advance in the past as fast as it has in recent times, most of the time it didn't advance much at all and we didn't even have things like magic.

I'm not saying everything should have progressed but something should have.  Even in the Dark Ages progress was being made, and unlike the Dark Ages Dragon Age doesn't have people mistaking technological marvels for witchcraft.  Invention is driven by necessity and there has been plenty of driving force to push Thedas to invent.  It doesn't have to be guns but some new armor, new way of forging weapons, something new in a world that hasn't seemed to change not only in the 40 years that are covered but for centuries of their presented history.

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Well what about NPC reactions period?  How many times do you start a fight in Kirkwall or Denerim in DA and people just stand there, completely unmoving or just going through their little loop.  This is one thing Fable did really well, the minute you start swinging your sword, firing your bow/gun, or hurling magic people RUN.  Hell even if you have a weapon drawn they keep their distance.  No people don't need to react to your Inquisitor or their actions specifically, but it would be nice if every city we visit weren't populated by mannequins. 

What I think Bioware could learn most from Fable is make your world live.  We spend 7 years in Kirkwall, what changes?  Nothing.  Not a single house repainted, curtain changed, nothing.  I'm not saying they need to be that exact but it would be nice if something changed, especially if the game spans a considerable amount of time.

I have already said that I want NPC reactions and I even went into how I would like it to work. Of course DA2 had problems but that doesn't mean the fix is do things more like Fable.

 
No but the question was what could Bioware learn from that series and background NPC behaviour is certainly something Fable did well.  Say what you will about the degree they went to but every NPC in Fable reacts to your actions.  It's a little thing that makes the world feel alive, rather than just a backdrop the player/party walk through.  This has been a short coming for Bioware for a long time; for a company that does character so well their worlds have none.

mikeymoonshine wrote...
I don't mind npc's running away at a drawn weapon (allthough that also could be a mess if it's too over the top) but not for every npc and there are other things I care about more than that tbh.

And that's fair, but why not ever NPC?  I'm not saying they should all run in terror but if you're doing something most normal people for the setting would react to, then they should react.  It could be as simple as NPCs on a moving path redirecting around you if your weapon is drawn, and running away if a fight starts. 

mikeymoonshine wrote...
DA2 was rushed. I am sure allot of this stuff wouldn't be the case if they had more time and funs to fix these things. 

I kinda doubt it.  People like to say DA2 was rushed but I see remarkably little that could have been resolved with more time.

[KaiserShep]

I dunno. DA2 might have gotten fewer copy/paste locations.

[KaiserShep]

mikeymoonshine wrote...
Guns change everything, once guns exist it makes swords obsolete and pointless. Just look at Fable 3 for example, the gun is so much easier to use than the sword that there is just no point in even using the it. The only way you can really get guns to work is to either put heavy restrictions on their use (and why wouldn't more efficient guns eventually be invented?) or go all Final Fantasy.

This is only true to an extent, but it largely depends on the guns in question. Take, for instance, the flintlock. By the time you reload one of those, the attacker could just run up on you and impale you with a saber. A blunderbuss is only good for short range, and a bow and arrow or crossbow would still be a very viable weapon of choice.

Also what is this idea that everything should have progressed technologically by now? 30-40 years is nothing, the dark ages lasted allot longer than that. Technology didn't advance in the past as fast as it has in recent times, most of the time it didn't advance much at all and we didn't even have things like magic.

That's fair. I guess it depends on how long BioWare wants to expand upon this universe in any potential future installments. In any case, with the existence of gaatlok, the technology already exists, at least on qunari dreadnoughts.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 17 février 2014 - 01:03 .

[mikeymoonshine]

KaiserShep wrote...

This is only true to an extent, but it largely depends on the guns in question. Take, for instance, the flintlock. By the time you reload one of those, the attacker could just run up on you and impale you with a saber. A blunderbuss is only good for short range, and a bow and arrow or crossbow would still be a very viable weapon of choice.

Well yeah it has to be restricted to certain guns like the one you listed so as not to make other weapons obsolete You just end up in the same place with the technology not advanceing but it makes less sense because we alreay have the guns and they just never improve. Either that or you have to change the game completely.  I just don't see much of a need for them. 

That's fair. I guess it depends on how long BioWare wants to expand upon this universe in any potential future installments. In any case, with the existence of gaatlok, the technology already exists, at least on qunari dreadnoughts.

True, the technology exists already (sort of) and I am sure bioware will do something with it but I am just happy with the way it is so far.