Not rly you pretty much will slain 1241513 peoples before the ending i don't see how 1 more person will make difference.
Pretty much all i need to do to see
if i don't kill him what positive outcome for me it will be none worst scenario may be huge disaster...
i i kill him no bad outcome for me positive outcome no disaster.
LOGIC WINS!
Ah yes, I forgot, you are the only person who exists in the universe. Of course, in a video game this is literally true.
Ah yes, I forgot, you are the only person who exists in the universe. Of course, in a video game this is literally true.
What do you mean by the only person who exists in the universe?
What do you mean by the only person who exists in the universe?
Outcomes reflect the results for everyone involved, not just YOU. Except in a video game, where the player is literally the only actual "person" in the world and all the other characters are just constructs.
Some of us like to base our role-play decisions off the nature of real life, though, pretending that video game characters are people and that it matters what happens to them.
This is actually one of the reasons why I DON'T like the "you kill 1234515 people by the end of it" gameplay--especially when the writers then put in a "decide whether or not to kill this one person!" type of decision. I already killed THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF GREATER MANHATTAN. WHY is killing THIS GUY a big deal?!
Outcomes reflect the results for everyone involved, not just YOU. Except in a video game, where the player is literally the only actual "person" in the world and all the other characters are just constructs.
Some of us like to base our role-play decisions off the nature of real life, though, pretending that video game characters are people and that it matters what happens to them.
This is actually one of the reasons why I DON'T like the "you kill 1234515 people by the end of it" gameplay--especially when the writers then put in a "decide whether or not to kill this one person!" type of decision. I already killed THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF GREATER MANHATTAN. WHY is killing THIS GUY a big deal?!
Well i would recommend you The walking dead if only your decision were relevant pretty much game where you have ground to complain about killing.
Well i would recommend you The walking dead if only your decision were relevant pretty much game where you have ground to complain about killing.
Or, alternatively, you can play shooters that lack the role-play aspects. Just because I see the disconnect doesn't mean I reject the entire category of games. I like RPG's. I just like them to be more integrated when possible. Every style has its shortcomings.
This is actually one of the reasons why I DON'T like the "you kill 1234515 people by the end of it" gameplay--especially when the writers then put in a "decide whether or not to kill this one person!" type of decision. I already killed THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF GREATER MANHATTAN. WHY is killing THIS GUY a big deal?!
You can avoid indiscriminate killing in Fallout, but there are still a whole lot of people trying to make you dead. 
You can't reason with the majority of the hostiles you encounter...
Or, alternatively, you can play shooters that lack the role-play aspects. Just because I see the disconnect doesn't mean I reject the entire category of games. I like RPG's. I just like them to be more integrated when possible. Every style has its shortcomings.
The walking dead have elements of rpg but as i said there is big issue with that game.
You can avoid indiscriminate killing in Fallout, but there are still a whole lot of people trying to make you dead.
Well in games like PT ( only 2 kills were necessary) ,Arcanum and Fallout we could avoid killing even with hostile creatures.
The premise of the gameplay is to make choices and alter the outcome, so I think you will be disappointed if you expect the game's choices to have blurred lines.
This game will be huge. I heard the main story alone takes 50 hours to complete but don't quote me on that.
We have the civil war in Orlais, the mages vs templars, the tear in the Fade, Briala and the elven rebellion, a possible Qunuari invasion ... Anything else I am missing?
So we will have lots of choices to make. Does anyone think the entire list will make the game?
So far the mages vs Templars, the tear in the Fade, and I'm assuming the civil war in Orlais, are confirmed.
thats good news, cause my origins play through took about 50 hours 
What I mean by that is; There is no ideological conflict or issue that can be summarized as Idea X vs Idea Y that has largely been used in the DA franchise.
Actually, ALL ideological conflicts can be fundamentally summarized this way (although in real life you usually have about 50,000 slightly different proponents of each idea with their own ideas on how to implement them). Differences on implementation (realpolitik, as you put it) are not the same as differences in ideology, though.
If you're talking *fundamentals* there are TWO political ideologies: individualism and statism. (Anarchism is a collapse of political ideology, not one in itself, kind of how atheism is not a religion.) Any given person's ideas may be a huge confused mixture of the two (and it's VERY, VERY common to see two groups of statists duking it out over who gets to be the one in control), but in ANY political issue that is actually a difference of *ideology*--over how an issue should be decided--that's the breakdown. It can be decided by individuals--provided those individuals aren't actually violating anyone's rights--or it can be decided by The State. The vast majority of people are not ideologically consistent--they are individualists on some issues and statists on others. In many cases the difference is only one of degree--a question of HOW MUCH Statism is appropriate and individualism is thrown out altogether. (This is actually the case in much of Dragon Age.) Or you may simply have a case of non-ideology where the person with the biggest gang runs things. But once you start talking real, consistent ideology, that is the breakdown.
Well in games like PT ( only 2 kills were necessary) ,Arcanum and Fallout we could avoid killing even with hostile creatures.
Personally, I don't understand the concept of not killing a person who is attacking me in the middle of a nuclear wasteland, but it's nice that the option to run away is there. In DA, you have to finish every battle you start... it limits roleplaying, even if I would never be interested in rping a pacifist.
I guess this sort of relates to the topic in that physical altercations are at the core of the franchise. Philosophical ones are present, but only to a limited extent.
You can avoid indiscriminate killing in Fallout, but there are still a whole lot of people trying to make you dead.
True. And it's a different kettle of fish when you're being attacked by someone who's trying to kill you vs. when you're dealing with someone who is a captive or otherwise noncombative. Where it really gets weird is when the game tries to put over some sort of "life is sacred, all killing is horrific" Message when you've spent 80% of the game murdering everything in sight.
Or, like in Neverwinter Nights 2 where there's a Big Dramatic Scene in which one of your companions dies when you've watched said companions get knocked down in fight after fight and made liberal use of the "Raise Dead" spell. At least Dragon Age calls it "Revive", implying that they weren't actually dead after all. Just resting. Pining for the fjords.
It might be a matter of how high are your expectatives, but I always thought that the writers made a great job building a universe full of conflict and particularly in how are all of them ingrained in institutions and with a very elaborated historical development. I think I disagree too about the lack of exposition to factions, and I think it's more a problem of the amount of time they can spend in this kind of thing, because, after all, the game is mostly about killing people and such and, in fact, with each game and book, the political universe seems to be getting more and more rich... Even so, there are conflicts that are polarizing per sé, and their presence in the story is not necessarily a flaw. Personally, I agree wtih a lot people in that the mage-templar conflict, for instance, is probably artificially radicalized in DA2, but even so, I don't find it completely implausible...
Again, I guess it could be a matter of expectatives, and I'm curious about what games have you played with a more elaborated and rich political universe, because I might be interested in them too
edit: I don't find it completely implausible to the point of being immersion breaking, at least, I mean... which is more than I can say of quite a few books, series and films
Funnily you can argue with zevran in dao that you kill only darkspawn not peoples so perhaps butchering them in gameplay doesn't mean killing them for example like in zevran case so it may be open to interpretation however you sill need kill peoples like arl howe or uldred/abomnation.
Funnily you can argue with zevran in dao that you kill only darkspawn not peoples so perhaps butchering them in gameplay doesn't mean killing them for example like in zevran case so it may be open to interpretation however you sill need kill peoples like arl howe or uldred/abomnation.
Simple explanation: The Warden is lying to themselves, Zevran, or both.
I never chose that option so I'm not familiar with it, but from what you're saying, it sounds like a very poorly thought out statement that probably didn't need to be included. "I do what I must," or "I only kill in self defense," would have worked better.
It might be a matter of how high are your expectatives, but I always thought that the writers made a great job building a universe full of conflict and particularly in how are all of them ingrained in institutions and with a very elaborated historical development. I think I disagree too about the lack of exposition to factions, and I think it's more a problem of the amount of time they can spend in this kind of thing, because, after all, the game is mostly about killing people and such
I agree, the series has been pretty good thus far. The Landsmeet is a good example from Origins, where you have an opportunity to try and build a coalition. Or you can just try to put your way through by main force. Personally, I would have liked it even more if the entire game had more of that coalition-building element. It *seems* like it does, but the different factions are so completely divorced from each other that it really isn't. No one at the Landsmeet, for instance, cares whether you saved the mages or not. Nobody cares whether you allied with the werewolves or not. Nobody cares about Bhelen or Harrowmont. It's like the Landsmeet and the Grey Warden treaties portions exist in entirely different countries.
You can't really have a properly political game when all the factions are locked in different Us v. Them boxes that never intersect with anything else that is going on. How does Mage v. Templar affect the situation in Orzammar? It SHOULD, because mages and templars are the primary users of Lyrium, which is where the dwarves obtain much of their surface trade. How does elves v. werewolves affect the situation in Denerim? It SHOULD, because elves travel through properties owned by noblemen, hunting the game and so forth. And so do werewolves. So, the individual conflicts have been pretty rich . . . but they've also been kind of airtight.
The problem is that by the time the Landsmeet is called, the Blight is a reality that his sweeping across southern Ferelden. Nobody has time to argue whether or not the Warden was right to annul the Circle. At that point, they just need to decide on who will lead the counter-offensive. I'm not saying that political disputes aren't interesting, but there's a time and a place. When the apocalypse is knocking at the door, it's understandable that people will prioritize survival above whatever philosophical disagreements may be nagging at them.
edit: These types of themes are easier to explore in a setting like DA2, where impending doom was not an issue until the very end... it wasn't perfect, but I think they did a good job of exploring religious, political, and economic conflicts from the perspective of an impoverished adventurer.
Simple explanation: The Warden is lying to themselves, Zevran, or both.
I never chose that option so I'm not familiar with it, but from what you're saying, it sounds like a very poorly thought out statement that probably didn't need to be included. "I do what I must," or "I only kill in self defense," would have worked better.
Well how warden could lie themselves if they kill other peoples i can see zevran but he travel with us so he would know.It may be simple open door for interpretation wheter you kill npc you fight in gameplay or not because as i said you kill zevran and oghren in gameplay but in "reality" they were just knocked out possible the same was with leliana.
I agree, the series has been pretty good thus far. The Landsmeet is a good example from Origins, where you have an opportunity to try and build a coalition. Or you can just try to put your way through by main force. Personally, I would have liked it even more if the entire game had more of that coalition-building element. It *seems* like it does, but the different factions are so completely divorced from each other that it really isn't. No one at the Landsmeet, for instance, cares whether you saved the mages or not. Nobody cares whether you allied with the werewolves or not. Nobody cares about Bhelen or Harrowmont. It's like the Landsmeet and the Grey Warden treaties portions exist in entirely different countries.
You can't really have a properly political game when all the factions are locked in different Us v. Them boxes that never intersect with anything else that is going on. How does Mage v. Templar affect the situation in Orzammar? It SHOULD, because mages and templars are the primary users of Lyrium, which is where the dwarves obtain much of their surface trade. How does elves v. werewolves affect the situation in Denerim? It SHOULD, because elves travel through properties owned by noblemen, hunting the game and so forth. And so do werewolves. So, the individual conflicts have been pretty rich . . . but they've also been kind of airtight.
Actually, there are cases when different lines of conflict rather than intersecting with each other, pile one upon another, though I agree that's probably not the case with the main conlflicts of the DA universe. I don't think it's fair to say, anyway, that they remain completely unrelated, even if it's true that they're not as fully developed as one could maybe wish. We don't get much about dwarves and mages/templar, other than some comments on the good relationship that exists between Tevinter and Orzamma and the existence of lyrium smuglers, but well, that's something. We have a lot of connections too between racism and slavery and the mages/chantry conflict thorugh Tevinter history, and we also have some between Grey Wardens and current international Theda's system, through Orlais' imperialism history, etc...
I'm not to say it wouldn't be great if we had much more of those kind of things, but it may not be truly realistic to expect every issue to be connected in a meaningful way either, and, in any case, I think that in future games and books we'll be able to fill more and more of those blank spaces
edit: thinking about it, I think I sound as If I was totally brainwashed by Loghain 
I meant the influence of the Blights on other territorial conflicts between Thedas nations... though the Grey Wardens has their own with Anderfells' king, don't they? but I think Orlais has nothing to do with that
The problem is that by the time the Landsmeet is called, the Blight is a reality that his sweeping across southern Ferelden. Nobody has time to argue whether or not the Warden was right to annul the Circle. At that point, they just need to decide on who will lead the counter-offensive. I'm not saying that political disputes aren't interesting, but there's a time and a place. When the apocalypse is knocking at the door, it's understandable that people will prioritize survival above whatever philosophical disagreements may be nagging at them.
edit: These types of themes are easier to explore in a setting like DA2, where impending doom was not an issue until the very end... it wasn't perfect, but I think they did a good job of exploring religious, political, and economic conflicts from the perspective of an impoverished adventurer.
Yeah, but you could argue that the Blight was present at the very start of the game and they still found room for plenty of political maneuvering THEN. And, like you say, the choice is just over who leads the counterattack. Surely people with pro-mage or anti-mage interests (or people who have dwarven trading interests or elven interests) will have an interest in who leads against the Blight, gaining CONSIDERABLE political power and influence as a result.
After all, you gathering all those allies was supposed to be a major component of Eamon gaining enough clout to even CALL the Landsmeet in the first place. Yet, somehow, everyone just kind of forgot all about your huge force of allies and their abilities/implications.
I'm not to say it wouldn't be great if we had much more of those kind of things, but it may not be truly realistic to expect every issue to be connected in a meaningful way, and I think that in future games and book we'll be able to fill more and more of those blank spaces
At least it's not REMOTELY as bad as, say, Oblivion, where you can be the head of every major political body in the game (Mage's Guild, Dark Brotherhood, Thieves Guild, Warrior's Guild) and still have to "gather support" to battle the Oblivion Crisis. How about I just order my dang mages, assassins, thieves, and mercenaries to defend the dang portals? They can have some of my accumulated 1M gold to compensate them for the work.
Yeah, but you could argue that the Blight was present at the very start of the game and they still found room for plenty of political maneuvering THEN. And, like you say, the choice is just over who leads the counterattack. Surely people with pro-mage or anti-mage interests (or people who have dwarven trading interests or elven interests) will have an interest in who leads against the Blight, gaining CONSIDERABLE political power and influence as a result.
After all, you gathering all those allies was supposed to be a major component of Eamon gaining enough clout to even CALL the Landsmeet in the first place. Yet, somehow, everyone just kind of forgot all about your huge force of allies and their abilities/implications.
Loghain initially argued that the Blight was merely Cailan's vanity seeking a threat to overcome so that his reign seem significant to history. By the time darkspawn destroyed Lothering and started to spread out, the land was already being torn apart by civil conflict (IMO it didn't reach the levels of a true civil war). While this was going on, the Warden's existence wasn't even known to most of the nobility, and even if they received word of the Warden's activities from time to time, they were in no position to intervene, positively or negatively. As such, the political struggle continued in the background as normal, while the story we witnessed mainly focused on forming alliances.
I am willing to agree that the nobles involved in the Landsmeet most likely had a wide number of interests that the Warden may or may not have disrupted over the course of their journey. These nobles, however, were in no position to do anything but deal with the backlash. I'm willing to assume that some of them held onto these grudges. The guy who votes against you no matter what probably represents this mindset.
Well how warden could lie themselves if they kill other peoples i can see zevran but he travel with us so he would know.It may be simple open door for interpretation wheter you kill npc you fight in gameplay or not because as i said you kill zevran and oghren in gameplay but in "reality" they were just knocked out possible the same was with leliana.
Sorry, what I should have said was, "Simple, but flawed explanation."
Actually, ALL ideological conflicts can be fundamentally summarized this way (although in real life you usually have about 50,000 slightly different proponents of each idea with their own ideas on how to implement them). Differences on implementation (realpolitik, as you put it) are not the same as differences in ideology, though..
One thing that they could do which would be quite interesting is to quit with the "suspicious unsupported letter proves something" thing that is so dang common in these games. "I found a letter where so-and-so says he wants to help The Bad Guy--this proves that they're in cahoots!" You know what happens when law enforcement in real life applies this kind of logic? They wind up as a news story and a thousand outraged Facebook shares announcing "That so-called evidence could have meant ANYTHING!!!" But in games, it's always one-dimensional. A single footprint solves the case. This dropped handkerchief MUST have blood on it because they were involved in the murder. They couldn't have had a bloody nose, oh no.
Part of this is because all such features in video games are purely manufactured. There's no messy randomness like in real life. Video game characters don't get bloody noses. They don't randomly pass by the scene of a murder. They weren't childhood friends with the villain that they haven't seen in years. It's all so cookie-cutter.
Retour en haut
