My theory is they are a magic eperiment involving dragons blood that went horribly wrong. It would actually fit Biowares story telling tbh. If the tevinter magisters created the Qunari then its another example of how ones creation will always end up at war with its creator. Similar to Quarians and Geth.
Im of the same view point as well. BY this point in time i have checked out when it comes to regarding bio making rpgs. I treat them as crappy action adventure games with a shitty story.
Ok heres a thing. I recall back b4 i purchased the game reading that my companions might leave me or even betray me based on my choices but i didnt encounter it in the game. Its even in the wiki:
well despite some characters being the polar opposite of eachother i got everyone to be my best friend with little effort. do choices even matter?
Laidlaw mentioned alot of things in interviews that weren't in the game. He knows what the fans of origins want so he makes up some bull**** to try and attract them while at the same time attracting the DA2 fans and new fans. By the time people realize the things he mentioned aren't in the game it's too late to return it. It's funny really, they have no problem mocking the fans of origins but when it comes to marketing they try their best to convince us to buy with empty promises.
The game was supposed to have customizable keeps and you would have to defend them from attacks. There was a video that shows some of the gameplay footage which is what got me hyped for the game. It showed some great choices and consequences but it seems most of it was scrapped. What bothers me the most is that they didn't even other telling us it was scrapped, a simple post to tell people that that stuff wouldn't be in the game but instead they misled people. I'd also go into all the lies they told to PC gamers but I'm sure you know about all that, even as a console player i can plainly see the bull****.
Laidlaw mentioned alot of things in interviews that weren't in the game. He knows what the fans of origins want so he makes up some bull**** to try and attract them while at the same time attracting the DA2 fans and new fans. By the time people realize the things he mentioned aren't in the game it's too late to return it. It's funny really, they have no problem mocking the fans of origins but when it comes to marketing they try their best to convince us to buy with empty promises.
The game was supposed to have customizable keeps and you would have to defend them from attacks. There was a video that shows some of the gameplay footage which is what got me hyped for the game. It showed some great choices and consequences but it seems most of it was scrapped. What bothers me the most is that they didn't even other telling us it was scrapped, a simple post to tell people that that stuff wouldn't be in the game but instead they misled people. I'd also go into all the lies they told to PC gamers but I'm sure you know about all that, even as a console player i can plainly see the bull****.
I have no doubt mr. Laidlaw know very well what many fans of DA:O want, which makes the lack of said things go from disappointing to annoying. If the man was truly clueless about what the fans of DA:O and classic RPGs wanted, well that would be some kind of a reprieve for the man, but he does know.
Somehow, that's worse.
Is that even legal..
I'm not sure. After the mass effect 3 ending you would think they would be more honest about the stuff that is in their games though.
Found this on the mass effect 3 wiki
One fan went so far as taking his complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, the agency created to protect consumers. His argument was that BioWare did not deliver on the promise of its game, saying, "after reading through the list of promises about the ending of the game they made in their advertising campaign and PR interviews, it was clear that the product we got did not live up to any of those claims." [157] However, with the release of the extended cut, he is now happy with the end product.
I think they were more careful this time round and didn't outright promise these things would be in the game but instead showed them to entice people into buying. Either way they knew these things wouldn't be in the game and instead of informing people they stayed quiet. If i knew those things wouldn't be in the game i would have waited until the price dropped.
I have no doubt mr. Laidlaw know very well what many fans of DA:O want, which makes the lack of said things go from disappointing to annoying. If the man was truly clueless about what the fans of DA:O and classic RPGs wanted, well that would be some kind of a reprieve for the man, but he does know.
Somehow, that's worse.
He knows, he just doesn't care.
One of the leading people behind Origins left during DA2 development, from wiki-
As a designer, he feels that party control and tactical combats should be huge factors in a role playing game. Dragon Age II's departure from that made him realize that he would not be satisfied with what it would be.
If i had to guess I'd say Brent was the one that made Origins a success and without him Laidlaw is now in full control.
Is that even legal..
Well, it IS false advertising - not on a grand scale but in a very subtile way, as of course it is most of the time nowadays. (Hell it was the same with Destiny.)
I mean, the guy knows, no one is gonna sue him... not because of a failed game-experience for 60 bucks. What he doesn't get is the fact, that he's ruining the reputation of Bioware. To me, they once had the status "shut up and take my money"... but now it's more like "will you shut up and stop lying about your game".
About the OP i can only say: BRAVO! You f*cking nailed it!
I wished, every employee of Bioware and all the big CEOs and project-leads would read it and get our discomfort about the path they're taking.
This concept of dumbing down gameplay to address to a wider audience HAS TO STOP.
Well...
Dragon Age Origins
1: talk
2: interrogate
3: (persuade) talk
4: (intimidate) talk
5: talk with him like a gentleman/lady
6: kill him.
some quest: kill xxx npc and i give u this amazing thing
u go and talk with the xxx npc so he send u to kill the man who send u.
so go again to the man and talk: u killed him?
1: (lie) yes
2: nope, hes a good gay guy
3: (intimidate) give me the thing
4: (persuade) why we have to kill him?
5: kill him.
6: tell him to run maybe?
so, u kill this guy take the thing, u go to the other guy u take the exp and loot of the quest, then u kill him take all the loot go again to the other guy, take the exp and the reward, then u kill him and take the loot....
thats is the thing here 
and ur answer 
But it took quite a while b4 that dlc came out. What happened until then.
Regardless, its not part of the game since its release so i wouldnt count it as "all is well again".
I hate the new philosophy the gaming industry adapted to.. release now and patch later.. not very respectful to either their customers or their creation.
There was alot of backlash from fans before the dlc was released, bioware of course defended the ending(shocker) and even to this day acts as if people wre annoyed because the ending wasn't a "happy ending" when in reality we were pissed that they lied and thought a ending like that was really good enough.
He probably didn't go through with legal action because it would cost alot of money and he would't stand much of a chance.
That's how its done now it seems, release a unfinished product and fix the problems later.
Well...
Dragon Age Origins
1: talk
2: interrogate
3: (persuade) talk
4: (intimidate) talk
5: talk with him like a gentleman/lady
6: kill him.
some quest: kill xxx npc and i give u this amazing thing
u go and talk with the xxx npc so he send u to kill the man who send u.
so go again to the man and talk: u killed him?
1: (lie) yes
2: nope, hes a good gay guy
3: (intimidate) give me the thing
4: (persuade) why we have to kill him?
5: kill him.
6: tell him to run maybe?
so, u kill this guy take the thing, u go to the other guy u take the exp and loot of the quest, then u kill him take all the loot go again to the other guy, take the exp and the reward, then u kill him and take the loot....
thats is the thing here
and ur answer
But u learned and someday ull know what i mean my young padawan
Well i read a bit on this laidlaw guy and.. well, i think he is a bad lead designer. I gave him the benefit of the doubt until now but he just reeks of mediocrity and cheap fixes to achieve his ideal of a good game. please, allow me to vent a bit.. just for a moment..
I stumbled on his interview post release of DA2, among other things, and noticed a few things about his approach when it comes to game designing.
First of all is the use of cheap fixes for big problems. As a lazy person who studies M. Engineering i am no stranger to finding the best and simplest solution for key issues. I often even take pride if i find a very simple yet effective solution to something that gave me a very hard time. I believe it was bill gates who said "i choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."
Well, the key behind that is that the said solution would do the job properly and effectively, not using gum to close a leak.
as i mentioned in my OP these "fixes" are very visible to me and frankly they ****** me off. If you want to be lazy or efficient you do it right or you dont do it at all.
So heres the thing. Quantity over quality. he said it himself, folks!
Eurogamer: Are you happy with the reviews of Dragon Age II?
Mike Laidlaw: I am. What we're seeing is a pretty wide range; I've seen perfects, I've seen less than perfects. There are some things I think that are certainly fair criticisms: the re-use of the levels is something we knew was a bit of a risk, but we wanted to make sure there was more content rather than less, so re-using some of the spaces and coming to them again was certainly one we were careful about and tried to re-use as artfully as we could.
NO! you STOP that right now! Bad! This is a fine example of a shameless confession of taking the quantity over quality followed by a poor job of doing a workaround, a "fix", to a big issue. you can take your flawed philosophy and design a mobile game, stop sabotaging good games. Please!
The next thing i saw was about appealing to a bigger audiance.
Dragon Age II was designed by just the senior, core team. Honestly I don't feel it's a game that's been designed to appeal far and wide and so on. If it were, there were choices we could have made that would have taken it much, much further. We would have probably simplified down to a single character, maybe with companions; probably looked at doing some even deeper changes to inventory management, making sure that... You wouldn't want to confuse people with enchanting or anything complex like that. Really what we wanted to do with the game, just talking about first-principles, was to look at elements of Origins that were over complex and needlessly so and see if we could pull those out in a clean way and didn't take out what I always saw as core elements of the experience: strong, character-driven stories, and the idea that the combat should be a party working together, especially at higher difficulty levels.
Hmmm.. those things do ring a bell... wait! arent all of these things listed on my wall of text? :0
*spit*
Next,
Eurogamer: The Metacritic score for Dragon Age II (at the time of writing) is 82 per cent. Is that in-line with expectations?
Mike Laidlaw: It's a little bit lower than we were expecting. We knew going in that this may not sit around the same spot as Origins on all platforms (86 for the 360). There's been, I would say, more strongly negative reviews appearing on Metacritic than I expected. I'm a little surprised by the 6/10s and they have a fair amount of weight early on. If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90, then our next step will be to, very easily, go through those reviews, go through fan feedback, especially over some time
I know it is almost impossible to get a 10 but i would never put my goals below the best. Ever. you give a 100% and you demand a 100% and if something doesnt work out you fix it.
but that all was in the past, eh mike? lets look at what has been said about inquisition, the game you said you have used what you learned from your mistakes in DA2, something you admitted to in your apology letter to the fans.
Mike Laidlaw and Cameron Lee have stated that the main quest alone will be 50 hours long and sidequests are 100 hours long, making a total of 150 hours of gameplay overall. Choices made by the players will impact the game's ending, with 40 different variations reported to be present, from a best to a worst possible outcome.
bullsh*t. the main quests took me about 10 hours to complete. just for the sake of being fair i would give you an extra 10 hours, so make it 20. i did almost a 100% of the game and it would be 100 if i would start a new game and do the templar side just too see everything or what ever. making different choices.
as for the 40 different variations for the ending.. a small change here and there based on my approval and such is hardly a variation. this is just misleading anyone who would DARE to think our choices pose much impact. some do, i suppose, but hardly 40.
Also according to Mike Laidlaw in an interview with Eurogamer, companions leave the party if approval ratings are too low, similar to Dragon age: Origins, and it is possible to only have one companion remaining in the end. It's also possible for the companion to betray the Inquisitor depending on the choices made by the player.
yeah i didnt get that feeling in the game. i only know blackwall will leave based on my actions in here lies the abyss. as for betraying the inquisitor, thats a big fat lie.
During fights, the environments may be exploited and manipulated to a greater degree than in Dragon Age II. This capacity goes both ways, however. For example, a mage character may cast an "ice wall" spell to create cover on a battlefield or hem an enemy into a corner—a similar idea to a mage casting a fire spell after using a grease spell in Dragon Age: Origins—but the enemy may respond by melting the ice wall, eliminating the player's advantage.[47]
now you are just teasing...
right i had enough of this.. its starting to rlly tick me off the more i put these quotes...
so yeah! i think the problem lies in the person leading this game to the ground. he is to dragon age as jay wilson was to diablo.
you do not fit your role as the lead designer for this game, mike. reading your interviews and stuff made it quite clear to me what you think is good or bad when it comes to game design choices.. if i had to put a quote stating the flaws of your design philosophy in any interview of yours i would have to put the entire interview in one big quote. and i almost did just that! thankfully it pissed me off so much i stopped myself from doing so.
i listed 10 categories in my OP, your statements both in twitter, the forum, the trailers, the interviews and anything else i have read, all showed me you are at least partially to blame in all of them. how you didnt ruin the first game is beyond me, i can only guess someone was there to stop you from f*cking it up.
do yourself a favor, as this game is quite popular with the critics thus far, and quit on a high note. work on a new title, something that won't hold you back. give dragon age to someone who can do the game justice as an rpg or crpg game.
Like i said, he's full of shi**. I think Brent was the lead designer for origins and now that he's gone laidlaw is free to do whatever he wants with the game. The amount of bull**** he spouts is incredible.
Quality>>>>Quantity, i honestly can't say that enough. Bigger is not always better.
ANYWAYS.. i think its time we talk about the story and the decisions you make. Spoilers ahead.
Not in the mood to make walls of texts about every little thing but i very well could. and very might do regardless as i can't seem to control myself 
Regardless if you found it interesting or good, There are many plot holes that makes you scratch your head.
Firstly, cory's ability to jump bodies. I summed it up in another thread how it makes no sense and quite honestly its stupid. simply put, he has a beefed up version of the AD's ability to jump bodies, since he cant even be killed by grey wardens.
problem is that we kill him in the end of the game since he loses that ability when we kill his pet dragon. notice the issue?
cory was locked in a grey warden prison because he couldnt be killed. He always had this ability it seems. In inquisition it is stated his ability to do so is thanks to his dragon that he made. Not very likely as he died in DA2's dlc and jumped into a warden.
so either he transferred his ability to his dragon or his ability was disrupted after his dragon died. Either way he made a dumb plan that gave us the chance to kill him. He who was more immortal than an archdemon!
The other thing is that he wanted to open a breach to the fade so he could enter the fade physically and enter the black city and be a god. a feat he has done b4 btw. so:
1. Why cant he enter through the many small rifts that are scattered around the continent? Passing through it doesnt kill you, here lies the abyss proved that. Why cant he fly with his dragon into the breach? we didnt even close it the first time.
2. Why cant he use blood magic AGAIN to enter the fade? He has done it b4. Would be a lot more subtle than opening a huge hole in the sky.
3. Why would you gain god status when you sit in the maker's throne? Where does it say anywhere that you gain something by entering the golden/black city? Hasnt he done it b4? Why isnt he a god then?
4. he was already there!!! He was in the golden city and claims it was always black. but what happened when he entered it? He tells you he saw the seat of the maker or old gods and it was empty. what happened then? According to the chantry and what not, the maker got pissed, made them tainted and banished them back. But no god was there. What made him leave the city? Why didnt he make himself the new god? This isnt a plot hole this is a plot crater or a plot canyon.
5. the sacrifice. Can anyone tell me why he needed the divine as sacrifice? He knows shes not rlly divine, right? Just a person that was elected to play that role. She is as special as cass, leliana or vivi who are the next divines.
why did he invade the conclave at a time that many of the key factions and their leaders gathered to discuss peace? Why did he kidnap one of the most important people alive? Why did no one notice? Why was the security so bad considering all the above?
Why did he need to sacrifice anyone, really? he absorbed something from her to power his orb but it doesnt seem like something specific to her. Does the divine get a soul of an old god from the former divine or something??
RIFTS!
actually.. what exactly makes smaller rifts open randomly?
Another thing is that whenever we fight someone who helps cory you can almost always find a rift appear in their aid. So i can only assume that he has some influence over them in a way. But how..? And if so then why cant he go through...
Grey wardens! Yeah i dont get it. Cory is able to control them. Even in his sleep he can manipulate their minds. Probably thanks to the tain in their blood. He also got mages on his side to learn how to manipulate them or even, to some extent, control their every move ("raise your hands"). Again, the taint. At what level do they have control over them i cannot say as it varies heavily throughout the game. At one time its complete control at times its just manipulating their minds but still keeping their free will. The false calling did something to affect their choices, sure, but war table missions and also main missions and other stuff claim they are vulnerable to cory's mages.
A cute idea but raises some questions. the taint is the key thing about it. They use the taint to control their minds. Meaning magic affects the taint. Also meaning that in theory blighted creatures are susceptible to mind control by magic users. And cory has just shared the secret behind it with his mages.
HOWEVER, it doesnt add up as darkspawn do not follow cory. he doesnt control them, but why? through the taint he controls and manipulates the grey wardens but he can't use the same thing to the other tainted creatures such as the darkspawn? and why do i feel ok saying he doesnt control them? he goes through a lot of effort to build his army out of demons and human factions such as the mages and the red templars. the only group that never actually sided with him are the darkspawn. if he COULD use them in his army he wouldnt have needed the mages and the templars, the darkspawn are a far better choice when it comes to an army.
choices:
lets put it like this. for an rpg that took pride in many meaningful choices that affect the ending and stuff, its linear. not only do your choices not matter, many of them are concluded in a way that it doesnt REALLY interact with you, for example, you see the outcome in a war table mission.
so heres the thing, throughout the game you get to decide many things that might pack a punch behind them like deciding who would be the next ruler of Orlais. but a lot of said choices dont really have an affect on you until you see the epilogue. some outcomes are dealt with by providing a war table mission and some dont matter at all.
as stated earlier, this game is kind of linear when it comes to choices and sometimes the outcome doesnt change regardless of your choice. and sometimes the change is so trivial it almost doesnt exist.
companion quests is a good example of meaningless choices. take bull for example. help him or not, nothing really changes. so his group get to live or not. so the qunari maintain an alliance or not. does it affect the inquisition or the outcome in any way? not rlly. some war table missions and small banter lines.
there are a few cases where the change is very visible and affects you in any way.
as for the epilogue.. its short 
very short. its like:
that are no specific slideshows regarding each of your companions/advisers. some talk about them but not all.
ANYWAYS.. i think its time we talk about the story and the decisions you make. Spoilers ahead.
Not in the mood to make walls of texts about every little thing but i very well could. and very might do regardless as i can't seem to control myself
Regardless if you found it interesting or good, There are many plot holes that makes you scratch your head.
Firstly, cory's ability to jump bodies. I summed it up in another thread how it makes no sense and quite honestly its stupid. simply put, he has a beefed up version of the AD's ability to jump bodies, since he cant even be killed by grey wardens.
problem is that we kill him in the end of the game since he loses that ability when we kill his pet dragon. notice the issue?cory was locked in a grey warden prison because he couldnt be killed. He always had this ability it seems. In inquisition it is stated his ability to do so is thanks to his dragon that he made. Not very likely as he died in DA2's dlc and jumped into a warden.
so either he transferred his ability to his dragon or his ability was disrupted after his dragon died. Either way he made a dumb plan that gave us the chance to kill him. He who was more immortal than an archdemon!
I can't explain this one, the more i think about it the more my head hurts. Killing the dragon to stop his transfer ability was waaaay too freaking convenient.
The other thing is that he wanted to open a breach to the fade so he could enter the fade physically and enter the black city and be a god. a feat he has done b4 btw. so:
1. Why cant he enter through the many small rifts that are scattered around the continent? Passing through it doesnt kill you, here lies the abyss proved that. Why cant he fly with his dragon into the breach? we didnt even close it the first time.
2. Why cant he use blood magic AGAIN to enter the fade? He has done it b4. Would be a lot more subtle than opening a huge hole in the sky.
3. Why would you gain god status when you sit in the maker's throne? Where does it say anywhere that you gain something by entering the golden/black city? Hasnt he done it b4? Why isnt he a god then?
4. he was already there!!! He was in the golden city and claims it was always black. but what happened when he entered it? He tells you he saw the seat of the maker or old gods and it was empty. what happened then? According to the chantry and what not, the maker got pissed, made them tainted and banished them back. But no god was there. What made him leave the city? Why didnt he make himself the new god? This isnt a plot hole this is a plot crater or a plot canyon.
5. the sacrifice. Can anyone tell me why he needed the divine as sacrifice? He knows shes not rlly divine, right? Just a person that was elected to play that role. She is as special as cass, leliana or vivi who are the next divines.
why did he invade the conclave at a time that many of the key factions and their leaders gathered to discuss peace? Why did he kidnap one of the most important people alive? Why did no one notice? Why was the security so bad considering all the above?
Why did he need to sacrifice anyone, really? he absorbed something from her to power his orb but it doesnt seem like something specific to her. Does the divine get a soul of an old god from the former divine or something??
1. Can't explain that, seems like a major plot hole to me, unless the dragon is somehow unable to enter the fade?
2. This one is a bit easier to explain. The first time he did it he had 6 other very powerful magisters helping him and it took alot of sacrifices if i remember correctly. Now he's all alone and is the only one that knows how they did it so maybe teaching others to do it would take too long. Best explanation i can think of.
3. Cory is an idiot. Like most villains in Inquisition their motives are just rediculous.
4. This one may not be a plot hole but may just be him lying. He says the city was always black but during the fight with him he says he walked throught he golden halls or something along those lines. The writters are intentionally keeping the origins of things like the blight a secret, either that or they don't follow their own lore which wouldn't surprise me with all the retcons.
5. This is the biggest plot hole in the game imo. It makes no sense why he would need the divine, she's just a frail old lady.
Laidlaw mentioned alot of things in interviews that weren't in the game. He knows what the fans of origins want so he makes up some bull**** to try and attract them while at the same time attracting the DA2 fans and new fans. By the time people realize the things he mentioned aren't in the game it's too late to return it. It's funny really, they have no problem mocking the fans of origins but when it comes to marketing they try their best to convince us to buy with empty promises.
The game was supposed to have customizable keeps and you would have to defend them from attacks. There was a video that shows some of the gameplay footage which is what got me hyped for the game. It showed some great choices and consequences but it seems most of it was scrapped. What bothers me the most is that they didn't even other telling us it was scrapped, a simple post to tell people that that stuff wouldn't be in the game but instead they misled people. I'd also go into all the lies they told to PC gamers but I'm sure you know about all that, even as a console player i can plainly see the bull****.
Three days before the release. Three days before, and they still kept telling people about the Crestwood battle, and how you could modify your keeps and how important they were. That one big fat lie. Nothing short of it. The games had shipped and they knew damn well what was cut or not by that time. I asked one of them about the keeps the week before, and the dev replied with the same BS that they would be important and that you needed to maintain hem and whatever else. That is called lying straight to a person's face.
Three days before the release. Three days before, and they still kept telling people about the Crestwood battle, and how you could modify your keeps and how important they were. That one big fat lie. Nothing short of it. The games had shipped and they knew damn well what was cut or not by that time. I asked one of them about the keeps the week before, and the dev replied with the same BS that they would be important and that you needed to maintain hem and whatever else. That is called lying straight to a person's face.
This is why i don't understand why they won Best Developer awards, i mean seriously is this how low peoples standards are now? I've seen some posts on here mentioning that the Developers lied about stuff in the game and some people actually rush to the developers defence. I just don't understand how people can defend them when they straight out lie.
This is why i don't understand why they won Best Developer awards, i mean seriously is this how low peoples standards are now? I've seen some posts on here mentioning that the Developers lied about stuff in the game and some people actually rush to the developers defence. I just don't understand how people can defend them when they straight out lie.
EA paid for the reviews and the awards. DA2 got the same glowing reviews when it came out, and ME3 too. Hardly any reviews mentioned the rotten ending in ME3 when it came out. Strange that. It wasn't an issue until a player actually beat the game and saw the ending.
i can't accept a "it would probably take too long" as an excuse since cory is immortal and gained an army of mages in a short time. also he has an orb that boosted his power to the point he could do whatever he wanted, a hole in the sky, lifting mountains, etc.. as for sacrifices... just take some prisoners over the years.
if you want to become a god you might want to take your time and be careful about it. rushing to the conclave and punching a huge hole in the skies is quite the opposite.
EA paid for the reviews and the awards. DA2 got the same glowing reviews when it came out, and ME3 too. Hardly any reviews mentioned the rotten ending in ME3 when it came out. Strange that. It wasn't an issue until a player actually beat the game and saw the ending.
Seems like it. I have seem some reviews that are total bull**** so it is painfully obvious that some of them are corrupt. Like one that mentioned how he can't tell the difference between main quests and side quests 
Bioware also defended that ending and still to this day acts like fans were only upset because it wasnt a happy ending rather than admiting they lied. I thought after that they would have changed but it doesen't seem like it.
Seems like it. I have seem some reviews that are total bull**** so it is painfully obvious that some of them are corrupt. Like one that mentioned how he can't tell the difference between main quests and side quests
Bioware also defended that ending and still to this day acts like fans were only upset because it wasnt a happy ending rather than admiting they lied. I thought after that they would have changed but it doesen't seem like it.
that lie! i remember that lie... back when me and my friend discussed if we should trust EA and bioware again after DA2 and i told him about this reviewer (i think it was from ign) who said that line. EA, give this man more money because he got you some more copies sold with one of the biggest lies ever told
The design, from the start, was to be for console and MP. Everything else followed from that decision.
While I agree with all you said, EA's sales is roughly 4:1 (ie: 4x consoles vs PC), which vindicates their decision. This "new generation" brought up starting with PS1 was seen as a "requirement" for the game to evolve towards an action oriented game play to meet that market segment.
"...It was a Dragon Age game, multiplayer only, that was in development before Dragon Age II came out. That became the core of what became Dragon Age Inquisition..." from Mark Darrah interview
i can't accept a "it would probably take too long" as an excuse since cory is immortal and gained an army of mages in a short time. also he has an orb that boosted his power to the point he could do whatever he wanted, a hole in the sky, lifting mountains, etc.. as for sacrifices... just take some prisoners over the years.
if you want to become a god you might want to take your time and be careful about it. rushing to the conclave and punching a huge hole in the skies is quite the opposite.
Cory doesen't strike me as the patient type. He may also not even remember how they did the ritual, there was 7 of them afterall and i doubt they were all privy to all the secrets.
Like I've said before the only thing i think they put real effort into is the environments. Most of the rest of the stuff including the main story feels mediocre. Too many people in Inquisition do something stupid to advance the plot and that to me is very bad writing.
Retour en haut