821 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Well the ironic/ sad thing much like the Titans the Archdemons seem to be sleeping for a looong period of time until something wakes em up.  Like getting turned into an Archdemon.  So objective one wouldd be to wake the thing up. 

[vbibbi]

a map without purpose is fine. i LOVE storm coast a lot, i also like hissing wastes as it has interesting lore all over the place. Also fallow mire is great imo too.

Yeah I wouldn't have an issue with one or two maps that are independent of the story, I have said similar sentiments on the boards recently. But when we are only required to visit three of the zones to advance the main quest, and WA we can even just run through until we reach the Wardens without actually interacting with the map at all, it dilutes the enjoyment of those zones for me. I appreciate the lore involved in each zone but wanted more of a tie in to the overall game.

 

Really, many of the zones could have been taken out of the game and played as a mini game set in Thedas and they wouldn't have felt out of place.

[vbibbi]

Of course the other big flaw in Inquistion was there weren't enough reversals in the game.  Cory really shoulda won at the Temple of Mythal and made it into the Fade.  

Yeah, either the final fight in the Fade or at Skyhold would have been better for me. Maybe do an Adamant 2.0 and have the Inquisitor and Cory fly into the reopened Breach together. Similar to the ending of BG2 in the pocketplane with the Bhaalspawn and Irenicus both being sucked into it and only one of them can leave.

 

Trespasser really elevated the game for me.
it gave it a purpose as the original vanilla game really was lacking in the end. 
So After Trespasser the purpose of the game is 
The Inquisition it self not Corypheus. everything you do leads up to trespasser
Same as Da2, it was Hawke himself.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it means the base game isn't telling the "complete" story and we have to pay for a DLC ending. And older systems aren't able to even buy the DLC. I enjoyed Trespasser, but I didn't like the business practice behind it.

[vbibbi]

All three of the DA games are flawed in different aspects. Basically your choices in DAO have no consequences (as far as the warden is concerned). For example the warden can let Redcliffe be destroyed, do the Urn of Scared Ashes quest save the arl and still get an army. The warden can decide to go to the Circle tower to save Connor and nothing happens while the party is gone.

It really does not matter who sits on the dwarven throne. The warden still gets an army. The warden is required by the game to go and collect all the armies. There is no option to go with just one or two. It really does not matter if you side with the elves or werewolves. The warden still gets an army.

 

In all three games certain party members will not leave no matter how badly they are treated. The party members in DAO could greatly disapproval and all that is required is to butter them up with gifts. I found DA2's Friendship/Rivalry system better. DAI comes a close second, because you actually have to figure out the personality of the companion.

 

Yes, there is missed opportunities in DAI, the same can be said for DAO and DA2. Why is the warden doing the Blackstone Irregulars quests, Chantry board quests, Quests for Interested parties?

Why is the party pursuing Gaxkang? In DA2 why did Orinso go bat crazy even when Hawke sided with the mages?

 

Also let's not forget that a lot of (for lack of a better word) silliness started with DAO. Such as Scattershot, Superiority. DAA was even more egregious in that regard. That dlc overpowered all the classes especially archer.

 

Every crpg I have played has flaws. Some gamers overlook those flaws because for them it does distract from the overall quality of the game. Others do not overlook them.

YMMV 

True, it would have been interesting if our actions affected how many troops were available at the Battle of Denerim, and then Denerim is destroyed proportionately to our total army strength. Kind of like ME3's war assets...had they actually been implemented well.

 

The trouble with all of Bioware's games is that they probably don't want to create a game state where the player can actually fail. Suboptimal ending, sure, but not where there is actually a possibility of losing the game at the end because of actions done at the beginning. It would be interesting, but for the casual player who only wants to play the game once, they want to be able to win by doing the bare minimum.

 

Also, I wouldn't have minded a return of Suicide Mission mechanics, even if only one part: Your party gets to the mirror and fights Corypheus. You lose and Corypheus kills one of your party members (random, or member with highest affection, or member with least affection) and then enters the Crossroads. Brief, sad scene that pumps you up to whip his ass, then you follow him, final battle.

Yeah, remind us of Cory's threat after Haven. I don't know if we would even need a mandatory death, just follow the Suicide Mission and force the player to work for the best ending.

 

Yeah, I agree, just like deciding who the king of Orzammar was such a thin reason to spend all that time in the Deep Roads, especially if you weren't either of the Dwarven origins.

It's the same mechanics as in most video games, everyone except the PC is incompetent and needs our help. But at least it makes sense that if the Warden is trying to gather an army, we have to jump through Orzammar's hoops to get the dwarves. In the Exalted Plains, we can help the armies or not and it makes no difference anywhere else in the game. It would be better if we had to help the soldiers in order to gain a personal invitation from Celene or Gaspard, or if we didn't help them there were consequences at the Winter Palace. IMO

 

Each zone was plot relevant, but people, in their rush to bash the next baddie in the head, missed the subtext.  In every zone, except maybe the Exalted Plains, you thwart some scheme of Cory's, and I'm not sure that the Exalted Plains didn't have a tie in, in that it kept the armies busy/locked down for WE/WH.

Your definition of plot relevant varies from what I think a lot of the critics consider relevant. Yes, there is a reason why we visit each zone, but the strength of the reasons varies. I don't consider "why are the Venatori digging up dwarven tombs/ancient shards" an extremely relevant use of the Inquisitor's time in fighting Corypheus. If we had had to track the Wardens through the Storm Coast before we could locate Hawke's ally maybe that zone would be relevant, but we can skip it entirely and nothing changes.

[Addictress]

I know people hate Loghain but....I still feel Loghain is a better villain than Corypheus. Loghain

1. Initially reminds us of the hawkish conservative type of people we encounter in our own world, as readers, who always want to rally the public against foreigners. The audience's own preconceptions therefore give the character weight.
2. Used to be a hero, and in fact could have an entire game in which he was a hero protagonist like the HoF, accomplishing great victories and defending the land against the invasive Orlesians. Now he is older and clings to the past victory, and his character asks us: what if the world started to forget what the HoF did? Would the HoF be okay with that? Loghain struggled with this and it is an understandable personal struggle. And it is multifaceted because it juxtaposes with current heroes.
3. You can choose to redeem him based on your understanding of #2, recruiting him. Not just vanquishing him.

Let us look at the dimensions to cory:
1. He wants godhood
2. He was an ancient magister

Okay? Does he struggle with something we relate to? Anything we can juxtapose him with? Did we personally ever play as...his former self? No...okay...

And someone brought up a good point, that perhaps he should be treated as a force of nature rather than a character. The Archdemon was a force of nature, and that worked. But I didn't feel like he was a force of nature. He was an active character with intent and a frequently recited name.

[Addictress]

By making Loghain remind us of real life republicans we already have a whole host of preconceived notions about, good or ill, you automatically attach all those notions to him, thereby automatically scoring a more complex character, simply because of the audience's own personal projections.

[CardButton]

By making Loghain remind us of real life republicans we already have a whole host of preconceived notions about, good or ill, you automatically attach all those notions to him, thereby automatically scoring a more complex character, simply because of the audience's own personal projections.

Well except for the idea that the Warden, instead of charging him for his crimes at Ostagar (which is really hard to prove) could have just as easily charged him for his assassination of the Cousland family line and attempted assassination of Arl Eamon, which he is absolutely guilty of.  Both of which were planned and put in motion before the events of Ostagar (and makes his actions there look even more suspect).

 

It always kind of bothered me that the game just seemed to ... forget that he's behind those events (even if you were playing a Cousland)?   

[MissFlesh]

I adored this game before Trespasser, did every single quest in the game. Then Trespasser came out, played it, and I fell so much deeper in love with the game I just had to replay everything again. Then when I finished that, I just had to playing it one more time! Every time with the same character, just because I had to relive my time with my elven male mage Inquisitor.

I've been playing this game everyday since it was released, and like I said, trespasser got me even more hooked that I just had to replay DA 1 and 2, by the books and the t-shirt just so I could be even more lore nerdy on the next play through. Then I showed the game for my sister and she got just as nerdy as me! She just adored Trespasser as well!

This is definitely in my top 3 games. Wait, I think it shares number one with Zelda: Ocarina Of Time. Wonderful, wonderful work Bioware!

[Mr Fixit]

Also, I wouldn't have minded a return of Suicide Mission mechanics

 

I'm surprised BioWare hasn't tried to follow in the footsteps of the Suicide Mission. The SM -- as well as things leading up to it, like loyalty, ship ugrades -- is a great example of how to tie things together for an explosive finish. Both ME3 and DAI with their epic world(s)-spanning plots needed that jolt of awesome at the end.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I'm surprised BioWare hasn't tried to follow in the footsteps of the Suicide Mission. The SM -- as well as things leading up to it, like loyalty, ship ugrades -- is a great example of how to tie things together for an explosive finish. Both ME3 and DAI with their epic world(s)-spanning plots needed that jolt of awesome at the end.

Such a waste in ME3.  So much potential.  They could have at least showed different cutscenes based on who your allies are.  Instead it's all nothing but a number.

[b09boy]

 

As for the Da2 response aboe you: Hawkes story was Personal and epic. this is why i loved da2 story. it was about the tragic events hawke and his companions got into. The ore you play Da2 the better it becomes. Fact is i really HATED da2 until i gave it another chanceand it clicked!! ti played it 5 times. Never regretted it. Always liked it after the initial bad impression

 

And it took you multiple playthroughs of the story to come to that conclusion.  A good story does not need be told multiple times to finally get it.  That is why the story is so fundamentally broken, because it does not lead into what it is about.  This also doesn't change the fact that the story and setting development is outright not there.  Even those companions you love so much?  They make no sense.  One of them, out of the entire set, only one has any reason to even be in Kirkwall.  The rest have every reason to be anywhere else.  Complete mess.

 

I think Cory was a really good game, and set in movtion some new plot holes, i know ppl hate plot holes, but ALOT of the lore on DA is base on lore that no one knows if is true or no.

 

That's not what a plot hole is.

[b09boy]

I'm surprised BioWare hasn't tried to follow in the footsteps of the Suicide Mission. The SM -- as well as things leading up to it, like loyalty, ship ugrades -- is a great example of how to tie things together for an explosive finish. Both ME3 and DAI with their epic world(s)-spanning plots needed that jolt of awesome at the end.

 

I disagree, at least in part.  I'd like there to be mission preparation, but I think the suicide mission and its prep was bad execution.  Like the loyalty missions.  Hardened veterans and all of them are distracted by petty personal issues in the mission of their lives.  That's ridiculous.  Too much was based around, use this person as a key to this section and if you choose the wrong person they'll die...but the door will still open!  That instead of seeing active gameplay support.  Things like sending a sniper up into a tower to offer fire support throughout a mission, things which aren't simply unlocking doors or choosing who happens to be on your team of low-damage, poor AI dolls who happen to offer a quip here and there.  That they thought of the suicide mission was nice (in a way...it really set ME3 up for failure, but I digress) but fact is they thought small and have yet to utilize anything better.

[Addictress]

And it took you multiple playthroughs of the story to come to that conclusion. A good story does not need be told multiple times to finally get it. That is why the story is so fundamentally broken, because it does not lead into what it is about. This also doesn't change the fact that the story and setting development is outright not there. Even those companions you love so much? They make no sense. One of them, out of the entire set, only one has any reason to even be in Kirkwall. The rest have every reason to be anywhere else. Complete mess.


That's not what a plot hole is.

...no. it took me 1 playthrough. Like less than 1.

The quality of the writing in DA2 is apparent immediately, for many of us.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Even those companions you love so much?  They make no sense.  One of them, out of the entire set, only one has any reason to even be in Kirkwall.  The rest have every reason to be anywhere else.  Complete mess.

 

That's ... isn't true. You could certainly argue that Fenris, Anders and Merrill would be sensible to move elsewhere - but none of them have anywhere else in particular to go, and their problems might have followed them anyway.

 

Varric was born in Kirkwall and has never wanted to live anywhere else. Aveline gets a job she loves within a year of moving there, and then (possibly) marries a native. Sebastian has been living in the Kirkwall Chantry for years and regards it as his home and family. Isabela is there looking for the relic, and then (maybe) comes back because of emotional attachment to Hawke. Bethany and Carver are initially kept there by attachment to their mother, and by the time she dies they either have other reasons to stay or (in the case of a Grey Warden sibling) have actually left. So that's six out of nine who have a perfectly sensible reason to stay, and three who don't think their problems will get better if they leave. (I think that Anders, at least, is wrong about that. But given how he feels about the oppression of mages, it's not strange that he sticks around.)

[Dabrikishaw]

I know people hate Loghain 

Where have you been? This forum loves that character.

[CardButton]

...no. it took me 1 playthrough. Like less than 1.

The quality of the writing in DA2 is apparent immediately, for many of us.

I get there were reasons ... and on a whole I did appreciate what DA2 for at least what it tried to do, but damn if it wasn't super distracting to have the Mages I'm supposed to be sympathizing for (I think) constantly doing everything in their power to prove the Templars harsh actions against them were absolutely justified.  So many Mages (even the First Enchanter) devolved to using Blood Magic and becoming Abominations throughout the course of the game (many of whom I had saved from the Templars in Acts 1 and 2, only to turn on me using such means in Act 3) that by the conclusion of the game I was asking ... maybe I should have let the Arishok sack this city? 

 

I get that there is a very weak spot in the Veil in Kirkwall and that is playing a role (and the oceans of blood in the ruins below it apparently), but there is literally ONE TYPE OF MAGIC a Circle Mage is absolutely never supposed to do and they are literally all doing it!  So can I just go?  Hawke can't you just leave that horrible place and never look back?  Your Moms dead and your sister has left to be a Grey Warden, you have absolutely nothing tying you to Kirkwall anymore, so rather than getting any more involved in this stupid war can't you just take the companions you give a crap about and just go be pirates with Isabella or something? It's not like anything you do in the conclusion actually matters, you're a figurehead at best so just leave! 

 

That kind of thing should really not happen in an RPG, when it genuinely and logically seems like it would make more sense for a protagonist to leave their own story rather than finishing it and there are so few apparent things stopping them from doing so.  

 

Edit: That being said there are some good points to DA2 that shouldn't be ignored, especially the way they "organized" their story.  If Bioware wishes to have a DA installment that is more core-story centric, then splitting it into Acts like they did is a perfectly viable method of doing so. They just need to make sure that if they want to use that style they need a story well written enough to justify the loss of freedom to players.

[Mr Fixit]

I disagree, at least in part.  I'd like there to be mission preparation, but I think the suicide mission and its prep was bad execution.  Like the loyalty missions.  Hardened veterans and all of them are distracted by petty personal issues in the mission of their lives.  That's ridiculous.  Too much was based around, use this person as a key to this section and if you choose the wrong person they'll die...but the door will still open!  That instead of seeing active gameplay support.  Things like sending a sniper up into a tower to offer fire support throughout a mission, things which aren't simply unlocking doors or choosing who happens to be on your team of low-damage, poor AI dolls who happen to offer a quip here and there.  That they thought of the suicide mission was nice (in a way...it really set ME3 up for failure, but I digress) but fact is they thought small and have yet to utilize anything better.

 

Well, we can talk about the execution, but it's the thought that matters. Bioware tried to implement a dynamic system that responded to your previous choices and it was at least a partial success. Especially the ending to ME3 needed, nay, begged for something in that vein. Again, I'm not really clear on why they didn't even try to do to a similar design in any of their later games.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Orsino betraying Hawke is something I'll never get over.  That was just a stupid development decision.

[Catilina]

Orsino betraying Hawke is something I'll never get over.  That was just a stupid development decision.

This is the moment, what annoy me! So much!

 

To some extent, understandable. It shows: if the whole world goes mad, You can not do anything about it.

But it does not relieve the person who guessed

[ShadowLordXII]

Is this the part where I point out that you haven't actually bothered to explain any of this stuff you believe? Listing a bunch of things one does better than another doesn't qualify as a fact or an argument. If you want someone to engage you in debate, try establishing some good faith first by abiding by the standards you're demanding of others.

Such as: Origins has a stronger story than Inquisition because


And...go!

 

Challenge accepted. I'll start also include immersion, PC and antagonists since they're all connected.

 

A good story is typically one that demonstrates a living world; has aspects of immersion and depth; and if it has a conflict, has the conflict have clear effects that are both told and shown to the audience so that they can feel why this conflict needs to end.

 

One way that Origins has a superior story is how much more focused it is. It has two central conflicts, the overarching conflict against the Blight and the Darkspawn and the lesser, but equally important conflict with Loghain. The game shows and visually demonstrates why these conflicts need to be resolved and their effects on Ferelden which we're trying to save. 

 

The Blight is the fifth incarnation of a destructive force of nature that leaves everything in its path corrupted or devoured. We don't know everything about the Blight or why the darkspawn act as they do. But it is very clear as to why they have to be stopped. If they're not stopped, the infested Deep Roads and stalwart Bownammar demonstrate what will happen to proud Ferelden. We see the Archdemon and the endless horde that it commands; we see darkspawn raiding caravans and towns; we experienced Ostagar where Duncan and Cailan perished; and we further hear tales of how the blight has taken the south and the map further demonstrates this by having the Blight spread more and more as the game progresses.

 

Loghain is an interesting and tragic antagonist who believes that he's doing what he must to save his country. But in truth, he's only further dooming his country due to his paranoia and pride. This results in him becoming an impeccable obstacle to resolving the Blight since the Civil War which he started and escalated is preventing Ferelden from uniting against the darkspawn. Interestingly, Loghain might have even been right if this weren't a Blight. The recruitment situation has flaws as I've discussed before, but being able to recruit and discuss Loghain's beliefs with him is a great experience.

 

Top all of this off with the Origins themselves. These Origins are all prologues that give players an opportunity to start fleshing out their Warden. We experience the Warden's culture; we see their home; we see their great or unpleasant lives; and we can shape our personalities as we see fit with all of this backdrop as context. This further enriches the story because you're not just the Warden, you're also Warden Cousland; the City Elf Warden; the Mage Warden; or etc. This breathes real life into your character as you explore various ethical and moral situations where the Warden can either stand as a heroic paragon of righteousness or a despicable figure of ruthless aggression and cruelty. This includes situations where the Warden can perpetrate mass murder; kill children to save lives; defile the ashes of a dead prophet; or backstab/murder loyal companions.

 

What about Inquisition?

 

Well, Inquisition has a great set-up, but little pay-off.

 

You've got multiple world changing conflicts involved such as the Orlesian Civil War; the Mage-Templar War; Corypheus Bid for godhood; the Orlesian Wardens trying to create a demonic army; and a Breach in the magical shield between the Fade and the Real World. Any of these conflicts should be as gripping and powerful as the Blight.

 

Instead, there's hardly any sense of danger involved.

 

Mage-Templar conflict? Side-stepped and resolved within the first third of the game. You don't even get to engage the conflict and take a stance on whether you support one side; despise both or want to be neutral. You just pick one faction and leave the other to the wolves. You're never confronted by this world-changing situation which was marketed as one of the main conflicts of the game. There isn't even any consequence for picking mages or templars. No one makes you their enemy because you choose to befriend mages whom most people believe are dangerous just for being mages; No one attacks you since you recruited the treasonous templars who'd abandoned the Chantry.

 

The Breach? Also resolved in the first third of the game. Heck, you actually rob it of a great deal of potency and threat by "stabilizing" the Breach and preventing it from spreading any further. Within the first hour of the game, the Breach is neutered of it's danger and there's no sense that this thing is actually going to "swallow the world". Then you easily close it off until it abruptly reopens in the final chapter, but by then you've largely forgotten about the Breach since the game never demonstrated how it was a threat. Sure, the smaller rifts caused by the Breach are still around, but these demons never demonstrate any threat or danger for the people around them. Where's the scenes of demons attacking helpless villages? Images of devastation in the wake of a demonic assault? Nada. It even appears as though demons never attack anyone unless they step close to the Rift and those things are pretty easy to spot.

 

Corypheus? He had a lot of potential and build-up, but again little pay-off. He gets one small victory over the PC at Haven and the rest of the game is about you systematically stopping his plots until he throws over the table in frustration. Worst yet, we have to be told as to why he's dangerous rather than having more scenes of why he's a threat to the world. Maybe he could attack Skyhold as a demonstration of his power? Meteor Drop a rock on the Chantry Capital to demonstrate the impotency of the Maker? Throw the PC into a situation similar to Virmire only instead of Hawke and the Grey Warden, have it be your love interest and your most liked companion? 

 

Nope. He's off-screen for most of the game until the Temple of Mythal where he has one good scene demonstrating his immortality. But soon afterwards, you thwart him yet again.

 

Now how about the Inquisitor himself? The worst part about this character is that despite all of the potential, there isn't much of a way to decide who this character is. Or worst yet, the game has already decided this for you. You can choose the character's race, but there's no opportunity to really explore who they are and how their background influenced them in the present day. You don't even get to experience the Conclave for yourself despite the importance of the event. In fact, you're even pigeonholed into being stuck as a "good guy" rather than being able to misuse your power or role-play as a non-good/evil character.

 

This is a downgrade compared to previous games where the actions of Hawke/Warden could have real negative consequences. This especially included the death of companions whereas in Inquisition, I can count only two instances where the Inquisitor's actions will lead to a companion's death. One of which is leaving Blackwall to die even though he made the situation by turning himself in and the other is Iron Bull's demise in Trespasser which was added after the base game was made. In the base game, the worst that the PC can do is anger companions enough to where some of them leave.

 

Some could argue that the morality system in Origins was silly. But at least it was something. When you have an idea with potential, you don't just abandon it because you didn't get it quite on the mark the first time. You take it to the drawing board, fix what was broken, improve what worked and then try again. I mean, isn't assigning a morality to your character one of the major aspects of playing an Role-Playing Game?

 

Not to mention for all of the chaos and destruction that's supposed to be taking place, hardly any of it is in your face. It's like the game is afraid of making its players uncomfortable. Where are the abominations? Where are the desire demons? Wheres the scenes and instances of in-progress mass death and destruction? Wheres the negative effects of the multiple wars at play on Southern Thedas? There isn't any real sense of danger or tension because the game consciously creates a distance between the world's dark side and the player.

 

Not to say that Dragon Age Inquisition does not have any disturbing stuff that's in your face. The future Redcliffe mission is a good exception though its effects are mitigated by the fact that this is a possible future. One that likely ceases to exist the moment that you return to the present. But there's no undoing Ostagar; what happened to Hespith and Laryn can't be rewritten; and Shianni got raped and you couldn't stop it (though you can avenge her at least).

 

But most of the time, darker aspects are either absent or presented in a way which creates distance between the event and the player. For instance, the grey warden sacrifices aren't directly shown, but merely implied. While in Origins and DA2, they take detailed care to show you what's happening or time's taken to show the immediate aftermath. In Inquisition, they deliberately side-stepped this stuff either because they didn't want to show it or as an overreaction to DA2. This distance creates an obstacle to immersion which decreases the player's investment in the story which in turn decreases the fun factor.

 

So there's how Origins has a stronger story than Inquisition.

[Mr Fixit]

Orsino betraying Hawke is something I'll never get over.  That was just a stupid development decision.

 

Ugh, that silly DA2 ending where you finally (not that you didn't know it already) confirm that EVERYONE is batshit insane in Kirkwall. What that city needs is a Nero to give it his Rome treatment. 

[Addictress]

This is an excellent post and I agree all the way.

I just want to add that I personally don't think it needs to be darker or bloodier. For instance. I hated the brood mother. Personally I want to see less grotesque, horrific stuff. Psychological darkness and mass death and destruction can be cinematically conveyed by other means besides excessive graphic/gratuitous blood and gore.

The reaper larvae at the end of mass effect 2 was pretty dark but there wasn't a huge amount of blood.

[Addictress]

Ugh, that silly DA2 ending where you finally (not that you didn't know it already) confirm that EVERYONE is batshit insane in Kirkwall. What that city needs is a Nero to give it his Rome treatment.

Honestly I thought it successfully drove the point home that, the templars have a point - Mages will turn to blood magic when cornered. BOTH sides screw up. Just because you side with a faction does not turn them noble. The inherent darkness of both sides continue in spite of your picking a side.

Ultimately Elthina is correct - both sides have flaws and no one is right, and both sides' complaints about the other are also all correct.

That is why strife and differences of opinion exist. There IS no ultimate good in the world, and that is why Dragon Age 2 has an amazing ending.

[ShadowLordXII]

This is an excellent post and I agree all the way.

I just want to add that I personally don't think it needs to be darker or bloodier. For instance. I hated the brood mother. Personally I want to see less grotesque, horrific stuff. Psychological darkness and mass death and destruction can be cinematically conveyed by other means besides excessive graphic/gratuitous blood and gore.

The reaper larvae at the end of mass effect 2 was pretty dark but there wasn't a huge amount of blood.

 

That's just part of following through on having a dark world. You have to show how this world is dark and dangerous or else the sense of tension and underlying drama won't be as effective.

 

The reaper larvae was very dark and more so because the player sees first hand how it was created. You saw an abducted human get painfully broken down and reduced to juice for the larvae's creation. Thus, you know fully understand what the collectors are doing to their prisoners and why they have to be stopped.

 

Honestly I thought it successfully drove the point home that, the templars have a point - Mages will turn to blood magic when cornered. BOTH sides screw up. Just because you side with a faction does not turn them noble. The inherent darkness of both sides continue in spite of your picking a side.

Ultimately Elthina is correct - both sides have flaws and no one is right, and both sides' complaints about the other are also all correct.

That is why strife and differences of opinion exist. There IS no ultimate good in the world, and that is why Dragon Age 2 has an amazing ending.

 

If that's the case then the endings weaker for forcing Hawke to choose between crazy factions in a dark vs dark conflict.

 

It would have been a lot stronger to have either allowed Hawke to take a "reject path" and fight against both sides rallying his allies and the city guard. Hawke could either do this for their own power or to MAKE THEIR OWN ultimate good in the world. Or alternatively, Hawke should be able to just wash his hands of the madness and leave.

 

Instead, player agency is restricted for the sake of forced drama and the obvious forced angle makes the game less investment worthy and fun for the player.

[CardButton]

Honestly I thought it successfully drove the point home that, the templars have a point - Mages will turn to blood magic when cornered. BOTH sides screw up. Just because you side with a faction does not turn them noble. The inherent darkness of both sides continue in spite of your picking a side.

Ultimately Elthina is correct - both sides have flaws and no one is right, and both sides' complaints about the other are also all correct.

That is why strife and differences of opinion exist. There IS no ultimate good in the world, and that is why Dragon Age 2 has an amazing ending.

Yeah ... too bad DA2 frames it in such a way that makes it all but impossible to actually side with the Templars.  You literally have the option of Joining them and killing all of the mages except (conveniently) your companions, or Joining the Mages who constantly prove themselves remarkably stupid for people who have spent their whole lives in gigantic libraries.