33 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So in essence, you like them because they are truer to the lore, Hyuuga?

Yes.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Essentially the DA2 Darkspawn fit the lore more, and they apepar more unique. DA:O ones were just generic orcs and goblins. The Genlock redesign I am particularly fond of. The only Darkspawn redesign I wish they hadn't done, would be the Ogre, but we can't win 'em all.

[myahele]

I hope it'll be a combination of both designs.

Though honestly I hope they'll look similar to the da:a broodmother in appearance. They will clearly look like thier races but pale and bloody. Then add shoddy armor.

[AresKeith]

A couple reasons:

 

1) The armor: In Origins, the Darkspawn had the most intricate armor in the game. They should not be capable of that. Then DA2 comes with the patchy armor and that makes loads more sense.

 

2) Skin: In Origins, they looked like zombies. Plain and simple. There are not zombies, and nothing of the Darkspawn makes things like skin rip or peel off. In DA2, they had a pale, sickly appearance that fits a race of underground blighted creatures to have. 

 

1. I was able to accept the armor thing in Origins because they had forges of their own, plus Blights kinda make them more organized. But I would've preferred if only the higher up Darkspawn like the Generals, Alpha's, etc had better armor than the thralls (who should've had the patchy armor)

 

2. I agree I liked the idea behind it but I felt it was poorly, especially my gripes against the Genlocks

[Former_Fiend]

My problem with the DA2 genlocks is that there is simply no way to reconcile what they were in DAO with what they became after the redesign. Fangs or no, hurlocks were still the human-like infantry of the horde. Ogres were close enough that you could even say that it's a small degree in variance; if a DAO ogre and a DA2 ogre stood side by side, you'd clearly recognize them as the same creature, just with a few different features between individuals. Shrieks, while we didn't get to see them in action, looked more or less the same.

 

But genlocks not only didn't look anything a like, they no longer served the same function. The DA2 genlocks were heavy hitters and frontline fighters, where as DAO genlocks tended more towards stealth and even magic. How do you reconcile the genlock shapeshifter, necromancer, or assassin boss fights from Origins with what they were in DA2?

[darkiddd]

A couple reasons:

 

1) The armor: In Origins, the Darkspawn had the most intricate armor in the game. They should not be capable of that. Then DA2 comes with the patchy armor and that makes loads more sense.

 

2) Skin: In Origins, they looked like zombies. Plain and simple. There are not zombies, and nothing of the Darkspawn makes things like skin rip or peel off. In DA2, they had a pale, sickly appearance that fits a race of underground blighted creatures to have. 

 

I don't know. The darkspawn have proved to posses some kind of culture, they made their own altars and twisted the statues of other races with their own decorations they didn't just destroy them. I think they can make weapons and armors of very low quality but they also sack and wear the armors and blades of the people they kill. In the second game it's just shameful how they all look more human with the same ridiculous and extravagant armor worthy of cannon fodder and they have flawless skin that makes them not so terrifying, these guys are supposed to be corruption and blight made flesh but nothing gives me that impression in DA2.

[myahele]

Wasn't also stated that ghouls (corrupted people) would make armor for them and other things?

[Former_Fiend]

Wasn't also stated that ghouls (corrupted people) would make armor for them and other things?

 

Yes.

[darkiddd]

Wasn't also stated that ghouls (corrupted people) would make armor for them and other things?

 

And they have all the resources and tools needed to make them with the abandoned dwarven forges underground in the deep roads