203 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

I agree that writers should be able to tell their story. However, there are story elements you just can't tell to a mainstream audience if you want - or need - to sell millions of copies. There are also story elements you just can't tell to an audience well-versed in SF themes and expect to be praised for it. And...there are story elements you can't tell to a reasonably intelligent audience without making them groan. For instance, don't think I don't understand the various allegories attempted within the story. I also could make a very long list of themes present in the story. However, some of them were presented in a way that insulted my intelligence, others I simply hated.

You may think that the fanbase only wants their power fantasies. Speaking strictly for myself, this was never about power. Nor even about survival and a happy ending. It was about being presented with thematic messages I despise without being able to roleplay against them (not in the ending, there I had this choice). It was about insulting my intelligence. It was about taking my goal - saving my civilization - and making it fail in a misguided effort to elevate the story into the metaphysical (in the OE: sacrificing my civilization for "all life that will ever exist").

Here is an unfortunately plausible example of how DAI could fail me in the same way:

In the end, the Inquisitor is stripped of their special power and it's heavily suggested it's a good thing they're just human again. It does not matter if the Inquisitor dies or not. It does not matter if the Inquisitor retains any kind of power otherwise, political or magical, or if we're told we're walking off into the sunset with only our sword or staff. If this thematic message is present - as a thematic message instead of just an NPC's opinion - this will not be my story and I will hate the outcome.

 Then is it the games fault, or is it your fault? I think its the latter.

 

Bioware chose a different theme than what you wanted. And really ME3 was quite light on allegory, outside the dream sequences. The problem is you do want the power fantasy, and it shows.

 

Let me tell you about Snowpiercer, which had a very similar ending to ME3. The suits wanted to cut stuff out of the US release because they were afraid that the mainstream audience would not like it, but the director refused and so it got a limited release. But after the release, the film did so well they had to expand the release, and the movie was critically acclaimed. And many of the themes in that movie do challenge its audience.

 

The last thing we want is for Bioware to dumb down their stories to sell more games. Do you honestly want Bioware to completely sell out? And BSN and Bioware fans well versed in sci fi themes, are you kidding?

 

"It was about taking my goal - saving my civilization - and making it fail in a misguided effort to elevate the story into the metaphysical (in the OE: sacrificing my civilization for "all life that will ever exist")."

 

Absolutely and utterly incorrect. True, saving their civilization was the player's "goal", but that's not what the story was about.
 

[txgoldrush]

From wikipedia: A Plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation. These include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

 

If Vigil was going to be contradicted, then at the very least the EC could've dedicated some time to explaining why Star-Child didn't do anything about the Prothean sabotage or opening the Dark Relay itself despite designing, building and being part of the Citadel. But Bioware didn't which leaves us with a major story-breaking plothole despite your assertions to the contrary.

 

Inquisition can go for a more realist approach, fine. Even a bittersweet downer ending, I'm sure that plenty of people are open-minded enough for that to happen. But the last thing that anyone wants is more pseudo-philosophical nonsense thrown in for the sake of "trying to be deep". Especially if this nonsense is done poorly or to where it creates a story breaker plot hole.

 

If I see another last minute plot crucial character try to lecture me about the true meaning of life or that the darkspawn were created to save people from being killed by mages by having the darkspawn kill everyone...I'll turn off the game and go read a book. 

Wrong, a plot hole has to be proven, you had to use the elements the story gives you to prove the plot hole. This is not the case in ME3.

 

Once again, the narrative does not assign the Catalyst powers beyond enthrallment. You can't assume the catalyst has other powers and then call it a plot hole. That's dishonest and incorrect criticism. Nevermind once again, Vigil never explains how the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel, only that they did. You do not have enough information to even form evidence of a plot hole. You can't just assume one on your own.

 

At worst, this would be an "unaddressed issue", not a "plot hole".

 

statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline

 

Lets look at this....how can what Vigil say be an "event" in the storyline? What makes you think he is right and that what he says is hard plot, not just an interpretation? This is where critics of ME3 fail in their argument. What occurs here is that a statement or event contradicted earlier STATEMENTS in the storyline. This is allowable. And the problem with Bioware here is that they used too many talking codex entries to tell their story instead of plot action.

[ShadowLordXII]

Wrong, a plot hole has to be proven, you had to use the elements the story gives you to prove the plot hole. This is not the case in ME3.

 

Once again, the narrative does not assign the Catalyst powers beyond enthrallment. You can't assume the catalyst has other powers and then call it a plot hole. That's dishonest and incorrect criticism. Nevermind once again, Vigil never explains how the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel, only that they did. You do not have enough information to even form evidence of a plot hole. You can't just assume one on your own.

 

At worst, this would be an "unaddressed issue", not a "plot hole".

 

statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline

 

Lets look at this....how can what Vigil say be an "event" in the storyline? What makes you think he is right and that what he says is hard plot, not just an interpretation? This is where critics of ME3 fail in their argument. What occurs here is that a statement or event contradicted earlier STATEMENTS in the storyline. This is allowable. And the problem with Bioware here is that they used too many talking codex entries to tell their story instead of plot action.

 

Where do you get the idea that the Catalyst only has entrallment as a power? From Leviathan? A DLC retroactively created after the original game and the EC were created? Then how do you explain how Star-child could know to take on the form of a small child that Shepard watched die? How would star-child know about that kid? This is an indication that he can at least observe events beyond the Citadel or even read the minds of organics that he encounters.

 

My evidence for the plothole comes from ME1's plot, the encounter with Vigil, and from the Catalyst's own words. Even if control/entrallment is his own only power then how does the prothean sabotage interfere with controlling the keepers? If anything, ME1 would assert that the Catalyst would have greater control and it's the reapers who can't control the keepers. Also, the sabotage couldn't have affected the Catalyst because StarChild states that Shepard is the first organic to ever encounter him, clearing indicating that no one else knew about the Star-Child's existence. So how could the protheans sabotage Star-Child if they don't even know that he exists? If entrallment is his only power then how do you explain the elevator activating on it's own or how the Crucible shuts off in the Reject Ending?

 

As I said before, Vigil is a reliable source because he's essentially a talking and somewhat self-thinking database designed to collect and analyze information. The information that it presents are consistent and valid with what the game had shown the player and with other events that will occur in later games. It's analysis of the Sovereign crisis is also accurate enough to where Shepard can take direct control of the Citadel and keep Sovereign from accomplishing his plan.

 

The conversation with Vigil was an event because it was a word-for-word account of what happened to this cycle's predecessors and how the reapers destroyed them. A fate that would have already happened to the current cycle if not for the sacrifice of the last prothean scientists and thanks to that sacrifice, Shepard and company now have a chance to stop Sovereign from repeating history. A small chance that eventually grows into a fighting possibility by Mass Effect 3 with the building of the Crucible and the reconciliation of the many diverse races in the galaxy.

 

But now, all of this is based on a contrivance. Worst, this plot hole is not even addressed or even given a lazy hand-wave. Not even the EC addresses this, which means that the writers didn't notice the plot hole or worst, they didn't even care anymore. Which means that any attempt to defend the plot hole requires a strong amount of headcannon or trying to lessen the importance of earlier Mass Effect games. Any explanation that you come up with may work on a personal level, but it's not going to work for proving me or others who see this and other plot holes as wrong. Because you're just like me, you are another player whose trying to make sense of Bioware's mess and have decided to defend the ME3 ending no matter how much it shoots itself in the foot.

 

But I doubt that I'll convince you of anything just like you haven't convinced me of anything, so let's move on to something worth debating.

 

There is a way for Bioware to still tell mature and challenging stories, but that can't be something that's slapped onto a story. It has to be earned the hard way through development and good writing. They actually accomplished this with Origins and despite execution problems, their attempts in DA2 were admirable. Why? Because the mature elements were brought about from events and moments that were organic to the setting and tone of those games. They are all also good because they have a good amount of applicability to real-world events, but not so much that the writers are lifting things straight from the headlines.

 

Now, Inquisition will challenge players by not only forcing them to build a new organization rather than comfortably join an existing one, but they'll also have to do so in an increasingly more chaotic and conflicting setting than in DA2 or Origins. An invasion of demons; the Mage-Templar War; the Chantry collapsing in on itself; A Civil War in Orlais; Ferelden may have another leadership crisis on it's hands; Grey Wardens are possibly becoming more antagonistic; and all around the same time.

 

Dragon Age is kind-of a power fantasy. That comes with the territory of being set in the Fantasy Genre. But while Origins reconstructed several aspects of the genre, it also deconstructs many others. Loghain isn't just a maniacal villain whose evil for the sake of being evil, he's a tragic antagonist who genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing; Sometimes the best of intentions leads to the worst of outcomes (Dwarven Elections, recruiting Anders into the Wardens, (possibly) Taking the Dark Ritual); and sometimes people will die despite your power and abilities (Literally every single party member except for Morrigan can die).

 

DA2 changed the scales and made it more of a deconstruction rather than a reconstruction and it worked (despite some heavy flaws). Inquisition appears to be going right towards the middle. Some aspects of the "power fantasy" will be reconstructed and played out in their full clique glory while other traits will be deconstructed. Until the game comes out, we won't know for certain, but it certainly deserves to be judged by it's own merit rather than being written off prematurely as "clique and formulaic therefore it automatically sucks".

 

That is not a mature outlook.

[QueenofFereldan]

Where do you get the idea that the Catalyst only has entrallment as a power? From Leviathan? A DLC retroactively created after the original game and the EC were created? Then how do you explain how Star-child could know to take on the form of a small child that Shepard watched die? How would star-child know about that kid? This is an indication that he can at least observe events beyond the Citadel or even read the minds of organics that he encounters.

My evidence for the plothole comes from ME1's plot, the encounter with Vigil, and from the Catalyst's own words. Even if control/entrallment is his own only power then how does the prothean sabotage interfere with controlling the keepers? If anything, ME1 would assert that the Catalyst would have greater control and it's the reapers who can't control the keepers. Also, the sabotage couldn't have affected the Catalyst because StarChild states that Shepard is the first organic to ever encounter him, clearing indicating that no one else knew about the Star-Child's existence. So how could the protheans sabotage Star-Child if they don't even know that he exists? If entrallment is his only power then how do you explain the elevator activating on it's own or how the Crucible shuts off in the Reject Ending?

As I said before, Vigil is a reliable source because he's essentially a talking and somewhat self-thinking database designed to collect and analyze information. The information that it presents are consistent and valid with what the game had shown the player and with other events that will occur in later games. It's analysis of the Sovereign crisis is also accurate enough to where Shepard can take direct control of the Citadel and keep Sovereign from accomplishing his plan.

The conversation with Vigil was an event because it was a word-for-word account of what happened to this cycle's predecessors and how the reapers destroyed them. A fate that would have already happened to the current cycle if not for the sacrifice of the last prothean scientists and thanks to that sacrifice, Shepard and company now have a chance to stop Sovereign from repeating history. A small chance that eventually grows into a fighting possibility by Mass Effect 3 with the building of the Crucible and the reconciliation of the many diverse races in the galaxy.

But now, all of this is based on a contrivance. Worst, this plot hole is not even addressed or even given a lazy hand-wave. Not even the EC addresses this, which means that the writers didn't notice the plot hole or worst, they didn't even care anymore. Which means that any attempt to defend the plot hole requires a strong amount of headcannon or trying to lessen the importance of earlier Mass Effect games. Any explanation that you come up with may work on a personal level, but it's not going to work for proving me or others who see this and other plot holes as wrong. Because you're just like me, you are another player whose trying to make sense of Bioware's mess and have decided to defend the ME3 ending no matter how much it shoots itself in the foot.

But I doubt that I'll convince you of anything just like you haven't convinced me of anything, so let's move on to something worth debating.

There is a way for Bioware to still tell mature and challenging stories, but that can't be something that's slapped onto a story. It has to be earned the hard way through development and good writing. They actually accomplished this with Origins and despite execution problems, their attempts in DA2 were admirable. Why? Because the mature elements were brought about from events and moments that were organic to the setting and tone of those games. They are all also good because they have a good amount of applicability to real-world events, but not so much that the writers are lifting things straight from the headlines.

Now, Inquisition will challenge players by not only forcing them to build a new organization rather than comfortably join an existing one, but they'll also have to do so in an increasingly more chaotic and conflicting setting than in DA2 or Origins. An invasion of demons; the Mage-Templar War; the Chantry collapsing in on itself; A Civil War in Orlais; Ferelden may have another leadership crisis on it's hands; Grey Wardens are possibly becoming more antagonistic; and all around the same time.

Dragon Age is kind-of a power fantasy. That comes with the territory of being set in the Fantasy Genre. But while Origins reconstructed several aspects of the genre, it also deconstructs many others. Loghain isn't just a maniacal villain whose evil for the sake of being evil, he's a tragic antagonist who genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing; Sometimes the best of intentions leads to the worst of outcomes (Dwarven Elections, recruiting Anders into the Wardens, (possibly) Taking the Dark Ritual); and sometimes people will die despite your power and abilities (Literally every single party member except for Morrigan can die).

DA2 changed the scales and made it more of a deconstruction rather than a reconstruction and it worked (despite some heavy flaws). Inquisition appears to be going right towards the middle. Some aspects of the "power fantasy" will be reconstructed and played out in their full clique glory while other traits will be deconstructed. Until the game comes out, we won't know for certain, but it certainly deserves to be judged by it's own merit rather than being written off prematurely as "clique and formulaic therefore it automatically sucks".

That is not a mature outlook.

Agreed. And thinking about it, even in Origins and DA2, you can't save everyone.

[wolfhowwl]

Some of you appear to be in the wrong forum.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Yes the story where you gather allies to help you fight through the bad guys so our super special main character can stop them is completely less cliched and formulaic then that other story where you gather allies to help you fight through the bad guys so our super special main character can stop them. You know because it happens in space or something.

[Hydwn]

Still a little startled this thread's around at all.  More startled, though, that some of you are wholesale condemning a game you've seen nothing but trailers for.  I actually checked the calender to see if I'd lost two months in there

 

I don't know what's in Dragon Age Inquisition.  Neither does anyone here without the red BioWare tag next to their name.  We've seen chunks of gameplay of two missions, been introduced (vaguely) to 12 characters, and seen a couple of cutscene trailers.  

 

I do know that I've played three awesome Mass Effect games that are this generation's SciFi answer to the first three Star Trek series and first three Star Wars movies.  I do know know that they gave me a fantasy series that deserves to be on the shelves with J.R.R. Tolkien and Ursula LeGuin.  And I doubt that anyone would be posting here unless they'd really fallen in love with at least one of those five games.

 

For most, that seems to be Mass Effect 3 - a game I was warned away from when I first heard about it,  I was glad I didn't listen to them.  ME3 was awesome.  It was also BioWare's most recent effort, post-dating DA2 by a year.  Half its writing staff is working on DAI.  Who's working on it is a far better indicator of quality than the little bits the marketing team shows us.  

 

Saying DAI is awful because it's no ME3 is a little like saying, "I loved my favourite artist's last album, but I saw the cover art and heard a 30-second snippet of one song, and I know it's going to be awful."

 

As for the thread as a whole, I just have to say I wince a little every time I see the title.  It's that same sort of awful leading rhetorical question that I associate with bad journalists and political hacks.  I think the best way to answer such a leading question it as if it were serious, ignoring its intent.  

 

For me that answer would be, "It'll be as formulaic as it needs to be to tell a good story, if my experience with BioWare holds true."  Because stories without any formula - "Experimental" stories - are aesthetically awful.  Read Finnegan's Wake and Julia Kristeva, and watch Un Chien d'Andalou, and tell me if you feel differently after.  I had to slog through that crap on the way to my English degree

[ShadowLordXII]

Some of you appear to be in the wrong forum.

 

The stuff about ME3 is part of the OP's point. However, myself and others argue that ME3 is not a good precedent for Inquisition to follow because of it's flaws and everything escalated from there.

[Marshal Moriarty]

ME3's 'teamwork' is a joke, because the game simply introduces entirely artificial 'only this guy can save the day!' situations, when there should be dozens of better solutions. Its just as much a symptom of the bad writing as the 'Shepard punches out Cthulu because he's brave and incredible and has a really strong punch' kind of nonsense. The only difference each time is who gets to be the guy bellowing 'I'll throw a barrel at them!' or 'I'll rig up the superconducting ocilliating vibrometric spunkometer device - all of you RUNNN!'

 

Whoever is the one currently saying or doing this stuff (and it is usually Shepard) doesn't make the situations themselves any less silly or contrived. Its still the characters doing counter intuitive things purely because it looked cooler to do it that way (and often at the expense of using abilities that you have which *would* have made sense to use). I.e the game is forever powering people up to perform outrageous acts and powering people down to stop them handling problems they should easily be able to manage, just to fit each situation and set up the current 'X Character to the rescue'. It felt massively contrived, and the game does it non-stop.

 

Take that Eva Corey bit for example. 

 

Shepard: 'Oh no, she's getting away! Let's run after her and stop her'.

 

Liara: 'Well... okay, but couldn't I just use Stasis...? Or Singularity?... or Pull? Or couldn't you just use that fancy Biotic Charge thing - it works against everyone else?'

 

And upon reaching the pad, Shepard decides the best way to deal with the charging Dr Eva is to try shooting her with a pistol. This is despite having any number of better alternatives from Overloads to Biotic Charges, and having just seen Ashley try the same thing and fail. Given that Ashley's whole thing is that she is an extremely accurate and fast shot - a weapons master. So does Shepard try another approach? Of course not - because the power of being the Captain means that when she tries it, it just works!

 

The game is an endless cycle of 'Its this person's time to shine!', several bouts of Cutscene Power to the Max (Kai Leng, Jacob, Jack etc) and typically they get just that 1 moment. You mentioned some for the characters. Now name another one for any of them. They get one moment (typcially when they get recruited) and that's it. And as for Shepard I'm not saying I don't want to see my hero do heroic stuff - but everything in moderation, yeah? I don't need to see Shepard saving the galaxy by making Harbinger tap out in a Submission match on top of the Crucible, and that's exactly the kind of comic book nonsense I felt he/she was always doing in that game. So many times, directing her companions to flee or hang back whilst she went solo to 'do something awesome'. And that's when she wasn't crashing other people's big moments, just to get even more screen time (leaping on screen to shout NOOOO! as Tarquin dies, undercutting Liara's rescue on Thessia by immediately racing after Kai Leng's shuttle firing a pistol like every good 80's hero should etc etc). Shepard simply gets so many of these silly 'Hit the Hero button' moments, that along with the non-stop ego massaging from everyone, it just feels like swallowing a whole jar of honey. Nice at first, but quickly very sickly.

 

I want my character to feel like a person, not some superhero who is forever leaping tall planets in a single bound. In Mass Effect 1, I felt like a hero, but I felt like a person. In ME2 and ME3, I just feel like some Superhero cliche with large amounts of 'Space Messiah' slathered over the top for good measure.

 

I don't want this to become the ME3 thread either. I'm just pointing out that we need to preserve absolutely nothing about the writing from ME3. That kind of thing we don't need. Don't keep letting the main character hog all the spotlight, in the way that Star Trek would always allow the Captain to completely overshadow and usurp the various crew member's jobs. Always be asking yourself 'What are the various party members good at, and is there a way we can use that in a given scenario, should they be present?'

 

Because you have silly scenarios where (to briefly return to ME3 as its fresh in my mind at the moment):

Tarquin Victus is allowed to disarm the bomb, despite the fact that Shepard herself can be an Engineer and presumably much better trained for that sort of thing. That's right - I wouldn't mind Shepard taking the honours there, because (if she's an Engineer) it makes much more sense for her to do it. But either of Garrus and particularly EDI, if you brought her would also be far more appropriate. I brought EDI along, and was screaming 'WHY DON"T WE JUST LET HER DO IT, YOU MORONS!' But no, instead our tech expert with superb reaction time and ability to directly interface with the system... is sent out to gun down Cerberus goons. Instead of sending the soldiers to do it. Same deal when you get people to fix AA turrets and the like, despite the fact that you might be the most qualified person there to do it.

 

Or you have the Seeker Swarm chamber from ME2 where Shepard needs a Biotic specialist to create that barrier - and never considers herself as a possibility, nor does anyone else. This is despite the fact that you can be an Adept, Jack and Samara could be dead by then, and you can choose someone like Jacob (whose abilties are not to be sneered at, but clearly would be an inferior choice to an Adept Shepard). 

 

 

The point I'm making is that ME3 is lots and lots and lots of small tightly controlled, and often extremely far fetched excuses to show a character (usually Shepard) doing some equivalent of standing on top of a burning car in a vest, holding a minigun blazing away as a helicopter explodes in slow motion behind them. Its just a long sequence of badly set up and extremely artificial money shots, that usually make no narrative sense if you consider all the things that were much more likely to happen in that situation. That's why it fails as an RPG for me, and is more akin to a simple single player action game, popcorn muncher.

 

And this will be my final word on this, because I realize this has hi-jacked the thread, but the ending does not disprove the power fantasy theory. You become Space Jesus and send your soul out fo unite everyone, you become Space Mecha God/Satan and leads the armies of Space Demons on a large reconstruction effort to rebuild the galaxy or you beat all the bad guys and become the savior of everyone - and survive. I mean you literally hold the power to create and destroy life (potentially for everyone and everything) in *your* hands. If that's not a power fantasy, then how much power do you require?! Because TIM has nothing on you, if that's still not enough for you!

[Marshal Moriarty]

Edit

[ShadowLordXII]

ME3's 'teamwork' is a joke, because the game simply introduces entirely artificial 'only this guy can save the day!' situations, when there should be dozens of better solutions. Its just as much a symptom of the bad writing as the 'Shepard punches out Cthulu because he's brave and incredible and has a really strong punch' kind of nonsense. Take that Eva Corey bit for example. 

 

Shepard: 'Oh no, she's getting away! Let's run after her and stop her'.

 

Liara: 'Well... okay, but couldn't I just use Stasis...? Or Singularity?... or Pull? Or couldn't you just use that fancy Biotic Charge thing - it works against everyone else?'

 

And upon reaching the pad, Shepard decides the best way to deal with the charging Dr Eva is to try shooting her with a pistol. This is despite having any number of better alternatives from Overloads to Biotic Charges, and having just seen Ashley try the same thing and fail. Given that Ashley's whole thing is that she is an extremely accurate and fast shot - a weapons master. So does Shepard try another approach? Of course not - because the power of being the Captain means that when she tries it, it just works!

 

The game is an endless cycle of 'Its this person's time to shine!', several bouts of Cutscene Power to the Max (Kai Leng, Jacob, Jack etc) and typically they get just that 1 moment. You mentioned some for the characters. Now name another one for any of them. They get one moment (typcially when they get recruited) and that's it. And as for Shepard I'm not saying I don't want to see my hero do heroic stuff - but everything in moderation, yeah? I don't need to see Shepard saving the galaxy by making Harbinger tap out in a Submission match on top of the Crucible, and that's exactly the kind of comic book nonsense I felt he/she was always doing in that game. So many times, directing her companions to flee or hang back whilst she went solo to 'do something awesome'.

 

I don't want this to become the ME3 thread either. I'm just pointing out that we need to preserve absolutely nothing about the writing from ME3. That kind of thing we don't need. Don't keep letting the main character hog all the spotlight, in the way that Star Trek would always allow the Captain to completely overshadow and usurp the various crew member's jobs. Always be asking yourself 'What are the various party members good at, and is there a way we can use that in a given scenario, should they be present?'

 

Because you have silly scenarios where (to briefly return to ME3 as its fresh in my mind at the moment):

Tarquin Victus is allowed to disarm the bomb, despite the fact that Shepard herself can be an Engineer and presumably much better trained for that sort of thing. That's right - I wouldn't mind Shepard taking the honours there, because (if she's an Engineer) it makes much more sense for her to do it. But either of Garrus and particularly EDI, if you brought her would also be far more appropriate. I brought EDI along, and was screaming 'WHY DON"T WE JUST LET HER DO IT, YOU MORONS!' But no, instead our tech expert with superb reaction time and ability to directly interface with the system... is sent out to gun down Cerberus goons. Instead of sending the soldiers to do it. Same deal when you get people to fix AA turrets and the like, despite the fact that you might be the most qualified person there to do it.

 

Or you have the Seeker Swarm chamber from ME2 where Shepard needs a Biotic specialist to create that barrier - and never considers herself as a possibility, nor does anyone else. This is despite the fact that you can be an Adept, Jack and Samara could be dead by then, and you can choose someone like Jacob (whose abilties are not to be sneered at, but clearly would be an inferior choice to an Adept Shepard). 

 

 

The point I'm making is that ME3 is lots and lots and lots of small tightly controlled, and often extremely far fetched excuses to show a character (usually Shepard) doing some equivalent of standing on top of a burning car in a vest, holding a minigun blazing away as a helicopter explodes in slow motion behind them. Its just a long sequence of badly set up and extremely artificial money shots, that usually make no narrative sense if you consider all the things that were much more likely to happen in that situation. That's why it fails as an RPG for me, and is more akin to a simple single player action game, popcorn muncher.

 

And this will be my final word on this, because I realize this has hi-jacked the thread, but the ending does not disprove the power fantasy theory. You become Space Jesus and send your soul out fo unite everyone, you become Space Mecha God/Satan and leads the armies of Space Demons on a large reconstruction effort to rebuild the galaxy or you beat all the bad guys and become the savior of everyone - and survive. I mean you literally hold the power to create and destroy life (potentially for everyone and everything) in *your* hands. If that's not a power fantasy, then how much power do you require?! Because TIM has nothing on you, if that's still not enough for you!

 

Love your post, but you posted it twice

[Marshal Moriarty]

I blame the Council.

 

Cheers

[Jaulen]

Personally....I liked DA2.....yes there were faults that were obvious due to the rushed development. But I understood what it meant to have a framed narrative story that was retelling the past.....and I liked the more hero-in-the-wrong-place-at-right time......it was unusual......made me think know of reading a Lloyd Alexander book.

(And as someone mentioned UP.....I thought KOTOR2 was better than the original....best villain ever)

Hoping that there are twists to the heroic champion saves the world cliche plot.

[txgoldrush]

ME3's 'teamwork' is a joke, because the game simply introduces entirely artificial 'only this guy can save the day!' situations, when there should be dozens of better solutions. Its just as much a symptom of the bad writing as the 'Shepard punches out Cthulu because he's brave and incredible and has a really strong punch' kind of nonsense. The only difference each time is who gets to be the guy bellowing 'I'll throw a barrel at them!' or 'I'll rig up the superconducting ocilliating vibrometric spunkometer device - all of you RUNNN!'

 

Whoever is the one currently saying or doing this stuff (and it is usually Shepard) doesn't make the situations themselves any less silly or contrived. Its still the characters doing counter intuitive things purely because it looked cooler to do it that way (and often at the expense of using abilities that you have which *would* have made sense to use). I.e the game is forever powering people up to perform outrageous acts and powering people down to stop them handling problems they should easily be able to manage, just to fit each situation and set up the current 'X Character to the rescue'. It felt massively contrived, and the game does it non-stop.

 

Take that Eva Corey bit for example. 

 

Shepard: 'Oh no, she's getting away! Let's run after her and stop her'.

 

Liara: 'Well... okay, but couldn't I just use Stasis...? Or Singularity?... or Pull? Or couldn't you just use that fancy Biotic Charge thing - it works against everyone else?'

 

And upon reaching the pad, Shepard decides the best way to deal with the charging Dr Eva is to try shooting her with a pistol. This is despite having any number of better alternatives from Overloads to Biotic Charges, and having just seen Ashley try the same thing and fail. Given that Ashley's whole thing is that she is an extremely accurate and fast shot - a weapons master. So does Shepard try another approach? Of course not - because the power of being the Captain means that when she tries it, it just works!

 

The game is an endless cycle of 'Its this person's time to shine!', several bouts of Cutscene Power to the Max (Kai Leng, Jacob, Jack etc) and typically they get just that 1 moment. You mentioned some for the characters. Now name another one for any of them. They get one moment (typcially when they get recruited) and that's it. And as for Shepard I'm not saying I don't want to see my hero do heroic stuff - but everything in moderation, yeah? I don't need to see Shepard saving the galaxy by making Harbinger tap out in a Submission match on top of the Crucible, and that's exactly the kind of comic book nonsense I felt he/she was always doing in that game. So many times, directing her companions to flee or hang back whilst she went solo to 'do something awesome'. And that's when she wasn't crashing other people's big moments, just to get even more screen time (leaping on screen to shout NOOOO! as Tarquin dies, undercutting Liara's rescue on Thessia by immediately racing after Kai Leng's shuttle firing a pistol like every good 80's hero should etc etc). Shepard simply gets so many of these silly 'Hit the Hero button' moments, that along with the non-stop ego massaging from everyone, it just feels like swallowing a whole jar of honey. Nice at first, but quickly very sickly.

 

I want my character to feel like a person, not some superhero who is forever leaping tall planets in a single bound. In Mass Effect 1, I felt like a hero, but I felt like a person. In ME2 and ME3, I just feel like some Superhero cliche with large amounts of 'Space Messiah' slathered over the top for good measure.

 

I don't want this to become the ME3 thread either. I'm just pointing out that we need to preserve absolutely nothing about the writing from ME3. That kind of thing we don't need. Don't keep letting the main character hog all the spotlight, in the way that Star Trek would always allow the Captain to completely overshadow and usurp the various crew member's jobs. Always be asking yourself 'What are the various party members good at, and is there a way we can use that in a given scenario, should they be present?'

 

Because you have silly scenarios where (to briefly return to ME3 as its fresh in my mind at the moment):

Tarquin Victus is allowed to disarm the bomb, despite the fact that Shepard herself can be an Engineer and presumably much better trained for that sort of thing. That's right - I wouldn't mind Shepard taking the honours there, because (if she's an Engineer) it makes much more sense for her to do it. But either of Garrus and particularly EDI, if you brought her would also be far more appropriate. I brought EDI along, and was screaming 'WHY DON"T WE JUST LET HER DO IT, YOU MORONS!' But no, instead our tech expert with superb reaction time and ability to directly interface with the system... is sent out to gun down Cerberus goons. Instead of sending the soldiers to do it. Same deal when you get people to fix AA turrets and the like, despite the fact that you might be the most qualified person there to do it.

 

Or you have the Seeker Swarm chamber from ME2 where Shepard needs a Biotic specialist to create that barrier - and never considers herself as a possibility, nor does anyone else. This is despite the fact that you can be an Adept, Jack and Samara could be dead by then, and you can choose someone like Jacob (whose abilties are not to be sneered at, but clearly would be an inferior choice to an Adept Shepard). 

 

 

The point I'm making is that ME3 is lots and lots and lots of small tightly controlled, and often extremely far fetched excuses to show a character (usually Shepard) doing some equivalent of standing on top of a burning car in a vest, holding a minigun blazing away as a helicopter explodes in slow motion behind them. Its just a long sequence of badly set up and extremely artificial money shots, that usually make no narrative sense if you consider all the things that were much more likely to happen in that situation. That's why it fails as an RPG for me, and is more akin to a simple single player action game, popcorn muncher.

 

And this will be my final word on this, because I realize this has hi-jacked the thread, but the ending does not disprove the power fantasy theory. You become Space Jesus and send your soul out fo unite everyone, you become Space Mecha God/Satan and leads the armies of Space Demons on a large reconstruction effort to rebuild the galaxy or you beat all the bad guys and become the savior of everyone - and survive. I mean you literally hold the power to create and destroy life (potentially for everyone and everything) in *your* hands. If that's not a power fantasy, then how much power do you require?! Because TIM has nothing on you, if that's still not enough for you!

You have yet to even prove that ME3 is power fantasy.

 

Just because ME3 has an action hero doesn't mean its a power fantasy. First off, you have completely and utterly overstated your case and then are moving the goalpost, but even if the case was as you say and Shepard is some badass hero, this alone does not make it a power fantasy. 

 

Now lets poke holes in your other arguments. Tarquin Victus is a Turian disarming a Turian bomb, so it makes sense that he and not Engineer Shepard is doing the work. He knows more about the tech he is disarming. Second, while everyone does hail Shepard as a hero, Shepard does remain humble (even a Renegade Shepard in ME3) and gives credit to everyone around him or her. You are missing this aspect, fully concentrated on the "action" scenes. Nevermind Hackett basically tells you why everyone looks up to Shepard and why he or she was put in charge when Shepard asks, "Why me?" In fact ME3 Shepard, especially Renegade, is less of a power fantasy cliché than he or she was in ME1 and ME2.

 

But once again, even if Shepard is some sort of badass hero with a bunch of cool action scenes. Why is the story not power fantasy? Because of its themes of loss and sacrifice and the debate of the morality of imposing destiny on others. And for the ending, you completely leave out the costs and moral quandaries of each choice that would disprove your power fantasy argument, aspects that the game highlights on throughout. Nevermind that Shepard in all choices, ends up controlling the destinies of others, in a story where free will was the ideal scenario throughout the story is enough to disqualify ME3 from being a power fantasy,

[slimgrin]

You have yet to even prove that ME3 is power fantasy.

 

Just because ME3 has an action hero doesn't mean its a power fantasy. First off, you have completely and utterly overstated your case and then are moving the goalpost, but even if the case was as you say and Shepard is some badass hero, this alone does not make it a power fantasy. 

 

Now lets poke holes in your other arguments. Tarquin Victus is a Turian disarming a Turian bomb, so it makes sense that he and not Engineer Shepard is doing the work. He knows more about the tech he is disarming. Second, while everyone does hail Shepard as a hero, Shepard does remain humble (even a Renegade Shepard in ME3) and gives credit to everyone around him or her. You are missing this aspect, fully concentrated on the "action" scenes. Nevermind Hackett basically tells you why everyone looks up to Shepard and why he or she was put in charge when Shepard asks, "Why me?" In fact ME3 Shepard, especially Renegade, is less of a power fantasy cliché than he or she was in ME1 and ME2.

 

But once again, even if Shepard is some sort of badass hero with a bunch of cool action scenes. Why is the story not power fantasy? Because of its themes of loss and sacrifice and the debate of the morality of imposing destiny on others. And for the ending, you completely leave out the costs and moral quandaries of each choice that would disprove your power fantasy argument, aspects that the game highlights on throughout. Nevermind that Shepard in all choices, ends up controlling the destinies of others, in a story where free will was the ideal scenario throughout the story is enough to disqualify ME3 from being a power fantasy,

 

Every single Bioware game I've played is a power fantasy. You can choose to interject whatever nuance you like. It's all power fantasy.

[txgoldrush]

Where do you get the idea that the Catalyst only has entrallment as a power? From Leviathan? A DLC retroactively created after the original game and the EC were created? Then how do you explain how Star-child could know to take on the form of a small child that Shepard watched die? How would star-child know about that kid? This is an indication that he can at least observe events beyond the Citadel or even read the minds of organics that he encounters.

 

My evidence for the plothole comes from ME1's plot, the encounter with Vigil, and from the Catalyst's own words. Even if control/entrallment is his own only power then how does the prothean sabotage interfere with controlling the keepers? If anything, ME1 would assert that the Catalyst would have greater control and it's the reapers who can't control the keepers. Also, the sabotage couldn't have affected the Catalyst because StarChild states that Shepard is the first organic to ever encounter him, clearing indicating that no one else knew about the Star-Child's existence. So how could the protheans sabotage Star-Child if they don't even know that he exists? If entrallment is his only power then how do you explain the elevator activating on it's own or how the Crucible shuts off in the Reject Ending?

 

As I said before, Vigil is a reliable source because he's essentially a talking and somewhat self-thinking database designed to collect and analyze information. The information that it presents are consistent and valid with what the game had shown the player and with other events that will occur in later games. It's analysis of the Sovereign crisis is also accurate enough to where Shepard can take direct control of the Citadel and keep Sovereign from accomplishing his plan.

 

The conversation with Vigil was an event because it was a word-for-word account of what happened to this cycle's predecessors and how the reapers destroyed them. A fate that would have already happened to the current cycle if not for the sacrifice of the last prothean scientists and thanks to that sacrifice, Shepard and company now have a chance to stop Sovereign from repeating history. A small chance that eventually grows into a fighting possibility by Mass Effect 3 with the building of the Crucible and the reconciliation of the many diverse races in the galaxy.

 

But now, all of this is based on a contrivance. Worst, this plot hole is not even addressed or even given a lazy hand-wave. Not even the EC addresses this, which means that the writers didn't notice the plot hole or worst, they didn't even care anymore. Which means that any attempt to defend the plot hole requires a strong amount of headcannon or trying to lessen the importance of earlier Mass Effect games. Any explanation that you come up with may work on a personal level, but it's not going to work for proving me or others who see this and other plot holes as wrong. Because you're just like me, you are another player whose trying to make sense of Bioware's mess and have decided to defend the ME3 ending no matter how much it shoots itself in the foot.

 

But I doubt that I'll convince you of anything just like you haven't convinced me of anything, so let's move on to something worth debating.

 

There is a way for Bioware to still tell mature and challenging stories, but that can't be something that's slapped onto a story. It has to be earned the hard way through development and good writing. They actually accomplished this with Origins and despite execution problems, their attempts in DA2 were admirable. Why? Because the mature elements were brought about from events and moments that were organic to the setting and tone of those games. They are all also good because they have a good amount of applicability to real-world events, but not so much that the writers are lifting things straight from the headlines.

 

Now, Inquisition will challenge players by not only forcing them to build a new organization rather than comfortably join an existing one, but they'll also have to do so in an increasingly more chaotic and conflicting setting than in DA2 or Origins. An invasion of demons; the Mage-Templar War; the Chantry collapsing in on itself; A Civil War in Orlais; Ferelden may have another leadership crisis on it's hands; Grey Wardens are possibly becoming more antagonistic; and all around the same time.

 

Dragon Age is kind-of a power fantasy. That comes with the territory of being set in the Fantasy Genre. But while Origins reconstructed several aspects of the genre, it also deconstructs many others. Loghain isn't just a maniacal villain whose evil for the sake of being evil, he's a tragic antagonist who genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing; Sometimes the best of intentions leads to the worst of outcomes (Dwarven Elections, recruiting Anders into the Wardens, (possibly) Taking the Dark Ritual); and sometimes people will die despite your power and abilities (Literally every single party member except for Morrigan can die).

 

DA2 changed the scales and made it more of a deconstruction rather than a reconstruction and it worked (despite some heavy flaws). Inquisition appears to be going right towards the middle. Some aspects of the "power fantasy" will be reconstructed and played out in their full clique glory while other traits will be deconstructed. Until the game comes out, we won't know for certain, but it certainly deserves to be judged by it's own merit rather than being written off prematurely as "clique and formulaic therefore it automatically sucks".

 

That is not a mature outlook.

 "The conversation with Vigil was an event because it was a word-for-word account of what happened to this cycle's predecessors and how the reapers destroyed them. A fate that would have already happened to the current cycle if not for the sacrifice of the last prothean scientists and thanks to that sacrifice, Shepard and company now have a chance to stop Sovereign from repeating history. A small chance that eventually grows into a fighting possibility by Mass Effect 3 with the building of the Crucible and the reconciliation of the many diverse races in the galaxy."

 

The fact that you are conversing with Vigil is an event, however, by nature of storytelling, what Vigil actually says is a "statement". If I use your logic, than what Tali said about the geth in ME1, learned from records in Quarian history shared through the fleet through time, is an event as well. That is simply not logical. Who said that Vigil is 100% accurate about the nature of the Reapers. Also, think about this. ME3 had an equivalent scene with Vendetta, two scenes in fact, where Vendetta tells you about the Catalyst and the Crucible, revealing the Citadel to be the Catalyst. He turns out to be wrong in a plot twist, but its not an "event" that got contradicted, it was a "statement". Also, Vigil stated that the Reapers wiped out all traces of their existence. this turns out to be not true with the Derelict Reaper and the Leviathan of Dis.

 

"Where do you get the idea that the Catalyst only has entrallment as a power? From Leviathan? A DLC retroactively created after the original game and the EC were created? Then how do you explain how Star-child could know to take on the form of a small child that Shepard watched die? How would star-child know about that kid? This is an indication that he can at least observe events beyond the Citadel or even read the minds of organics that he encounters."

 

Never said that enthrallment is his only power, it was the only power that the narrative gives the Catalyst. However, the fact that it can probe Shepards mind can be inferred from clues in the narrative. However, many fans keep asking, "why doesn't he open the Citadel relay directly to Dark Space and not use a vanguard?", and then claim plot hole, but the narrative never assigns him that power, so no contradiction, or plot hole can be proven with whats given. You are only given whats based off a statement (enthrallment), and whats inferred from an event (mind probe).

 

"My evidence for the plothole comes from ME1's plot, the encounter with Vigil, and from the Catalyst's own words. Even if control/entrallment is his own only power then how does the prothean sabotage interfere with controlling the keepers? If anything, ME1 would assert that the Catalyst would have greater control and it's the reapers who can't control the keepers. Also, the sabotage couldn't have affected the Catalyst because StarChild states that Shepard is the first organic to ever encounter him, clearing indicating that no one else knew about the Star-Child's existence. So how could the protheans sabotage Star-Child if they don't even know that he exists? If entrallment is his only power then how do you explain the elevator activating on it's own or how the Crucible shuts off in the Reject Ending?"

 

Let me ask you this.....how EXACTLY did the Protheans sabotage the Keepers? The narrative NEVER SAYS. therefore in this instance, a plot hole CANNOT BE PROVEN. Why? Lack of evidence. You do not know what exactly the Protheans did to keep the Keepers from responding to the signal that activates the relay. What you have here is an "unaddressed issue", a vague unexplained element of the plot. this can be a storytelling weakness and certainly the series never truly explained the Keepers, leaving them vague throughout the series. But there is no proof of a plot hole because there isn't evidence of any to prove, you do not know what went on with the Prothean sabotage. It is very possible that the Protheans did not know of the Catalyst being the AI of the Reapers. Any thing is possible because the story doesn't say.Its just like Mordin some how having a Collector Seeker Swarm in ME2, that's not a plot hole, where he got it is a "unaddressed issue". And its definitely not a plot hole because TIM wants you to recruit him because his intelligence suggests that Mordin can find a way to counteract the Seeker Swarms. However "I got better!!!" Ashley/Kaiden on Horizon in ME2, now that's a plot hole.

 

"As I said before, Vigil is a reliable source because he's essentially a talking and somewhat self-thinking database designed to collect and analyze information. The information that it presents are consistent and valid with what the game had shown the player and with other events that will occur in later games. It's analysis of the Sovereign crisis is also accurate enough to where Shepard can take direct control of the Citadel and keep Sovereign from accomplishing his plan."

 

But this doesn't make him correct in everything he says. This doesn't make him the end all of lore authority.

[txgoldrush]

Every single Bioware game I've played is a power fantasy. You can choose to interject whatever nuance you like. It's all power fantasy.

 Except when its not.

 

Are most Bioware games power fantasy? Yes. But not all. DA2 and ME3 subverted the power fantasy and ME2's power fantasy elements definitely weakened that narrative.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Tx I really have missed you.

 

In a forum filled with waifu warriors, SJWs, and other waifu warriors your particular brand of droning feels like a refreshing breeze.

 

Shine on great one!

[txgoldrush]

Still a little startled this thread's around at all.  More startled, though, that some of you are wholesale condemning a game you've seen nothing but trailers for.  I actually checked the calender to see if I'd lost two months in there

 

I don't know what's in Dragon Age Inquisition.  Neither does anyone here without the red BioWare tag next to their name.  We've seen chunks of gameplay of two missions, been introduced (vaguely) to 12 characters, and seen a couple of cutscene trailers.  

 

I do know that I've played three awesome Mass Effect games that are this generation's SciFi answer to the first three Star Trek series and first three Star Wars movies.  I do know know that they gave me a fantasy series that deserves to be on the shelves with J.R.R. Tolkien and Ursula LeGuin.  And I doubt that anyone would be posting here unless they'd really fallen in love with at least one of those five games.

 

For most, that seems to be Mass Effect 3 - a game I was warned away from when I first heard about it,  I was glad I didn't listen to them.  ME3 was awesome.  It was also BioWare's most recent effort, post-dating DA2 by a year.  Half its writing staff is working on DAI.  Who's working on it is a far better indicator of quality than the little bits the marketing team shows us.  

 

Saying DAI is awful because it's no ME3 is a little like saying, "I loved my favourite artist's last album, but I saw the cover art and heard a 30-second snippet of one song, and I know it's going to be awful."

 

As for the thread as a whole, I just have to say I wince a little every time I see the title.  It's that same sort of awful leading rhetorical question that I associate with bad journalists and political hacks.  I think the best way to answer such a leading question it as if it were serious, ignoring its intent.  

 

For me that answer would be, "It'll be as formulaic as it needs to be to tell a good story, if my experience with BioWare holds true."  Because stories without any formula - "Experimental" stories - are aesthetically awful.  Read Finnegan's Wake and Julia Kristeva, and watch Un Chien d'Andalou, and tell me if you feel differently after.  I had to slog through that crap on the way to my English degree

Never said DAI would be awful, but I do think Bioware is being formulaic (of their own formula) and lazy. And there has been a history of it too. During the run up to DAO's release, it too looked formulaic. And when it was released, boy was it ever. They even manage to do a Dragn Age version of Kasumi's Stolen Memory. It was highly obvious they recycle their plots.

 

Will there be some deviations in the formula? Maybe, but from what was shown, and the plot premise, it looks to be formulaic.

 

Oh well, there is the exploration based next Mass Effect game and the new IP. Maybe Dragon Age plays it safe but the new IP will give them the freedom to get creative.

[Ravensword]

Tx I really have missed you.

 

In a forum filled with waifu warriors, SJWs, and other waifu warriors your particular brand of droning feels like a refreshing breeze.

 

Shine on great one!

Do you remember the ITers?

[Lucky Thirteen]

This thread feels like deja-vu. I feel like I've spoken in it before months ago, but the thread is only ten days old.

 

The problem is, you guys, when they didn't do a classic/cliche formula with Dragon Age 2, when they tried to do something with a different approach to fantasy story telling, people threw a fit and hated it!

 

1. They called it the worst game ever because they weren't the birth right chosen one saving the planet from pure evil!
2. The ending wasn't a black & white ending with clear right and wrong answers(templers and mages didn't magically get along simply because Hawke said so. I bet people will still be disappointed to know they still will probably not get along by the end of inquisition.).
3. Also, WORST SIN EVER! There wasn't a singular focused enemy like Malak and Saren!  That's extremely confusing and lame to know who's very specific butt we need to kick! Bad guys have to have extremely clear motives and announce their evil plans out loud and laugh manically and throw angry tantrums when the good guy foils their evil plans.
4. Btw did you know the Revan twist is the best twist in the history of twists! Why can't Bioware do a good twist again? Twists should be everywhere! In every story Bioware ever does cause that's totally the right way to tell stories, with a twist *insert M. Night Shyamalan grin here.*
5. and Anders sort of hit on them that one time(that was just an extremely violent threat to every straight man's meaning of existence!! Only women hit on people, men never hit on anyone unless they are the chosen one or they are bad, nasty, smelly men in sleazy bars up to no good! But even they, those bad boys hit on women only).

 

Though I don't think the team working on Dragon Age Inquisition will go full out classic/cliche formula. At least I hope not, I hope it's minimal and they continue using their creativity to do something good, entertaining, and fresh. I like the team working on the DA series more for their story telling capabilities because of DA2 over the ME team. I think they'll do just enough to keep the people who can't handle new things and complex stories in a secure place. So far, their advertising seems to indicate a good mix of old and new.

[QueenofFereldan]

This thread feels like deja-vu. I feel like I've spoken in it before months ago, but the thread is only ten days old.

The problem is, you guys, when they didn't do a classic/cliche formula with Dragon Age 2, when they tried to do something with a different approach to fantasy story telling, people threw a fit and hated it!

• They called it the worst game ever because they weren't the birth right chosen one saving the planet from pure evil!
• The ending wasn't a black & white ending with clear right and wrong answers(templers and mages didn't magically get along simply because Hawke said so. I bet people will still be disappointed to know they still will probably not get along by the end of inquisition.).
• Also, WORST SIN EVER! There wasn't a singular focused enemy like Malak and Saren! That's extremely confusing and lame to know who's very specific butt we need to kick! Bad guys have to have extremely clear motives and announce their evil plans out loud and laugh manically and throw angry tantrums when the good guy foils their evil plans.
• Btw did you know the Revan twist is the best twist in the history of twists! Why can't Bioware do a good twist again? Twists should be everywhere! In every story Bioware ever does cause that's totally the right way to tell stories, with a twist *insert M. Night Shyamalan grin here.*
• and Anders sort of hit on them that one time(that was just an extremely violent threat to every straight man's meaning of existence!! Only women hit on people, men never hit on anyone unless they are the chosen one or they are bad, nasty, smelly men in sleazy bars up to no good! But even they, those bad boys hit on women only).

Though I don't think the team working on Dragon Age Inquisition will go full out classic/cliche formula. At least I hope not, I hope it's minimal and they continue using their creativity to do something good, entertaining, and fresh. I like the team working on the DA series more for their story telling capabilities because of DA2 over the ME team. I think they'll do just enough to keep the people who can't handle new things and complex stories in a secure place. So far, their advertising seems to indicate a good mix of old and new.

Some people that I talked to about this game didn't like the recycled dungeons and HAVING to choose between the mages and Templars when both sides are crazy. I actually liked the game despite its flaws. Not as much as Origins, but I still like it. Personally, I hope Inquisition outshines both of them.

[txgoldrush]

Some people that I talked to about this game didn't like the recycled dungeons and HAVING to choose between the mages and Templars when both sides are crazy. I actually liked the game despite its flaws. Not as much as Origins, but I still like it. Personally, I hope Inquisition outshines both of them.

Hawke had to chose between them because Meredith forced her to choose between them. You either are with us or against us. There is no problem here.

 

The only real issue at the endgame to DA2 was fighting Orsino as a mage supporter.

[QueenofFereldan]

Hawke had to chose between them because Meredith forced her to choose between them. You either are with us or against us. There is no problem here.

The only real issue at the endgame to DA2 was fighting Orsino as a mage supporter.

But you could've still chose to screw them both. Both sides screwed Hawke for the most part. Granted, most of the time I chose the Mage side.

And with that...Orsino was pushed to his limits and was forced to use blood magic. So, I thought it made sense to a point.

[txgoldrush]

But you could've still chose to screw them both. Both sides screwed Hawke for the most part. Granted, most of the time I chose the Mage side.

And with that...Orsino was pushed to his limits and was forced to use blood magic. So, I thought it made sense to a point.

 

Meredith simply would not have allowed it. She is paranoid at this point.

 

And DAI will expand on what happened to Meredith with the Red Templars.

 

The problem with Orsino is that he was not a fleshed out character, which made fighting him on the mage side problematic. Have they fleshed out his character more, it would matter much less.