Ce sujet est fermé
Considering that (assuming I remember things correctly, its been so long) she was a / the forest spirit given form because of an angry blood mage, I certainly hope not.
She reminded me of Dryad o.o
And you remember part right; she was implanted into the form of a wolf to cause the werewolf curse by an angry blood mage but there was nothing to indicate she didn't have a physical form short of that.
Considering that (assuming I remember things correctly, its been so long) she was a / the forest spirit given form because of an angry blood mage, I certainly hope not.
She reminded me of Dryad o.o
And you remember part right; she was implanted into the form of a wolf to cause the werewolf curse by an angry blood mage but there was nothing to indicate she didn't have a physical form short of that.
Yeah, she was already existent before Zathrian bounded her to a silver wolf.
And didn't somewhere mention Dryad's possibly existing in the Dales or some other forest? I can't find it anywhere, but I specifically remember it.
She reminded me of Dryad o.o
And you remember part right; she was implanted into the form of a wolf to cause the werewolf curse by an angry blood mage but there was nothing to indicate she didn't have a physical form short of that.
Ah. When she disappeared, I thought she just returned to, I don't know what Dragon Age forest spirits do in their spare time, watching plants, or something.
But yes, she was very similar to a dryad, but without the restrictions to her tree.
The exact same way we determine it in real life. With reason.
And emotion.
Lust for violence is useful if you can direct at enemies, which you can with werewolves, And the men can get over it like they do in game if they issues with the Werewolves. Given both parties can give each other a wide berth both on the move and on the battlefield. Furthermore you are leaving out that these werewolves are a directed enity and the spirit guiding them is neither overwhelmed with blood lust nor their curse and thus can aid them in overcoming both, as she does IN game.
Directly leading me to my next point.
Yet they don't act on that tendency either in game or out game directly upon your forces, even when it occurs its after the conflict and therefore beyond the spectrum of this debate.
And raw strength, animal brutality and inhuman durability come in handy when combating poisoned blood and overwhelming numbers, and you can agrue Darkspawn makeup for being mediocre at bow craft with the sheer volume they can fire.
Face it Xil there is an argument for taking the werewolves over the Dalish.
Also werewolves don't have a history of sitting back and letting humanity get pounded by the darkspawn. Whose to say the dalish won't just bunker down in the alienage and refuse to help anyone else in fighting the blight?
Then again werewolves don't really have a history, what with their intelligence and ability to communicate and think being a somewhat recent phenomena.
That seems like it could easily backfire.
Letting them loose on a nearby township? Counterproductive towards anything but replenishing numbers you may or may not be able to control.
You're really rolling the dice here when you already have a sure thing in the elves.
I agree, but you can't underestimate the usefulness of a strong, front line soldiers, even at the cost of archers. They, much like the golems, can offer a lot of physical advantages that could come in a lot of handy when facing ogres, or mass hordes.
But I don't agree you have a sure thing with the elves. Out of all the factions, they are the most precarious and the ones you take a gamble with most. Whose to say they will follow orders and not just defend the elves, as I stated above. And whose to say they'll be willing to work with humans at all? The werewolves owe me if you side with them, all you bring the elves is a slain keeper and beacon of hope that they could reclaim their old supposedly real secret to immortality, and a piece of paper they didn't even bother honoring the first time around.
OP, I'm just here to say I support your request for more moderate player characters. Closely related to that is my Request for less extreme plot choices.
It is true that we can't influence the circumstances that go into our decisions, so being forced into the occasional polarizing decision here or there is ok and plausible, but a pattern of them reflects badly on the plausibility of the story, the world, and/or the character.
This also applies to NPCs, some of which were almost like walking issues in DA2.
Ah. When she disappeared, I thought she just returned to, I don't know what Dragon Age forest spirits do in their spare time, watching plants, or something.
But yes, she was very similar to a dryad, but without the restrictions to her tree.
I think she just ... stopped existing at that point.
The best way to handle a dragon is using archers, because dragon is flying creature. No advantage on using werewolves
Actually it's using the balistas, and keeping the darkspawn away from them, as in having some fighting force to keep the tide of darkspwn coming to the aide of the archdemon at bay. So strong brawlers would be the best choice for dealing with them while you and your forces deal with manning the balistas.
@Jenseraai Bronitarian: If you're referring to the events of the Second Blight, we have no clue when the elves/dalish firmed that treaty, I believe. It could've been every well been made after the fall of the Dales.
I am referring to this blight, and the bitterness the dalish demonstrate to humans, and the dismissiveness they show for honoring the contract you bring to them. I really have no patience for a lot of the factions and their problems, the dwarves especially. But second to them is the elves, for not having enough hunters to apperently fight in the blight but having enough to tell me to **** myself at the entrance to their camp.
But I don't agree you have a sure thing with the elves. Out of all the factions, they are the most precarious and the ones you take a gamble with most. Whose to say they will follow orders and not just defend the elves, as I stated above. And whose to say they'll be willing to work with humans at all? The werewolves owe me if you side with them, all you bring the elves is a slain keeper and beacon of hope that they could reclaim their old supposedly real secret to immortality, and a piece of paper they didn't even bother honoring the first time around.
The treaty with the Grey Wardens hadn't been made at the time; I don't think that came until the Third or Fourth Blight.
I am referring to this blight, and the bitterness the dalish demonstrate to humans, and the dismissiveness they show for honoring the contract you bring to them. I really have no patience for a lot of the factions and their problems, the dwarves especially. But second to them is the elves, for not having enough hunters to apperently fight in the blight but having enough to tell me to **** myself at the entrance to their camp.
Dismissiveness, like every single other faction you bring the treaty to? And how is it at all suspicious if they don't have enough hunters to fight a whole Blight but enough to fend off four people?
Well, dealing with four armed men is different than going after the darkspawn.I am referring to this blight, and the bitterness the dalish demonstrate to humans, and the dismissiveness they show for honoring the contract you bring to them. I really have no patience for a lot of the factions and their problems, the dwarves especially. But second to them is the elves, for not having enough hunters to apperently fight in the blight but having enough to tell me to **** myself at the entrance to their camp.
I rarely use balistas in all my playthroughs, they keep broken...and then i find out it just a waste of effort.
Out of all the end troop i call on the top of the tower, i find out Dalish is the most effective and end the battle quicker...i upgrade them to the maximum of course.
If you have a Rogue be the one to fire them, they tend to never break.
Different people will have different optimal solutions. Many here, for instance, ride high on racism boners and find that slaughtering elves is a good end in and of itself. Some directly want Isolde dead, or will Annul Circles because they think mages bring everything on themselves. It's no failure of storytelling to have one option that's viewed as most commonly optimal, as you'll still always have different opinions regarding it.
You're right. Different people will consider different choices optimal. It's nice to see you acknowledge that.
However, if this outcome is inevitable, I don't actually see it as a counter argument to what I suggested, since we're already going to do it and we're already going to make some groups advantaged or disadvantaged. If people are going to tear strips into other posters for being awful human beings, however, then maybe we're doing something wrong with the choices?
It doesn't strike me as being that difficult to point out, and ignore, those that run around those that feel eradicating the elves is a good solution simply because they hate the elves.
You're right. Different people will consider different choices optimal. It's nice to see you acknowledge that.
However, if this outcome is inevitable, I don't actually see it as a counter argument to what I suggested, since we're already going to do it and we're already going to make some groups advantaged or disadvantaged. If people are going to tear strips into other posters for being awful human beings, however, then maybe we're doing something wrong with the choices?
It doesn't strike me as being that difficult to point out, and ignore, those that run around those that feel eradicating the elves is a good solution simply because they hate the elves.
Personally, I think Bioware went way too damned far to try to make the oppressed and their oppressors seem somehow morally equivalent, in some sort of golden mean fallacy. So I cannot and will not support any further efforts in this direction.
Personally, I think Bioware went way too damned far to try to make the oppressed and their oppressors seem somehow morally equivalent, in some sort of golden mean fallacy. So I cannot and will not support any further efforts in this direction.
Can you elaborate?
From there, what's your solution? Should we make it so that the best choices are the ones that are clearly siding with oppressed groups? Does that make for a more interesting game experience?
Can you elaborate?
From there, what's your solution? Should we make it so that the best choices are the ones that are clearly siding with oppressed groups? Does that make for a more interesting game experience?
By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.
By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.
Templars aren't probably considered by Bioware as the Reapers or the Empire, judging their recent interviews.
As for the portrayal of mages and templars, they stated that both were shown at their worst on purpose in DA2.
By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.
Well, technically you can work with the Reapers by choosing some of the ending choices. True it isn't harvesting people, but you and they do reach a compromise and work together in the broadest sense of the term.
By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.
So that it may not necessarily make for a worse experience gives the implication that it still might make for a worse game.
I think the Reaper analogy is a poor one, since it'd be more akin to siding with the Darkspawn which you cannot do in Dragon Age (EDIT: though as people point out, you can actually work together and coexist with the reapers). It'd probably be better served to use stuff like the Rachni or the Collector Base. Though a lot of people feel that those choices were greatly underutilized and ultimately it compromised their enjoyment of the third game.
I think it's also important to note that when playing a video game, people can disassociate themselves from their character and play (and enjoy) behaving in a way that they wouldn't in real life without being real life monsters. One of my all-time favourite gaming experiences was my playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic, in which I played a soldier that attempted to do good as much as possible, but allowed himself to do dark things in the greater good of helping others. In the end, he succumbed to the dark side and ended up using the Starforge against the Republic.
I'll spare all the details, but many aspects of my character's evolution just ended up having such perfect timing that it was just a very entertaining and enjoyable experience. One of those "influential moments" in my gaming history.
Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 mars 2014 - 11:14 .
Added Reaper compromise line after reading posts before mine.
Templars aren't probably considered by Bioware as the Reapers or the Empire, judging their recent interviews.
As for the portrayal of mages and templars, they stated that both were shown at their worst on purpose in DA2.
To my sorrow, but the point is that, if they were, it wouldn't make the game worse.
So that it may not necessarily make for a worse experience gives the implication that it still might make for a worse game.
I think the Reaper analogy is a poor one, since it'd be more akin to siding with the Darkspawn which you cannot do in Dragon Age. It'd probably be better served to use stuff like the Rachni or the Collector Base. Though a lot of people feel that those choices were greatly underutilized and ultimately it compromised their enjoyment of the third game.
I think it's also important to note that when playing a video game, people can disassociate themselves from their character and play (and enjoy) behaving in a way that they wouldn't in real life without being real life monsters. One of my all-time favourite gaming experiences was my playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic, in which I played a soldier that attempted to do good as much as possible, but allowed himself to do dark things in the greater good of helping others. In the end, he succumbed to the dark side and ended up using the Starforge against the Republic.
I'll spare all the details, but many aspects of my character's evolution just ended up having such perfect timing that it was just a very entertaining and enjoyable experience. One of those "influential moments" in my gaming history.
By itself, it wouldn't make for a worse game; it would have to be badly handled on top of that. Which could be the case for anything. And I have no problem with evil playthrough options; what I do have a problem with are allowing for the possibility of many people to think of them as good. Mass Effect had fewer of these because of the Paragon/Renegade thing, but it was still quite present.
There's nothing wrong with playing as a monster, so long as you acknowledge that that's what your playing.
To my sorrow, but the point is that, if they were, it wouldn't make the game worse.
I think it's subjective. If they were portrayed from the start as such I woudn't have minded, since I'm not invested in either side (for the record, it'd be the same for the mages).
After DAO, I'm happy of what Bioware stated recently in this regard.
I'm on the mind though that a part of the fanbase will be disappointed on how the mage-templar war is portrayed in DAI, no matter what Bioware will do.
I think it's subjective. If they were portrayed from the start as such I woudn't have minded, since I'm not invested in either side (for the record, it'd be the same for the mages).
After DAO, I'm happy of what Bioware stated recently in this regard.
I'm on the mind though that a part of the fanbase will be disappointed on how the mage-templar war is portrayed in DAI, no matter what Bioware will do.
Well, given that the templars were barely any better in DAO than they were in DA2, I do hope they don't go too far in the other direction.
So that it may not necessarily make for a worse experience gives the implication that it still might make for a worse game.
I think the Reaper analogy is a poor one, since it'd be more akin to siding with the Darkspawn which you cannot do in Dragon Age (EDIT: though as people point out, you can actually work together and coexist with the reapers). It'd probably be better served to use stuff like the Rachni or the Collector Base. Though a lot of people feel that those choices were greatly underutilized and ultimately it compromised their enjoyment of the third game.
I think it's also important to note that when playing a video game, people can disassociate themselves from their character and play (and enjoy) behaving in a way that they wouldn't in real life without being real life monsters. One of my all-time favourite gaming experiences was my playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic, in which I played a soldier that attempted to do good as much as possible, but allowed himself to do dark things in the greater good of helping others. In the end, he succumbed to the dark side and ended up using the Starforge against the Republic.
I'll spare all the details, but many aspects of my character's evolution just ended up having such perfect timing that it was just a very entertaining and enjoyable experience. One of those "influential moments" in my gaming history.
Yay, my post was used as a point in a Mod post! 
Well, given that the templars were barely any better in DAO than they were in DA2, I do hope they don't go too far in the other direction.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think both sides were portrayed far better in DAO than DA2.
My main concern is being able to express my view and following a third path. Granted, it might be more easily if the war will not end in DAI, but I think concluding the war will cause a lot of problems for Bioware.
Retour en haut