126 réponses à ce sujet

[B.A. Broska]

Bioware's strong point to me has always been building worlds with loads of lore and creating great characters. The problem Bioware has is telling a story within the worlds they create. I think Bioware really needs to work on their story telling for their games. If they would work on writing a more cohesive story and really focus on having better pacing, Bioware's games could be so much better.  

 

Personally I don't think I would put world building as one of their strengths, maybe (and that is a strong maybe) with Mass Effect but not with Dragon Age which would probably have to be one of the blandest and most uninteresting renditions of stock standard Tolkien inspired fantasy, personally I am not even sure the writers know where the are going with the lore as with every new game they just seem to make up things on the spot without any real rhyme or reason.

[Liamv2]

Personally I find that DA's setting is an interesting twist on typical fantasy. While it suffers from a few generic bit's such as the darkspawn it still remains interesting.

[B.A. Broska]

Seriously? They have a ton of stuff that they've clearly been building on. All the elven stuff for example, and Mythal in particular. I don't know that they were planning that in DA O, but I bet they were in DA ][ and in Witch Hunt.

 

I do not question that they are building on the Lore, I am questioning the craftsmanship with which they are building it and the quality of the parts they are using, you can build a second story onto your house but unless you have a solid foundation to support this new addition the whole house just crumbles.

 

DA does have a lot of bland countries we know very little about outside of reading text, but the Tevinter Imperium is pretty distinguishable, as are Ferelden and Orlais. Though I've never read any Tolkien so I wouldn't know how that's automatically bad.

 

Tevinter being evil and the embodiment of everything you hate, Orlais being french and eccentric with kinkier tastes, and Ferelden being brown dog land? Never said being Tolkien inspired was bad but you do need some distinguishing feature other than being a blander rendition of Tolkien.

 

I personally agree with JohnWayne, that that is Bioware's real strong point. Heck--were you here in the wake of DA ][? I cannot tell you the amount of conversations had about mages and templars--back and forth, back and forth, for thousands of pages. That means that Bioware's created something ingenious in its ability to invoke such debate. With Dorian they've introduced a slightly more nuanced view of the Tevinter Imperium. DA I hinted at additional revelations for the Qunari as well (I didn't like them much before, but we'll see where they take it).

 

I must admit I never really payed much attention to the Mage vs Templar debate but if it is anything like the Loghain debates then the debate does not stem from deep and thoughtful writing but rather contradictory and inconsistent writing that allows the players to form 2 entirely different and contradictory conclusions, each conclusion has evidence to support it but each piece of evidence contradicts the opposite conclusion, the game and lore tell us one thing but show another which leads to a circular debate where both sides of the debate are both right and wrong at the same time due to contradictions in the writing, while this may be an ingenious way to evoke debate it is not a sign of good writing.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The person who keeps the inquisition from collapsing:

 

 

Mother Giselle is kinda like Joker when Collectors attack Normandy.

 

I want some of you to change your username to hers for her deed.

[Dermain]

I want EA to outsource the development of combat gameplay to Capcom or something.

 

Uh...why exactly?

 

 

I do not question that they are building on the Lore, I am questioning the craftsmanship with which they are building it and the quality of the parts they are using, you can build a second story onto your house but unless you have a solid foundation to support this new addition the whole house just crumbles.

 

Which parts exactly? You're being a bit too vague.

 

 

Tevinter being evil and the embodiment of everything you hate, Orlais being french and eccentric with kinkier tastes, and Ferelden being brown dog land? Never said being Tolkien

inspired was bad but you do need some distinguishing feature other than being a blander rendition of Tolkien.

 

How exactly is Tevinter "evil and the embodiment of everything you hate"? Tevinter is certainly no Mordor, or would you list the Qunari as Mordor? I'm also having issues linking Orlais with anything Tolkien related, maybe Gondor? I suppose Ferelden could be Rohan, but even that's iffy.

 

Unless you're using Tolkien inspired as a catch all for all fantasy since it has humans, elves, dwarves, and some sort of evil race (darkspawn).

 

I must admit I never really payed much attention to the Mage vs Templar debate but if it is anything like the Loghain debates then the debate does not stem from deep and thoughtful writing but rather contradictory and inconsistent writing that allows the players to form 2 entirely different and contradictory conclusions, each conclusion has evidence to support it but each piece of evidence contradicts the opposite conclusion, the game and lore tell us one thing but show another which leads to a circular debate where both sides of the debate are both right and wrong at the same time due to contradictions in the writing, while this may be an ingenious way to evoke debate it is not a sign of good writing.

 

How are the conclusions contradictory?

[Linkenski]

They tried to change it with DA2 and arguably ME2 as well but they fumbled. Personally I think they should keep fumbling until they hit a really good note but I understand the danger of doing that and why they have gone back to the safe formula.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I have some complex thoughts on this issue since they relate to RPG game design and my thoughts on RPG game design are never simple (nor cogent). 

 

But long story short, I think the formula isn't necessarily flawed, it's the execution. Simply put, I think BioWare has lost the ability to write and design in a way that best fits to the formula they've etched for themselves. Not due to laziness or anything like that. I have also noted this phenomenon at Piranha Bytes, who made the Gothic and now Risen games (though the specific issues are different).

 

I'd also argue Creative Assembly with the Total War series are on the verge of the same (though again, specific issues are different).

 

Both the moves from a textbox to cinematic dialog and silent to voiced protagonist (along with audience expectations and technological advancements) have affected how player interaction/dialog systems need to work within the formula and BioWare have not really adapted all that well. They try to straddle the line between an imaginative, player-driven protagonist with cinematography. The two ideas are very contradictory and the former is not well suited to the style of the latter. Though that is not at the heart of it. Just an example.

[B.A. Broska]

Which parts exactly? You're being a bit too vague.

 

All of it? If I am being vague it is because there is simply too much to list in one post.

 

How exactly is Tevinter "evil and the embodiment of everything you hate"? Tevinter is certainly no Mordor, or would you list the Qunari as Mordor? I'm also having issues linking Orlais with anything Tolkien related, maybe Gondor? I suppose Ferelden could be Rohan, but even that's iffy.

 

Unless you're using Tolkien inspired as a catch all for all fantasy since it has humans, elves, dwarves, and some sort of evil race (darkspawn).

 

Basically using Tokien inspired as a catch all for any medieval fantasy universe that uses the standard cliches that all Tolkien inspired works use, like elves, dwarves ect.

 

As for Tevinter being evil and the embodiment of everything you are supposed to hate lets see, the nation is notoriously decadent and have a class based ruling government that will do anything to maintain power, they oppress their lower class citizens and endorse slavery and blood magic (well the wiki says blood magic is "technically" illegal but everybody uses it and the laws are never enforced so it is a moot point), the nobles are sexually deviant yet despite this they still oppressive when it comes to same sex relationships, the only time homosexuality is considered ok is if you do it in a deviant way and use sex slaves, but an innocent and loving same sex relationship between 2 members of the nobility is considered a no-no, I honestly would not be surprised to learn they are also oppressive towards women's rights as well considering Bioware's propensity towards social justice.

 

It would honestly be far easier to list Tevinter's more redeemable qualities as I am sure the list would be much shorter to the point of being non-existent.

 

How are the conclusions contradictory?

 

Lets see, the 3 main conclusions that can be drawn for Loghain character are that he is either the misguided patriot just doing what he believes is right in order to ensure the survival of his country, the power hungry usurper who will do anything to gain power and put himself into a position of authority despite his unsuitability for the role, and the mustachio twirling villain who does stuff merely to paint himself as the mustachio twirling villain.

 

Of course the "misguided patriot just doing what he believes is right in order to ensure the survival of his country" is the conclusion that we are supposed to get and all the information given about Loghain after he is spared execution and joins your party is supposed to paint him as such, but all his actions before this point totally contradict this theory and point more to the other 2 conclusions. The only way Loghain makes sense as a character is if we accept the 4th and final conclusion that Loghain is in fact a schizophrenic with split personality disorder.

[Fast Jimmy]

That sounds like a terrible idea tbh. Make the player hate leveling up, progressing the story, building any sort of relationships, exploring any part of the world for fear of getting weaker, and eventually tossing the game aside with a disappointed "What was even the point" attitude. If any, it incentives less roleplaying and less immersion in the story, because while the current formula may make you question "what was the point" some of the time, there is 0 way to escape that question at all times if playing the game is literally making your character suck and get less good at playing.

 

Mainly because I can't see any choices or ending mattering, nor conflict nor see any reason you could give the player other than the sweet promise of ending the game and getting the credits over with. Like, how the hell you going to have a story about fighting someone when ****** slime can kill you? When level 0 tutorial baddies are now dark souls level skeletons, how you gonna have branching endings that aren't all the same? "Main character died alone, weak, and inept, while the villian won the game without even trying. The end".

 

Good writing? I mean... better writing than DA2 where it says "you are uber powerful in gameplay, but here is forced suck that you must eat with a grin." 

 

While Banner Saga doesn't do this explicitly, it DOES make you feel that you are slowly losing things as you progress through the story. Your clan grows smaller, your party list has death and loss on a regular basis and the enemies you fight get progressively more powerful faster than your party's strength grows. Even the ending (no spoilers) embraces loss and sacrifice and makes all of the choices in the game feel as if they had a strong influence, even if nearly all aspects of the story railroad into one rough outcome.

 

I'm not 100% married to the idea, but with some ingenuity and talent applied, it could be an interesting take on the standard power-progression formula.

[B.A. Broska]

Good writing? I mean... better writing than DA2 where it says "you are uber powerful in gameplay, but here is forced suck that you must eat with a grin." 

 

While Banner Saga doesn't do this explicitly, it DOES make you feel that you are slowly losing things as you progress through the story. Your clan grows smaller, your party list has death and loss on a regular basis and the enemies you fight get progressively more powerful faster than your party's strength grows. Even the ending (no spoilers) embraces loss and sacrifice and makes all of the choices in the game feel as if they had a strong influence, even if nearly all aspects of the story railroad into one rough outcome.

 

I'm not 100% married to the idea, but with some ingenuity and talent applied, it could be an interesting take on the standard power-progression formula.

 

I must admit I wasn't sold on your initial pitch but now you put it like that it does sound like it could work.

[Fast Jimmy]

I must admit I wasn't sold on your initial pitch but now you put it like that it does sound like it could work.

 

Admittedly, my initial pitch was said with a little tongue in cheek. But I decided to give it some actual substance in my response.

[B.A. Broska]

Admittedly, my initial pitch was said with a little tongue in cheek. But I decided to give it some actual substance in my response.

 

Ah I thought so but then people sort of took it seriously which got me a little confused, but that said I don't mind the idea of a game where the protagonist deals more with loss of some sort over time instead of becoming steadily more awesome.

[Dermain]

All of it? If I am being vague it is because there is simply too much to list in one post.

 

Uh...ok then...

 

Basically using Tokien inspired as a catch all for any medieval fantasy universe that uses the standard cliches that all Tolkien inspired works use, like elves, dwarves ect.

 

As for Tevinter being evil and the embodiment of everything you are supposed to hate lets see, the nation is notoriously decadent and have a class based ruling government that will do anything to maintain power, they oppress their lower class citizens and endorse slavery and blood magic (well the wiki says blood magic is "technically" illegal but everybody uses it and the laws are never enforced so it is a moot point), the nobles are sexually deviant yet despite this they still oppressive when it comes to same sex relationships, the only time homosexuality is considered ok is if you do it in a deviant way and use sex slaves, but an innocent and loving same sex relationship between 2 members of the nobility is considered a no-no, I honestly would not be surprised to learn they are also oppressive towards women's rights as well considering Bioware's propensity towards social justice.

 

It would honestly be far easier to list Tevinter's more redeemable qualities as I am sure the list would be much shorter to the point of being non-existent.

 

Well then you're doing a disservice to Tolkien.

 

Tevinter is no less evil than the rest of the countries in the DA universe. All governments do whatever they can to maintain power. The only difference with Tevinter is that they're all mages, and all mages are bad k? Despite what we may be told, slavery isn't vilified by everyone either, and we still don't know how said slaves are treated by the vast majority of their owners. Slavery with bad treatment is unacceptable, but slavery with decent-good treatment is questionable. I'm not even going to touch the sexuality/gender part.

 

 

Lets see, the 3 main conclusions that can be drawn for Loghain character are that he is either the misguided patriot just doing what he believes is right in order to ensure the survival of his country, the power hungry usurper who will do anything to gain power and put himself into a position of authority despite his unsuitability for the role, and the mustachio twirling villain who does stuff merely to paint himself as the mustachio twirling villain.

 

Of course the "misguided patriot just doing what he believes is right in order to ensure the survival of his country" is the conclusion that we are supposed to get and all the information given about Loghain after he is spared execution and joins your party is supposed to paint him as such, but all his actions before this point totally contradict this theory and point more to the other 2 conclusions. The only way Loghain makes sense as a character is if we accept the 4th and final conclusion that Loghain is in fact a schizophrenic with split personality disorder.

 

Why does he only have to be one of those two (I'm ignoring the villain part for the moment)? Loghain can be BOTH a misguided patriot and a power hungry usurper, it's not really a leap. If Loghain believes that Cailan's policies will endanger the stability of Fereleden and he also believes that he's the only one that can save it, then it's not contradictory. It's only contradictory if you can't see a person as well being a person by consisting of good and bad traits. 

 

As for being a mustachioed twirling villain, he's not. If he believes he's the only one that can save Fereleden then he is understandably going to try to stop people that he believes would hinder that. He has other motivations besides "AHAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL! I DO EVIL THINGS! AHAHAHAHA! DIE, DIE, DIE, DIE, DIE! AHAHAHAHA!" like actual mustachioed twirling villains...

 

On a side note, Loghain does not have any symptoms of schizophrenia, nor does he have any overt symptoms of dissociative personality disorder. This is one of the areas where I wish the public would actually understand these disorders, and not use their names in situations where they do not apply to describe "crazy" people.

[The Hierophant]

Uh...why exactly?

http://vignette2.wik...=20121010234044

[Dermain]

http://vignette2.wik...=20121010234044

 

I wasn't much of a fan of Dragons Dogma's combat.

[The Hierophant]

I wasn't much of a fan of Dragons Dogma's combat.

Awww, but me? I love it.

[B.A. Broska]

Well then you're doing a disservice to Tolkien.

 

Tevinter is no less evil than the rest of the countries in the DA universe. All governments do whatever they can to maintain power. The only difference with Tevinter is that they're all mages, and all mages are bad k? Despite what we may be told, slavery isn't vilified by everyone either, and we still don't know how said slaves are treated by the vast majority of their owners. Slavery with bad treatment is unacceptable, but slavery with decent-good treatment is questionable. I'm not even going to touch the sexuality/gender part.

 

Spare me Dermain, Tolkien inspired is a common catch all term used to describe a series that uses the common tropes found in most medieval fantasy universes, while it may not be Tolkien per se that inspired these fantasy universes but rather Dungeons and Dragons (which was inspired by Tolkien) you can't deny that the popularity of using many of the common fantasy tropes that many use in the genre did stem from Tolkien, what would you prefer me to call the genre?

 

But back on the subject, you still haven't listed Tevinter's redeemable qualities that make them seem like less of a nation of total assholes, and while we don't know how EVERY slave owner treats their slaves (though even if the owners aren't outright dicks to their slaves slavery is still a dick move) we have seen several glimpses of what they can expect from being used to fuel blood magic (which is the cause of every problem in Thedas because reasons) rituals to being subject to experiments where they have lyrium grafted to their skin, not sure the existence of a slave in Tevinter is a pleasurable one.

 

While the other nations of Thedas have their elements of douchebaggery they are generally nowhere near as big a douchebags as Tevinter and dare I say even show a level of idealism and progressiveness (especially if they find themselves under the guidance of the noble king Alistair) that would seem out of place if we were to take Dragon Age serious as a Dark Fantasy universe like the developers so often tried to market it as.

 

Also while I never said "Mages are bad k" that does seem to be a common theme in Dragon Age 2 so perhaps that is another trait the writers intended to clue the player in that Tevinter are the bad guys? (don't take that last line seriously, while I would hope I would not need to point that out the last part of your post where you lecture me on the nature of schizophrenia and why Loghain does not have it seems to suggest otherwise)

 

Why does he only have to be one of those two (I'm ignoring the villain part for the moment)? Loghain can be BOTH a misguided patriot and a power hungry usurper, it's not really a leap. If Loghain believes that Cailan's policies will endanger the stability of Fereleden and he also believes that he's the only one that can save it, then it's not contradictory. It's only contradictory if you can't see a person as well being a person by consisting of good and bad traits. 

 

Is Loghain doing it because he loves his country and wishes to protect it at any cost or is he doing it because he desires power and prestige and doesn't care what he has to do in the process even if it involves betraying his King and destroying the very county he supposedly loves? These are 2 contradictory motives, it is entirely possible for a person to consist of both good and bad traits, in fact this is one of the qualities of being human and I challenge you to find anyone who consists of either only good or only bad traits but the traits that Loghain show contradict each other as if there were 2 entirely different people inhabiting the same body.

 

As for being a mustachioed twirling villain, he's not. If he believes he's the only one that can save Fereleden then he is understandably going to try to stop people that he believes would hinder that. He has other motivations besides "AHAHAHAHAHA I AM EVIL! I DO EVIL THINGS! AHAHAHAHA! DIE, DIE, DIE, DIE, DIE! AHAHAHAHA!" like actual mustachioed twirling villains...

 

Well the evidence certainly does paint him as such, I mean I find it hard to believe that even the power hungry usurper would do what Loghain does as some of his actions serve no real purpose other than to establish what a dick he is and provide evidence for the player to use to turn people against him. I mean he does not even try to explain the whole selling the elves into slavery thing, his reason for selling the elves into slavery is that the Alienage is a squalid hellhole so his solution was to sell the elves into an even worse existence? What!?!? Not sure what he hoped to gain by poisoning Eamon (which he had already set in motion before Cailan was abandoned) other than keeping a large portion of the Ferelden military out of action in a time of crisis.

 

Then you have the part after the battle plan at Ostagar where he turns and gives the camera a sinister look and says "yes Cailan, a glorious moment for us all" in a tone that implies that he is about to do something nefarious, the only thing missing was the sinister laugh with lightning flashing in the background. 

[Seraphim24]

I must admit I never really payed much attention to the Mage vs Templar debate but if it is anything like the Loghain debates then the debate does not stem from deep and thoughtful writing but rather contradictory and inconsistent writing that allows the players to form 2 entirely different and contradictory conclusions, each conclusion has evidence to support it but each piece of evidence contradicts the opposite conclusion, the game and lore tell us one thing but show another which leads to a circular debate where both sides of the debate are both right and wrong at the same time due to contradictions in the writing, while this may be an ingenious way to evoke debate it is not a sign of good writing.

 

Ah, so that's kind of why the DA:2 "debate" never seemed to matter to me. I felt nothing really one way or the other the whole time.

 

However, DA:O I liked more than you I guess because..

 

Well the evidence certainly does paint him as such, I mean I find it hard to believe that even the power hungry usurper would do what Loghain does as some of his actions serve no real purpose other than to establish what a dick he is and provide evidence for the player to use to turn people against him. I mean he does not even try to explain the whole selling the elves into slavery thing, his reason for selling the elves into slavery is that the Alienage is a squalid hellhole so his solution was to sell the elves into an even worse existence? What!?!? Not sure what he hoped to gain by poisoning Eamon (which he had already set in motion before Cailan was abandoned) other than keeping a large portion of the Ferelden military out of action in a time of crisis.

 

Then you have the part after the battle plan at Ostagar where he turns and gives the camera a sinister look and says "yes Cailan, a glorious moment for us all" in a tone that implies that he is about to do something nefarious, the only thing missing was the sinister laugh with lightning flashing in the background. 

 

I don't know.. the basic idea that Cailan was a foolish and reckless king who would sell out the kingdom to his sworn enemies seemed like a good starting point for a competing opinion with him. Poisoning Eamon I guess was because he thought he might be friendly to the Wardens, and all that other stuff, I think was intended to make him out to be more paranoid than sensible. When you talk to him and he recants the gravity of his hatred towards Fereldan it starts to make more sense as paranoid delusional.

 

I guess I would say yeah he didn't come off as totally objective in the grand scheme of things, but I don't know if he was really off about Cailan... even though to be honest that was the thing that made me really dislike him at first.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Wait a '? What happened to to rulers of castle Redcliff and Denerim since DA:O till DA:I?

[Dermain]

Is Loghain doing it because he loves his country and wishes to protect it at any cost or is he doing it because he desires power and prestige and doesn't care what he has to do in the process even if it involves betraying his King and destroying the very county he supposedly loves? These are 2 contradictory motives, it is entirely possible for a person to consist of both good and bad traits, in fact this is one of the qualities of being human and I challenge you to find anyone who consists of either only good or only bad traits but the traits that Loghain show contradict each other as if there were 2 entirely different people inhabiting the same body.

 

They are not contradictory at all since Loghain does not believe he is destroying Ferelden with his actions. In hindsight (if you recruit him), he realizes that he was destroying Ferelden, but that's only because he gets more information about the Darkspawn by becoming a Grey Warden. It's also worth noting that recruiting Loghain is the only way to get his views on the entire issue.

 

Well the evidence certainly does paint him as such, I mean I find it hard to believe that even the power hungry usurper would do what Loghain does as some of his actions serve no real purpose other than to establish what a dick he is and provide evidence for the player to use to turn people against him. I mean he does not even try to explain the whole selling the elves into slavery thing, his reason for selling the elves into slavery is that the Alienage is a squalid hellhole so his solution was to sell the elves into an even worse existence? What!?!? Not sure what he hoped to gain by poisoning Eamon (which he had already set in motion before Cailan was abandoned) other than keeping a large portion of the Ferelden military out of action in a time of crisis.

 

Uh...power hungry people do not care about what they have to do to gain power. It's an even worse combination if they are able to justify it as "saving their country", which is exactly what Loghain does. Every single vile action that he does is justified with the belief that by doing X he is saving Ferelden from the darkspawn/Orlesian invasion. He needed money so he sold elves into slavery. He wanted to become regent unchallenged so he poisons Eamon (the only man that could get enough power to hinder Loghain). He abandons Cailan because he believes that Cailan is too much of a fool to lead Ferelden. 

 

Then you have the part after the battle plan at Ostagar where he turns and gives the camera a sinister look and says "yes Cailan, a glorious moment for us all" in a tone that implies that he is about to do something nefarious, the only thing missing was the sinister laugh with lightning flashing in the background. 

 

The tone is sardonic and ex. He is mocking Cailan with that statement because he believes (correctly) that Cailan has no idea what he is doing. Loghain saw the entire Ostagar campaign as pointless, and had his ideal battle plans overruled by Cailan's incompetence. Duncan even expresses doubt that Cailan's battle plan would work until the battle is right about to start. 

 

If you want a cut and dry mustachioed twirling villain you have Arl Rendon Howe.

[B.A. Broska]

Ah, so that's kind of why the DA:2 "debate" never seemed to matter to me. I felt nothing really one way or the other the whole time.

 

However, DA:O I liked more than you I guess because..

 

 

I don't know.. the basic idea that Cailan was a foolish and reckless king who would sell out the kingdom to his sworn enemies seemed like a good starting point for a competing opinion with him. Poisoning Eamon I guess was because he thought he might be friendly to the Wardens, and all that other stuff, I think was intended to make him out to be more paranoid than sensible. When you talk to him and he recants the gravity of his hatred towards Fereldan it starts to make more sense as paranoid delusional.

 

I guess I would say yeah he didn't come off as totally objective in the grand scheme of things, but I don't know if he was really off about Cailan... even though to be honest that was the thing that made me really dislike him at first.

 

I still don't understand his distrust and betrayal of the Wardens though, I mean his hatred of Orlais is understandable (dem accents) but the Wardens are a multicultural group that don't even originate in Orlais and have always remained neutral in conflicts, blaming them for Cailan's death just seemed like a unnecessary way to make enemies and at the worst time imaginable when the country needed them most, if Loghain truly did pull his men back to save them from further losses in a battle they could not possibly win which many characters from the battle claim (even though reports from other characters like Aveline run contradictory to those claims) and I believe even the lead writer David Gaider himself confirmed as well then I am not sure why he needs to toss the wardens under the bus as a scapegoat, there is just so much about the writing of the series that makes little sense.

[B.A. Broska]

They are not contradictory at all since Loghain does not believe he is destroying Ferelden with his actions.

 

Yes that is probably what the writers meant for him to believe but his actions contradict this belief, even if we take Loghain as a blind fool it is hard to believe that somebody would lack so much self awareness to not see how performing the actions he did were destroying the country from within, especially when it is hard to see what possible benefits any of his actions could have for Ferelden or his position of power, not only are his actions destructive to Ferelden but they also put him in a much weaker position by creating unnecessary enemies which leads to the whole "mustachio twirling villain creating chaos for the sake of it" conclusion

 

Uh...power hungry people do not care about what they have to do to gain power.

 

Which would all be fine and dandy if his actions actually showed any potential to help secure his power base which they did not, as for the claim Ferelden desperately needed the money and the only way to raise it was an under the table deal with Tevinter selling slaves there is no evidence to support this in the game or any official Dragon Age related material so it is nothing more than speculation on your part

 

As for Loghain poisoning Eamon because he wanted to become regent unchallenged his daughter is the queen and I am not sure her right to rule would not have come under such harsh scrutiny if Loghain had not gone out of his way to make an enemy of everyone in the country.

 

We can debate Loghain's intent and characterization until we are black and blue but this is exactly my point, due to the contradictory and inconsistent nature of the writing it is entirely possible for the player to form any number of contradictory conclusions each with a number of contradictory pieces of evidence to support them leading to a circular debate with no end.

[L. Han]

My only nitty bitty with BioWare formulas is how they talk about modern issues in their games. It sometimes feels a bit shoehorned and out of place.

[Riven326]

From KOTOR to Inquisition Bioware has used pretty much the same formula for all of their games, sure the combat gameplay changes quite a bit from title to title but then this has never really been an aspect of Bioware's games that many people take much notice of, it is just accepted as the thing you gotta do to progress, in the end the major focus of their games seem to be the interactive biographies that travel around with your character, even the overarching story seems to play second fiddle to this aspect, but is this enough to carry a game? Does the formula need to change? Will we see a change? Or are you happy for Bioware to keep doing the same thing?

Well, it obviously doesn't need to change. But would I like it to change? Yes.

 

I would prefer BioWare stop giving me non-choices presented as choices in their games.

 

My only nitty bitty with BioWare formulas is how they talk about modern issues in their games. It sometimes feels a bit shoehorned and out of place.

Yes, this too. It's really frustrating to play a BioWare game and feel like certain elements were only added or changed so that BioWare could fly a SJW flag on their front lawn.