There is something about 40 endings in this article. Good thing it's not 16. /thread
Please note that they also said some of those are only different from each other in details. I guess there will be a handful of "main paths" which are varied by related smaller decisions you've made.
(I have read the article. "40 endings" was indeed mentioned, but with the abovementioned qualifier)
Did you read the part about the start of the game and the mage-templar conflict? How did you interpret it?Please note that they also said some of those are only different from each other in details. I guess there will be a handful of "main paths" which are varied by related smaller decisions you've made.
(I have read the article. "40 endings" was indeed mentioned, but with the abovementioned qualifier)
Did you read the part about the start of the game and the mage-templar conflict? How did you interpret it?
I don't recall any details. IIRC It wasn't a big topic. I'll check it out when I get home. Why is this important? I don't get the apparent controversy.
I'd be shocked if the 40 endings ends up being anything other than small variations on the ending akin to the epilogue slides in DAO, according to some major decisions you make throughout the game.
They mentioned that some of these endings will "only differ in nuances"
Also the article doesnt elaborate on the mage-templar conflict. Bioware didnt give any details, only the premise of the plot we more or less already knew : Veil Tears -> Demons pour out -> Templars accuse mages -> mages deny it -> war breaks out -> Inquisitor is for mysterious reasons the only person able to close the tears
Yeah... I wonder how will the people who put us in charge of the inquisition know that we are indeed the only person able to close the tears. Will we close one right at the start of the game? Or will it be assumed that we can because we survived something?
Perhaps there aren't people who put us in charge. Perhaps we simply assume command of a few scattered groups and individuals and shape them into the Inquisition, based on what *we* know we can do but others can't.
The full quote is :
"Rund 40 unterschiedliche Enden soll Inquisition erzahlen. Das ist ein ambitioniertes Ziel - auch wenn einige dieser Enden nur in Nuancen voneinander abweichen."
The question is how are they counted since ME3 can be described as having 3 (red,green,blue) or roughly 50 endings, depending wheter you count every unique combination of ending slides in the extended cut as a different ending or not.
Can someone just post a link for all this?
The full quote is :
"Rund 40 unterschiedliche Enden soll Inquisition erzahlen. Das ist ein ambitioniertes Ziel - auch wenn einige dieser Enden nur in Nuancen voneinander abweichen."
The question is how are they counted since ME3 can be described as having 3 (red,green,blue) or roughly 50 endings, depending wheter you count every unique combination of endind slides in the extended cut as a different ending or not.
Major variations in ME3 are 9:
(1) high-EMS and low-EMS variants of three main endings (P-Control, R-Control, Destroy) (6)
(2) Extra-low EMS variant of Destroy where Earth is destroyed (1)
(3) Refuse and Synthesis (2)
The epilogue-relevant subplots are Tuchanka and Rannoch with three epilogue-relevant outcomes each. If you count every variation of the original 9 you get 81, minus a few unavailable with certain main options, so that was not the way they counted them.
The point is, if you count every resolution of a major subplot as an ending variation, you'll end up way beyond the quoted numbers. Just try the same with DAO if you don't believe that.
So...I don't know how they're counting. It is rather odd.
@ Ieldra. I think i read somewhere that someone puts us in charge. But returning to the PC. How would he/we know we jave that power. I think that this would be the best moment for Morrigan/Flemeth. If anyone would know something that is magical then they are my bet.
Hmm...I don't like the idea of being put in charge by someone who knows less than I do, and I would certainly resent being put in charge by an organization I don't respect. Flemeth would work, but she's about the only one.
As for how we come to know, that can be part of the story, or a matter for the prologue. I prefer finding out for myself to being told by someone else.
eh I thought it's known at this point that it was IGN that said ME3 has 16 endings not Bioware.
Can someone just post a link for all this?
That's what I'd like to know as well. Do we have an access to the entire article? German or English
eh I thought it's known at this point that it was IGN that said ME3 has 16 endings not Bioware.
I don't exactly recall who said what, the point was that nobody counted in a way that the outcomes of the major subplots counted as ending variations. At least, not consistently. I also think it's rather useless to quote unintuitive numbers. With enough variations, the number of endings will feel different to most players because they feel the impact of variations in different ways. How many outcomes did DAO have? The numbers get surprisingly big between who died killing the archdemon, who ruled Ferelden and the other major epilogue-relevant recisions, even if you don't count the character-specific ones. There were only four ways to resolve the main plot: nobody dies, you die, Alistair dies or Loghain dies, but most players feel the impact of the variations within each option much more than they do in ME3.
That's what I'd like to know as well. Do we have an access to the entire article? German or English
It's a print magazine, and only subscribers got the current edition before today. I guess it'll eventually be available on gamestar.de, but certainly not before one or two weeks have gone by. It's also copyrighted of course, so anybody who scans it off and puts in online somewhere treads dangerous ground.
That's what I'd like to know as well. Do we have an access to the entire article? German or English
The good thing is in that the preview it is mentioned that other journalists from other sites/magazines were present, so I expect an influx of previews pretty soon.
Overall the previewer really liked what he was allowed to see.
I don't know if this was mentioned before but there is another interesting note in the GameStar article. In a dragon fight it is possible to knock off the legs of the dragon so that it tilts to the side. Then the vulnerable parts(head and throat) are reachable. Although I don't know if "knock off" can be understood as "cut off" because the article says "weghauen" which could mean both.
I don't know if this was mentioned before but there is another interesting note in the GameStar article. In a dragon fight it is possible to knock off the legs of the dragon so that it tilts to the side. Then the vulnerable parts(head and throat) are reachable. Although I don't know if "knock off" can be understood as "cut off" because the article says "weghauen" which could mean both.
so....hit it enough times in the back of the knee and it'll fall over so we can strike it upside the head.
got it *writes on dragon slaying tip compendium*
after the Veil tears the templars accuse mages of being behind it, mages deny, and they fight.
I couldn't help chuckle at this, as expected of the Templars, a mage did it, it's never the Dwarf, a Qunari or one of their own. The rocks are falling or the sky for the rest of Thedas and you can expect with certainty a mage will be blamed. Yet, the Templars are guzzling down lyrium like Turkey dinner, and not even once would they consider an alternative to the veil tear.
It's doubly sad that the Templars didn't even try to consider an alternative, but it's most likely a mage did it. Bah, the Templars are always trying to find a reason to continue their war against mages anyway, I on the other hand can't wait to seek small t truth. In the small chance a mage didn't do it, I will imagine my character parading around Templar strongholds as I dismantle their order 
Ok i have the magazine and already read the article. Yes they are a lot of infos but the whole article is written by an author
who adore DAO and very dislike/hate DA 2.
So Mr Gebauer why are Varric and Cassandra not so interesting like Morrigan and Shale?
Varric was awesome in DA 2. I really love this companion and he was much better than Oghren.
Was Gebauer talking about them in the demo or about how they were in DA2?
I wouldn't blame the author if he said "Varric only felt awesome because the others were so bad". 
Ok i have the magazine and already read the article. Yes they are a lot of infos but the whole article is written by an author
who adore DAO and very dislike/hate DA 2.
So Mr Gebauer why are Varric and Cassandra not so interesting like Morrigan and Shale?
Varric was awesome in DA 2. I really love this companion and he was much better than Oghren.
Ok i have the magazine and already read the article. Yes they are a lot of infos but the whole article is written by an author
who adore DAO and very dislike/hate DA 2.
So Mr Gebauer why are Varric and Cassandra not so interesting like Morrigan and Shale?
Varric was awesome in DA 2. I really love this companion and he was much better than Oghren.
He also mentions Minsc, Jan Jansen and HK-47 as good companions. since I like neither of them I would not be too worried. Not to mention that the journalists know hardly more than we do about the companions and are therefore unable to judge them anyway until they get the game to review.
Retour en haut