47 réponses à ce sujet

[Poledo]

I love the game - I'm a huge supporter of it - I have and still am getting a ton of enjoyment playing it. I feel I need to get that out upfront because I don't want this to be set aside because it's one more person hating on the game.

 

One thing that has been bothering me, and I see it evident the more times I play a new game through is that they trivialized everything that mattered or had great impact up to this game.

 

Darkspawn andthe blight. It gets a small mention - you see it in Crestwood or rather the Mayor's response to it in the past during the last blight. Yet there are darkspawn being killed all over - no one gets tainted and it's never really presented as a concern, it's just story filler. Then there is Wardens... I get the calling or rather fake calling andhow it effects the Wardens. Even still I really have a hard time buying into the decisions they made... killing each other to summon and bind demons? I just don't buy it, and again we've trivialized them to yet another group of bad mages using blood magic than we can banish like some insignificant group.

 

Demons, nothing removes the fear or impact of something more than making them the peons of the game that you slaughter in vast numbers effortlessly. DA:O really set the scene and mood correctly. I guess DA2 really started the downfall of fearing demons because everyone was a blood mage and summoning demons left and right but it still had some truly eerie moments.

 

Mages and Templars - again they were just those annoying asses killing each other and anyone that got in their way in Hinterlands that you slaughter without any real effort. Even the "major" decision point in the game had very little effect on the game whether you chose mage or templar.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

[phaonica]

I think that, like some in other threads have suggested, that DA could benefit from incorporating horror genre elements like DAO seemed to (imo). I think that what really makes the horror elements work in DAO is that horror elements are meant to evoke visceral and emotional reactions of fear and uncertainty. As much as I like DAI, it feels to me like a mostly low-risk, low-reward story. Logically, I know that dealing with the Breach and Corypheus is high risk, but each individual choice doesn't give you a good picture of the consequences that should not only be strategic choices, but also choices that have some personal, emotional complications.

[Poledo]

I think that, like some in other threads have suggested, that DA could benefit from incorporating horror genre elements like DAO seemed to (imo). I think that what really makes the horror elements work in DAO is that horror elements are meant to evoke visceral and emotional reactions of fear and uncertainty. As much as I like DAI, it feels to me like a mostly low-risk, low-reward story. Logically, I know that dealing with the Breach and Corypheus is high risk, but each individual choice doesn't give you a good picture of the consequences that should not only be strategic choices, but also choices that have some personal, emotional complications.

 

There is definitely some high risk items but they are down played as well. It seems like the breach is going to be the driving force behind the story and getting the mages or templars to help close it..... then you choose one and you bring 5 mages/templars with you and have a brief cut scene where you watch it get closed with zero effort.  Incredibly trivial. I'm pretty sure there were that many mages or templars already hanging around my camp - why did I need to go through choosing a side?

[FlyinElk212]

While I mostly agree, let's be fair to Bioware- not everything has been trivialized. What you decide to do with Loghain and Alistair has a good impact on their characters. What you decide to do with the Old God Baby, while not having significance on the plot, DOES have significance with Morrigan's character--does she find true resolution and peace with her mother, or does she grow as an individual as her maternal love for her child grows?

 

Everything in the Here Lies the Abyss quest has ramifications from previous game choices, and the final decision of that quest still felt impactful, even if it probably won't lead to much. I'm okay with that though, as long as previous choices lead to good amounts of variability with playthroughs.

 

Fun fact, lead writer of that arc was Patrick Weekes, the same mastermind responsible for the Tuchunka arc in Mass Effect 3. When is Bioware gonna give that man his own game already.

[Vox Draco]

Demons, nothing removes the fear or impact of something more than making them the peons of the game that you slaughter in vast numbers effortlessly. DA:O really set the scene and mood correctly. I guess DA2 really started the downfall of fearing demons because everyone was a blood mage and summoning demons left and right but it still had some truly eerie moments.

 

Demolns...personally speaking, I never really liked the design of them, even back in DAO. They never looked frightening or evil to me. And even with the new additions to the demonic troop roster its not much better...maybe I played too much Diablo in the past, but those games have demons, abominations, ugly creations of chaos ... not fiery or shadowy blobs....

 

Envy kinda looked cool though I admit ...

 

And yeah, the fear of demons is also lost the more we learn about them, the fade, spirits etc. It has to come like this. Its like George Martin explaining what The Others exactly are. Once he does that (not sure if ever) they'll lose much of their flavour...cause only the unknown really makes us fear

[sch1986]

I don't know I don't think the blight was "trivialized" I think it's just not relevant ten years later. There's a new enemy, a new fight. The fact that all the wardens think they are dying so they want to end blights for good doesn't really trivialize it. It shows it's still an issue just not a current one.

As for the wardens- it's mentioned a few times- and I think there is a thread about it on here- that wardens are often conscripted as prisoners or criminals to start with. It's also been said in game that wardens are dedicated to one thing: stopping blights. And they will do so by any means necessary.. So it stands to reason that criminals and prisoners might not question the moral ramifications of using blood magic. In addition to that, it's been mentioned in both DA:O and DA:I that when there is no blight, people don't care so much for the wardens. They are only thought of as heroes when the world needs them. Otherwise they are forgotten by society.

The demons part I guess I can agree with you on... But I never really thought of demons as being the big bads anyway. I think it would have helped if the few encounters with tough demons we had were somehow made more personal? In da:o there was the whole blasted trip to the stupid god damn fade that felt 10 hours long in order to save both Connor and his mother. The stakes were high. The quest significant. In DA2 there was the desire demon that tried to tempt your companions ("I like big boats and i cannot lie").

In da:I we only get Imshael as being available to all inquisitors. I suppose the envy demon was a significant and personal battle but that's only available if you side with Templars.

EDIT: I wanted to add that the imshael fight didn't feel significant or personal to me at all. It felt capturing a keep and he was the boss.

[phaonica]

There is definitely some high risk items but they are down played as well. It seems like the breach is going to be the driving force behind the story and getting the mages or templars to help close it..... then you choose one and you bring 5 mages/templars with you and have a brief cut scene where you watch it get closed with zero effort.  Incredibly trivial. I'm pretty sure there were that many mages or templars already hanging around my camp - why did I need to go through choosing a side?

 

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the presentation doesn't achieve it's potential impact.

We are told the taint is bad, but barely have to experience it firsthand.

We are told the Wardens will do anything to stop a Blight, but are given little to no reason to empathize with them.

We're expected to believe that the demon attacks are especially dangerous, yet demons seem to be equally as threatening as "common" wolf and bear attacks.

 

And, I thought you said the Mage-Templar war was reduced to annoying ASSETS killing each other, as if they had no more emotional impact than the rocks and trees (you know, video game art assets).

 

I agree with you, to an extent. I mean, when you have a PC that is supposedly super special, the one and only key to saving the world, and *of course* they don't have any trouble plowing through the demons and darkspawn that so many others desperately struggle against, it makes the people's struggles seem trivial.

 

I feel like there were definitely some instances where DAI had some good, complex conflicts, but for the most part, the conflicts felt pretty shallow.

[ChachiBobinks]

While I mostly agree, let's be fair to Bioware- not everything has been trivialized. What you decide to do with Loghain and Alistair has a good impact on their characters. What you decide to do with the Old God Baby, while not having significance on the plot, DOES have significance with Morrigan's character--does she find true resolution and peace with her mother, or does she grow as an individual as her maternal love for her child grows?

 

Everything in the Here Lies the Abyss quest has ramifications from previous game choices, and the final decision of that quest still felt impactful, even if it probably won't lead to much. I'm okay with that though, as long as previous choices lead to good amounts of variability with playthroughs.

 

Fun fact, lead writer of that arc was Patrick Weekes, the same mastermind responsible for the Tuchunka arc in Mass Effect 3. When is Bioware gonna give that man his own game already.

 

I'll take two more of those, please!

 

 

 

If the darkspawn threat was trivialized, I have to wonder if it was on purpose. We know BW has got some genius writers. They do writerly things and deliver them with a ninja kick to the face. It makes me wonder if that wasn't intentional - the darkspawn threat feels trivial because despite them really being a terrible, horrible mass of blood-thirsty monsters, they still aren't as much of a threat as the mages/Templars? It feels trivialized to the player because it feels trivial (in comparison) to the people? 

 

It's been indicated before that to a lot of people, mages are the scariest things ever. Mages being out and about, freed from their towers and lurking in shadows, killing all that go past them--or however they may imagine it--is a truly frightening thing. 

[Poledo]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the presentation doesn't achieve it's potential impact.

We are told the taint is bad, but barely have to experience it firsthand.

We are told the Wardens will do anything to stop a Blight, but are given little to no reason to empathize with them.

We're expected to believe that the demon attacks are especially dangerous, yet demons seem to be equally as threatening as "common" wolf and bear attacks.

 

And, I thought you said the Mage-Templar war was reduced to annoying ASSETS killing each other, as if they had no more emotional impact than the rocks and trees (you know, video game art assets).

 

I agree with you, to an extent. I mean, when you have a PC that is supposedly super special, the one and only key to saving the world, and *of course* they don't have any trouble plowing through the demons and darkspawn that so many others desperately struggle against, it makes the people's struggles seem trivial.

 

I feel like there were definitely some instances where DAI had some good, complex conflicts, but for the most part, the conflicts felt pretty shallow.

 You are much better at expressing my intent than I am. This is it exactly!

[In Exile]

The darkspawn are trivial mooks. That's what they always were in DAO.

[phaonica]

I don't know I don't think the blight was "trivialized" I think it's just not relevant ten years later. There's a new enemy, a new fight. The fact that all the wardens think they are dying so they want to end blights for good doesn't really trivialize it. It shows it's still an issue just not a current one..... In addition to that, it's been mentioned in both DA:O and DA:I that when there is no blight, people don't care so much for the wardens. They are only thought of as heroes when the world needs them. Otherwise they are forgotten by society.

 

This is a good point, and could have made for an interesting conflict, I think. I mean.. I've seen that you do at least hear some voices of opposition against the decision... I think, Blackwall and Iron Bull say something about it after you've already done it.

 

But before that, no one protests that if we're actually fighting an archdemon, we might want to keep the Wardens around; no one attempts to appeal to the emotional aspect of the "forgotten heroes" story; no one suggests that the Wardens are no more dangerous than the Mages, Templars, or Qunari; that side is not presented, iirc. I remember Loghain talking about the Warden duty against the Blight, but if he said anything about the apparent necessity of Wardens when an Archdemon shows up, I don't remember it (and if anyone should be bringing that issue up, it would be him).

 

But it's trivialized because either way, it doesn't matter. The risk for keeping them around seems presented (somewhat. Now that they know better, it shouldn't be a problem), but the risk for exiling them (imo) isn't, and ultimately, either way works, so who cares?

 

It wouldn't bother me so much if so many more of the decisions weren't also like this. I don't mean to advocate punishing players for their decisions to make certain choices, but if no action ever leads to a negative outcome, then there is no illusion of risk.

[FlyinElk212]

I'll take two more of those, please!

 

If the darkspawn threat was trivialized, I have to wonder if it was on purpose. We know BW has got some genius writers. They do writerly things and deliver them with a ninja kick to the face. It makes me wonder if that wasn't intentional - the darkspawn threat feels trivial because despite them really being a terrible, horrible mass of blood-thirsty monsters, they still aren't as much of a threat as the mages/Templars? It feels trivialized to the player because it feels trivial (in comparison) to the people? 

 

It's been indicated before that to a lot of people, mages are the scariest things ever. Mages being out and about, freed from their towers and lurking in shadows, killing all that go past them--or however they may imagine it--is a truly frightening thing. 

SERIOUSLY! Just name Weekes lead writer on the newest Mass Effect trilogy already! And I'm totally cool with any X-men: Days of Future Past-esque rewrite of...let's say elements from Mass Effect 3.

 

I agree with this read. When comparing the Darkspawn threat to the Mages/Templar threat, it makes sense within the lore of the universe for Inquisition to make M/T's the central focus and, to an extent, trivialize the Darkspawn one. BUT, it may be easier for the player to reconcile with M/T threat because it's a problem we more or less recognize and relate to--i.e., humans. Darkspawn are an alien subject, therefore it's harder to relate to them; so the player might end up feeling more threatened by their presence despite the game's insistence that Mages/Templars is the bigger issue.

 

Kind of ironic, really, since "fear of the unknown" is sort of the driving force behind the Mages/Templar threat in the first place.......   too heady for the Bioware forums?? 

[Solbranthius]

I think it's a consequence of more focus being put on action and less on the story and sense of danger. That's not to suggest that DA:I is a terrible game because it it isn't - but DA:O was a very different experience in terms of mood and combat with far less 'Hollywood' moments. I 

[ChachiBobinks]

*Sigh*   Disappointed.  Thought this might be a forum-based continuation of the QuizQuisition.

 

Spoiler

What is the largest city in Thedas?! *wooshing noises*

 

SERIOUSLY! Just name Weekes lead writer on the newest Mass Effect trilogy already! And I'm totally cool with any X-men: Days of Future Past-esque rewrite of...let's say elements from Mass Effect 3.

 

I agree with this read. When comparing the Darkspawn threat to the Mages/Templar threat, it makes sense within the lore of the universe for Inquisition to make M/T's the central focus and, to an extent, trivialize the Darkspawn one. BUT, it may be easier for the player to reconcile with M/T threat because it's a problem we more or less recognize and relate to--i.e., humans. Darkspawn are an alien subject, therefore it's harder to relate to them; so the player might end up feeling more threatened by their presence despite the game's insistence that Mages/Templars is the bigger issue.

 

Kind of ironic, really, since "fear of the unknown" is sort of the driving force behind the Mages/Templar threat in the first place.......   too heady for the Bioware forums?? 

 

I think he's at DA to stay! Gah, I wish I could find the source now, but I remember reading somewhere last year that he moved to DA because the DA style is much more in line with his method of storytelling. It wouldn't make since for him to swing back over if it wasn't a good fit initially. 

 

And that's not heady at all. That's freaking brilliant.

[MACharlie1]

I always thought Darkspawn were pretty much always dangerous but they aren't found much (if at all) on the surface except by adventurers in weird places (aka our heroes). Now they were a major threat because they were ALOT of them organized by the Archdemon. No Archdemon - no presentable threat. 

[_Aine_]

I've pondered this, and along with a few wide subject areas that I have my own personal thoughts on, my *hope* (and yes, it is a hope, not a belief) is that they are painting with a wide brush because they are trying to intentionally tie-up and finish certain thematic preoccupations and focus areas.  

 

Now, that said:  I have played several characters at least 3/4 way through DAI, finishing only once completely as of yet (held back from finishing in two occasions before last battle), did several playthroughs of DA2 and too many to count of DAO.   The main difference, between all of them frankly, but strikingly between DAO/DAI and DA2/DAI is the success level in having our characters and their interactions have a sense of gravity, of personal meaning.   Compared to DAO and even DA2, DAI doesn't really employ the use of cinematics as successfully in order to bring the scope of the world, the issues, the horror etc, to a PERSONAL level.  Close up.  The world being big (which, i LOVE for what it is worth) actually makes the need to have moments that SHRINK it down to a manageable size more important.  If you go back and play DAO again (which, admittedly is difficult due to it feeling kind of clunky) feels MUCH better story wise.  Cutscenes, small but meaningful bring you into the characters focus, making the world you encounter feel smaller and more personal than it being majority 3rd person all the time, and from a substantial camera difference at that.  It really made me realize that story and quests played a huge role in getting us involved, but the method and manner of presentation of visual data DOES have a HUGE effect on the impact it has for the player.  

 

In DA2, yes, every battle pretty much felt trivialized.  One broad swath of a sword could down, easily and cartoonishly, many darkspawn.  THAT was too easy.  It negated the evil and turned it into something trivial and more speedbump than serious and doomlike in scale.  DAI corrected, for the most part, having your enemies die like mini marshmallows in a commercial blowtorch.  But the view of the world was never quite as personal as it could have been.  In fact, it was the romantic relationships that I built (some more successful in this respect than others, mind) that brought some grounding, and focus to my inquisitors place in the world.   Without those, the whole thing would have felt a glaring lack of grounding.  

 

When you don't truly have an anchor in the world (oh the irony) it is easy to feel a spectator with just a lot of data at your disposal.  Did I ever TRULY feel that my quest was necessary and IMMEDIATE?  No, no I did not.  I had all the time in the world to chase rams, or deliver flowers.  I explored (happily too, much of the time) at my own leisure.  Surely the breech could wait, I had great bears to find and kill for a stylish pair of shoes!  

 

Now, I love the game and there was plenty it did correctly, and well.   I would be lying though if I said that one of those things was making me feel a sense of urgency, impending doom, or even a connection to my own character (and to a lesser extent, the companion characters - with a few striking personal exceptions of course).

 

I am guessing it is partly growing pains rather than an inability to do these things. They have, after all, done it successfully before, quite handily at that.   They simply have to grow into the new engine perhaps, and find a way to bring the big bad world into a smaller scope for cutscenes and certain quests so the world maintains PERSONAL impact, even at a large size.  Part of that is done through direction, and part of it is through building of our characters and their bonds to the people and world around them.   Through timing, to feel a sense of urgency - through loss or gain - real consequence that is immediate and strong so we feel it, regret or not.   I don't think it is a trivialization of the story as much as perhaps, fans previous connection was taken for granted as already established.  It is the people who love the lore, love the dragon age world as a whole that will care about these differences of course.  If you just want to play a good game, you push the kill button and cheer along, with less matter to what came before.  

 

 

[Poison_Berrie]

I agree.

It's a missed opportunity not to see a blighted area in Ferelden. I guess Crestwood is supposed to be that, but it falls flat because it's mostly just the mayor and remains of blighted citizens. Would have been nice to be at a place that bordered on lands that are barely inhabitable because of the blight. Where people try to make a living because it's their home.

The Western Approach, is nothing but Blighted lands, but that's in the distant past and is empty of anything that could garner sympathy. 

 

I agree with this read. When comparing the Darkspawn threat to the Mages/Templar threat, it makes sense within the lore of the universe for Inquisition to make M/T's the central focus and, to an extent, trivialize the Darkspawn one. BUT, it may be easier for the player to reconcile with M/T threat because it's a problem we more or less recognize and relate to--i.e., humans. Darkspawn are an alien subject, therefore it's harder to relate to them; so the player might end up feeling more threatened by their presence despite the game's insistence that Mages/Templars is the bigger issue.

M/T isn't the central focus, though, as the the OP said. I agree with Poledo, for something that was presented as so fundamental, we are quick to resolve with little more than some wartable missions and character opinions on it afterwards.

[sch1986]

This is a good point, and could have made for an interesting conflict, I think. I mean.. I've seen that you do at least hear some voices of opposition against the decision... I think, Blackwall and Iron Bull say something about it after you've already done it.
 
But before that, no one protests that if we're actually fighting an archdemon, we might want to keep the Wardens around; no one attempts to appeal to the emotional aspect of the "forgotten heroes" story; no one suggests that the Wardens are no more dangerous than the Mages, Templars, or Qunari; that side is not presented, iirc. I remember Loghain talking about the Warden duty against the Blight, but if he said anything about the apparent necessity of Wardens when an Archdemon shows up, I don't remember it (and if anyone should be bringing that issue up, it would be him).
 
But it's trivialized because either way, it doesn't matter. The risk for keeping them around seems presented (somewhat. Now that they know better, it shouldn't be a problem), but the risk for exiling them (imo) isn't, and ultimately, either way works, so who cares?
 
It wouldn't bother me so much if so many more of the decisions weren't also like this. I don't mean to advocate punishing players for their decisions to make certain choices, but if no action ever leads to a negative outcome, then there is no illusion of risk.

I see. So you're disappointed that the warden decision has little impact on the game? I hadn't considered what the implications would be if Corypheus' dragon had been an arch demon. I can't remember at what point in the story it was confirmed that the dragon was not an Archdemon (although they do make it clear that people are doubtful of it being an actual Archdemon.)

I can't say for certain yet- but I think the reasons for this are because it is a plot line to be resolved in another game. All roads sort of lead to Weisshaupt at this point. Also- it could be they don't mention Arch demon killing implications of exiling wardens because the Inquisition still believes that Blackwall is a warden at this point (and are assuming he is willing to do his civic duty as a warden should the threat arise.). Although it would have been nice if someone pointed this out at the time.

As for the decisions not meaning as much as you think they should- I think this is an unfortunate side effect of Bioware not being able to write a totally different sequel for each player. For some important decisions to get more than passing nod from an NPC might mean totally different games for different people. Oh you exiled the wardens? Guess what? Now there's a blight and you have no wardens, what are you going to do?

Oh you let the wardens stay? Well you do have wardens so I guess you have a fighting chance. Although it would be cool if they could include future "optional" missions that's you received dependent on what choices you made in previous games (sort of like Alistair vs. Loghain vs. stroud but in mission form).

[In Exile]

This is a good point, and could have made for an interesting conflict, I think. I mean.. I've seen that you do at least hear some voices of opposition against the decision... I think, Blackwall and Iron Bull say something about it after you've already done it.

But before that, no one protests that if we're actually fighting an archdemon, we might want to keep the Wardens around; no one attempts to appeal to the emotional aspect of the "forgotten heroes" story; no one suggests that the Wardens are no more dangerous than the Mages, Templars, or Qunari; that side is not presented, iirc. I remember Loghain talking about the Warden duty against the Blight, but if he said anything about the apparent necessity of Wardens when an Archdemon shows up, I don't remember it (and if anyone should be bringing that issue up, it would be him).

But it's trivialized because either way, it doesn't matter. The risk for keeping them around seems presented (somewhat. Now that they know better, it shouldn't be a problem), but the risk for exiling them (imo) isn't, and ultimately, either way works, so who cares?

It wouldn't bother me so much if so many more of the decisions weren't also like this. I don't mean to advocate punishing players for their decisions to make certain choices, but if no action ever leads to a negative outcome, then there is no illusion of risk.

The only risk for exiling them is tied to the very failing of the Wardens: their obsession with preserving secrets that should not be preserved and whose being brought to light might actually save lives. The Wardens have a monopoly on killing archdemons that (1) no one knows about and (2) might not even be the best way of dealing with the problem.

[nightscrawl]

The only risk for exiling them is tied to the very failing of the Wardens: their obsession with preserving secrets that should not be preserved and whose being brought to light might actually save lives. The Wardens have a monopoly on killing archdemons that (1) no one knows about and (2) might not even be the best way of dealing with the problem.

I've thought this too. I've never completely bought the "must keep secrets" logic anyway.

Even if details of the joining were made known you would still have people wanting to sign up for the potential glory, especially young men who have no fear of death or think they will be the ones to survive. Also, every recruitment situation in DAO, as well as some examples from the novels, shows them recruiting people who have no alternative or who would likely have died anyway. The joining at least gives them a higher chance than they might have had.

As far as Archdemon killing is concerned, it has always just seemed to me that if they told everyone they would all be like "OOOOH why didn't you say so?!" Particularly in light of the perceived view in DAO (by the public at large and certain NPCs) that Grey Wardens aren't "needed" to stop the Blight. In DAO when you wake up in camp after dreaming of the Archdemon, you can ask Alistair why Duncan didn't tell people about it. The response is "He did, he said he felt the Archdemon's presence. Everyone just assumed he was guessing." Well if your stupid order didn't keep secrets this **** wouldn't happen.

[In Exile]

I've thought this too. I've never completely bought the "must keep secrets" logic anyway.

Even if details of the joining were made known you would still have people wanting to sign up for the potential glory, especially young men who have no fear of death or think they will be the ones to survive. Also, every recruitment situation in DAO, as well as some examples from the novels, shows them recruiting people who have no alternative or who would likely have died anyway. The joining at least gives them a higher chance than they might have had.

As far as Archdemon killing is concerned, it has always just seemed to me that if they told everyone they would all be like "OOOOH why didn't you say so?!" Particularly in light of the perceived view in DAO (by the public at large and certain NPCs) that Grey Wardens aren't "needed" to stop the Blight. In DAO when you wake up in camp after dreaming of the Archdemon, you can ask Alistair why Duncan didn't tell people about it. The response is "He did, he said he felt the Archdemon's presence. Everyone just assumed he was guessing." Well if your stupid order didn't keep secrets this **** wouldn't happen.

I don't think the wardens have to publicly announce that the only way to become a GW is to take part into a blood magic ritual that turns you into a ghoul with a longer expiration date if you're lucky enough that it doesn't kill you outright. That would probably have gotten them exterminated by the Chantry.

But there's a middle ground here.

What I do think is stupid is their keeping secret the sole reason for their existence which is that the have to kill the archdemon themselves for it to stay dead. Their plan in DAO literally dooms Ferelden: they all fight in the Vanguard and risk their lives for no benefit. The GWs aren't shock troops. They're not even troops. They're a resource that has to be preserved at all costs.

[hong]

Demons, nothing removes the fear or impact of something more than making them the peons of the game that you slaughter in vast numbers effortlessly.

Yes, this is what Mass Effect 3 did so well. The real enemy is the reapers, but you spend the majority of the game fighting everyone else but the reapers. This makes for a good story. Said nobody, ever.

[ChachiBobinks]

Yes, this is what Mass Effect 3 did so well. The real enemy is the reapers, but you spend the majority of the game fighting everyone else but the reapers. This makes for a good story. Said nobody, ever.

 

I'd say that, actually.

 

However, it's not like the reapers being a threat was some big secret. We couldn't fight the reapers and had a lot of other baddies to get. A game where you ignore the lesser threat in order to throw yourself haplessly at the bigger one while you're unprepared would be a pretty miserable game, don't you think? 

 

So if this same formula was applied to Dragon Age, and we spend time fighting everything that doesn't matter, then I don't see why that doesn't work in the same exact way, imho.