Because it's Dragon Age, because it names itself after a genocidal and power hungry organisation, and fails totally to live up to either part of it's name.
But as this thread is meant to show, previous dragon age games had nothing of the sort of weird murder fantasy you're talking about or requesting. At most you got to perform petty evil deeds for little to no gain while your companions stood around being ineffectual as their moral code was trampled upon.
Trading Connors soul for blood magic springs to mind or having Branka use casteless to make Golems, or helping the Werewolves wipe out a dalish clan to gain their help, or slaughtering mages in the tower to gain templars support...
Guest_Roly Voly_*
For the record, it takes place during THE DRAGON AGE. It is impossible for the game to not live up to that portion of its name, regardless of your (wrong) opinion about the second half.
1 million dead in the first Inquisition aka the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisitor in charge gave the order to kill them all, God will know his own....if that isn't genocidal I do not know what it takes.
Guest_Roly Voly_*
Wait. Are you comparing a real life happening with a game because they use the same word? This Inquisition is based on one that happened before the forming of the Chantry. It has nothing to do with anything the Roman Catholic Church did.
Wait. Are you comparing a real life happening with a game because they use the same word? This Inquisition is based on one that happened before the forming of the Chantry. It has nothing to do with anything the Roman Catholic Church did.
Not to mention he's conflating the Inquisition with a Crusade, even though the Medieval Inquisition was actually only established in the aftermath of the Crusade in question, not the impetuous for it.
I agree with an earlier poster that these threads would be a lot easier for discussion if they were posited in a more neutral manner, for example a general discussion about the tone instead of asking what is wrong with it. Also, while I did appreciate the attempts at explanation in the video, I found myself inadvertently groaning when it basically mentioned the decline of darkness in DA games after DAO, as I find DA2 a much darker game than either DAO and DAI.
For the actual tone of DAI, I actually found it to be about as dark DAO, if one can actually really measure such things. For me, personally, what makes a game dark and mature is not the amount of blood and graphic violence in the game, but rather the themes explored in the game and how much it tries to challenge and raise questions on those themes. As DAI never really challenges anything, it at times prompts discussions about faith but even kept them, again my opinion, on a really simple and almost meaningless level. This isn't a bash against the game, it was what it was intended to be, and I felt DAO was essentially the same with all the problems having really clear choices where often one option was clearly the moral choice. Also neither game really had that mundanity of evil that you got in DA2, if that makes any sense. Somehow the evil forces in both DAO and DAI were too epic and grand, again I am struggling for the correct word here, for it to really feel dark for me.
I, however, must repeat that this isn't meant as a knock against DAO or DAI, because it isn't what those games strove to be. As stories, both DAO and DAI were epic high fantasy hero's journeys, where the hero overcomes the initial setback to overcome the overwhelming forces arrayed against them. Such narratives are rarely truly dark due to the story elements involved.
I think the better question would be that has the tone of Thedas turned brighter in DAI, which is something I would argue against as the world itself is as dark as ever.
Trading Connors soul for blood magic springs to mind or having Branka use casteless to make Golems, or helping the Werewolves wipe out a dalish clan to gain their help, or slaughtering mages in the tower to gain templars support...
Not to mention he's conflating the Inquisition with a Crusade, even though the Medieval Inquisition was actually only established in the aftermath of the Crusade in question, not the impetuous for it.
I'd say all 3 have been pretty close. DAO has the broodmothers, DA2 has FrankenLeandra, and DAI has Fiona (and other people) becoming an incubator for red lyrium.
Frankenstein was the scientist, not the monster. Why everybody mistakes one for the other?
Frankenstein was the scientist, not the monster. Why everybody mistakes one for the other?
Lack of a proper English Lit curriculum, the erosion of all things complex and nuanced by pop culture, Hollywood ... take your pick.
(Frankenstein was and is one of my absolute favorite novels of all time! Take all my salty tears pls)
Because it's Dragon Age, because it names itself after a genocidal and power hungry organisation, and fails totally to live up to either part of it's name.
Yes well I'm pretty sure the real Templar Order wasn't a religious military order of anti-magic knights either.
That tends to be the reason behind most of these complaints about "not dark enough." People are mad they can't run around murder knifing people like the Warden could.
And it's hilarious when you remember the developers/writers words on this subject.
Frankenstein was the scientist, not the monster. Why everybody mistakes one for the other?
Because the name has been attributed to the monster for about as long as the story has been around, in spite of the monster's name not being Frankenstein? Really, who cares? It's a better name for a monster than "Adam", like his name in the original story.
Because it's Dragon Age, because it names itself after a genocidal and power hungry organisation, and fails totally to live up to either part of it's name.
A game called 'Dragon Age' has dragons in it (more dragons than either previous game, at that). It lives up to its name on that front.
Also, which part of the title contains 'genocidal and power-hungry organization", because I've been staring at the box art for DAI for the past 20 minutes trying to find it.
A journey from dark grainy graphics to shiny new graphics.
This video sums up pretty much everything I find wrong with the tone and 'colour' of inquisition.
This sums up pretty much everything I find wrong with the tone and colour of pyjamas.
Ah, right. Now I understand.
You're pissed because you couldn't run around murdering people.
well if you are going to name you game after the Inquisition AKA an Organisation that made the SS look like spoiled children or the NKVD look like mall security, then YES, live up to the name or do not use it.
Yes well I'm pretty sure the real Templar Order wasn't a religious military order of anti-magic knights either.
No, they where the Christian Taliban. Given the lore worthy gang rape, torture and lobotomies they commit, the tone was right, they left out he paedophilia, but I would have as well, so they did it right, they where mass murdering rapists, like the templars in RL, basically ISIS, for instance Reyanud de Chatillion, liked women and spears, if you want to need mind bleach look it up.
No, they where the Christian Taliban. Given the lore worthy gang rape, torture and lobotomies they commit, the tone was right, they left out he paedophilia, but I would have as well, so they did it right, they where mass murdering rapists, like the templars in RL, basically ISIS, for instance Reyanud de Chatillion liked babies and spears, if you want to need mind bleach look it up.
The falsehoods in this are absolutely astounding. I think you've been watching too much Kingdom of Heaven. Reynauld de Chatillion was never a part of the Order. The real Templars are nothing like how they are sometimes depicted in the media.
He wasn't, he is a recognisable name however. he didn't rape arab children as the Templars did, he didn't kill entire villages for fun, as the Templars did, he is however easily googable as a Knight of the time and place. (I was wrong about Reyanud and children I corrected it)
However the Templars where not any worse than the Varangian Guard or the later Janissaries, or indeed the Hospitalers or average crusaders, you invoke the middle ages, let alone organisations famous for sadism and barbarity, you open that box.
He wasn't, he is a recognisable name however. he didn't rape arab children as the Templars did, he didn't kill entire villages for fun, as the Templars did, he is however easily googable as a Knight of the time and place.
However the Templars where not any worse than the Varangian Guard or the later Janissaries, or indeed the Hospitalers or average crusaders.
The Templars behaved quite differently than Knights of the time and place. In fact, they and the Hospitallers treated their opponents quite humanely.
Soldiers yes, everyone else hell no.
Soldiers yes, everyone else hell no.
Care to provide sources for your accusations, or are you making things up as you go along.
via PM I will yea, we have torn this off topic far enough (EDIT or read:
By Sword and Fire: Cruelty And Atrocity In Medieval Warfare: The Savage Reality of Medieval Warfare)
No, they where the Christian Taliban. Given the lore worthy gang rape, torture and lobotomies they commit, the tone was right, they left out he paedophilia, but I would have as well, so they did it right, they where mass murdering rapists, like the templars in RL, basically ISIS, for instance Reyanud de Chatillion, liked women and spears, if you want to need mind bleach look it up.
The Templars were hardly rapists who went around torturing and lobotomizing people. Most of them weren't even soldiers or combatants so much as they were monks or nobles.
Reynald de Chatillon wasn't even a Templar (or rather, there's no actual evidence to support his being affiliated with them at all).
Retour en haut