I'm not so sure: a line of his friendly dialogue does seem to imply that he is deliberately keeping himself from saying too much least the Inquisitor figures his plan out.
Solas: "A good question but not one I will answer. You've always shown a thoughtfulness I respected. It would be too easy to tell you too much."
[SOLAS] 'I'm sorry, vhenan, but to answer your question would be to reveal the plot for DA4.'
[INQ] 'What's DA4?'
Solas offers her a mysterious smile
Dragon age is NOT a story that can be told in standalone chapters. It's the very opposite of it and it's been designed that way since the very beginning, with all its alternate worldstates and auxillary materials. It's a story about he realms and characters in it, interconnected with one another by an overarching plot and things in the world moving in certain direction. It's the story about all this inter-connectivity and their influence on events, world and other PCs and NPCs. If I want to play a stand-alone game - I play TES. I play DA for the story in a shape that it is.
That does not change the fact that each game needs to be a working self-contained story first and foremost, with none of its elements and characters being mere smokescreens for some all-important metaplot. Sadly, Inquisition makes that mistake.
If all those story elements and characters had been given proper, enthusiastic, in-depth treatment, if Trespasser hadn't deliberately and completely invalidated the main game's accomplishments in my eyes, I'd be less fed up with the series and its "real story" ... because it wouldn't be the "real story" but rather one of many, all given equal thorough treatment. As it is, I'm pretty done with Dragon Age, and utterly sick of Solas-this, Solas-that, Solas-everything. The whole world does not revolve around him. Inquisition, its themes and characters including its player character, deserved better than to just exist as half-arsed rushjob bait-and-switch backdrops for getting players to like him. And again: I genuinely, for the most part and despite his flaws, did like the Solas I thought I'd gotten to know in Inquisition. Not everyone who dislikes him now blindly hated everything about him from the start.
The inner branching they do, eventually funnel back into a single ending (or with variations so vague and generic that they can be easily handwaved), and neither offer the promise of some major world-breaking change that can only be addressed again in the future by taking Very Specific Optional Paths.
As it is, I'm pretty done with Dragon Age, and utterly sick of Solas-this, Solas-that, Solas-everything. The whole world does not revolve around him.
Well I'm glad you got that out of your system because now you can move on to something you like, right? Unless, you know, you like siting around complaining about a game series you're not going to play anymore.
That does not change the fact that each game needs to be a working self-contained story first and foremost, with none of its elements and characters being mere smokescreens for some all-important metaplot. Sadly, Inquisition makes that mistake.
If all those story elements and characters had been given proper, enthusiastic, in-depth treatment, if Trespasser hadn't deliberately and completely invalidated the main game's accomplishments in my eyes, I'd be less fed up with the series and its "real story" ... because it wouldn't be the "real story" but rather one of many, all given equal thorough treatment. As it is, I'm pretty done with Dragon Age, and utterly sick of Solas-this, Solas-that, Solas-everything. The whole world does not revolve around him. Inquisition, its themes and characters including its player character, deserved better than to just exist as half-arsed rushjob bait-and-switch backdrops for getting players to like him. And again: I genuinely, for the most part and despite his flaws, did like the Solas I thought I'd gotten to know in Inquisition. Not everyone who dislikes him now blindly hated everything about him from the start.
The inner branching they do, eventually funnel back into a single ending (or with variations so vague and generic that they can be easily handwaved), and neither offer the promise of some major world-breaking change that can only be addressed again in the future by taking Very Specific Optional Paths.
Well no, it doesn't. It has to have a self-contained ARC, not necessarily self-contained plot. And it isn't. The very plot of Inquisition hinges on Hawke releasing Corypheus and finding Red Lyrium. And the plot of DA2 itself hinges on Hawke getting to Kirkwall and the world surviving the Blight - basically the plot of first game. And so on and so forth.
And then there's this:
Noticed on @rDragonage that someone connected Arl Foreshadow from Origins (http://dragonage.wik...rl_Foreshadow …) to DAI’s events.
Correct!
Spoiler
It’s almost as if we have a plan for this stuff!
So yeah - no doubt about it - metaplot's been there since DAO.
Also, yes - the world also does revolve around Solas. He's arguably crated the whole of modern Thedas. He's the pivotal character foreshadowed to appear since DAO.
That you don't like it - OK, fine. Some people simply don't like that kind of storytelling - I personally enjoy it a lot, but I see how it may not be other people's cup of tea. But that's what they've been aiming at since the beginning and it's the story they want to tell, how they want to tell it. You can either accept that and enjoy the ride (or, well, not), or just be done with it. There's just no other way around it - they won't just suddenly start making "standalone" games - if anything the overarching plot only got tightened with Trespasser.
[SOLAS] 'I'm sorry, vhenan, but to answer your question would be to reveal the plot for DA4.'
[INQ] 'What's DA4?'
Solas offers her a mysterious smile
That made me so angry.
Also, yes - the world also does revolve around Solas.
Meh.
Well I mean. In reality every choice has a consequense. I'm pretty sure a Lotta fangirls raged when they had to choose between Alastair and Hawke. So happens everyone my hawke loved was dead and varric would do fine after a grieving period. But now that people know there is a consequence keeping loghain/Alistair in the wardens they will think a little more on their choice in dao. That's how choices work. How to avoid the issues of it is simple " choices=consequences Get over it" I absolutely applauded bioware when I had to choose between 2 npcs I bonded with. But then I play for the immersion rp so it suited me. The fact that the choices are starting to not have consequences is disappointing A and B tells me a lot about the people they are trying to please by removing some major consequences. If I wanted easy and happy I would just play Mario or something. Well maybe not easy lol but anyways. Choices aren't always supposed to be good or evil they are supposed to be what's needed at the time. Like our mage enthusiasts say when it comes to blood magic or anders boom powder. Sometimes the right thing isn't always good or evil or nessasarily easy. But it may have a bad consequence afterwords so think twice before choosing.You're basically asking for choices to have consequences which is something perfectly reasonable however Bioware games are only about choices without the consequences especially for imported choices.
Players are susceptibles you cannot even imagine how they would have raged upon Bsn had the DR been presented with negative consequences"Oh Bioware is clichè the ritual is evil and a sacrifice is good" so the writers decided to neuter the choice to avoid issues.
*sighs* As I said it was an honest mistake. I saw a video that he didn't removed it at all. Wow people are so mean these days!It's just a game... that you're discussing and making claims about it. There are facts about it (its creation) and in-game facts about it (about story and gameplay). Just because "it's just a game" doesn't justify making up BS, especially if you want to talk with other people about it. Respect yours and our time.
Ah, I see. You were referring to what he did in the past. I thought you were referring to what he was doing now.
Also, I'm assuming you mean it was a statistic choice, not a sadistic choice.
Yup, I was talking about the past. Actually I did mean sadistic choice, as in this Sadistic Choice 
This whole conversation gave me pause about mythal herself intentions. I began to wonder after thst if maybe she had something bad planned. Again. Why does she need an old gods soul.... It's all hinkey to me. Heh. Convo starts at around 5:20
Spoiler
Remember that an Old God soul is just that: An Old God soul, not an Archdemon soul. We don't know much about them, so it's possible her intentions are rather benevolent or neutral.
Since his whole purpose was to free those he loved from their chains that bound them to the gods he was fighting against. It stands to reason he loves levellan (in my case) and does not want her at the beckon call of someone who may or may not have darker ulterior motives. Again. There's just too many unknowns there for me. So I'll continue to wonder and worry
Solas believes strongly in personal freedom, especially freedom of thought. He's opposed to binding and any other form of mind-control on principle, it's not because of Mythal specifically. It's as simple as that. Whatever bad he's capable of, I bet he'll still be vehemently opposed to mind-control to accomplish it.
Meh, they didn't ruin anything. Trespasser set us up pretty well for the next overarching arc of the next few games.
I'd be totally fine with Trespasser if we got to play as our Inquisitor in DA4. If not, I feel like it's a slap in the face and terrible send-off to one of our protagonists, and I'm getting sick of Bioware doing that. Just my opinion.
*sighs* As I said it was an honest mistake. I saw a video that he didn't removed it at all. Wow people are so mean these days!
Really, no one is being mean, and I'm sorry you feel they are. But they aren't. They're politely asking you to make sure your facts are correct before making claims. That seems perfectly fair to me.
And I understand if you watched a video of the scene and thought he didn't remove it, since it's not explicitly shown, but that is in fact not the case. If you wanted a follow-up video to that one, or if it was longer, you'd see the Inquisitor walk into the Exalted Council without an arm and the Mark. This is identical in every permutation of Trespasser - every outcome has Solas remove the hand and Mark.
I'm not being mean, but you are wrong in this case. Sorry.
Well no, it doesn't. It has to have a self-contained ARC, not necessarily self-contained plot. And it isn't. The very plot of Inquisition hinges on Hawke releasing Corypheus and finding Red Lyrium. And the plot of DA2 itself hinges on Hawke getting to Kirkwall and the world surviving the Blight - basically the plot of first game. And so on and so forth.
So yeah - no doubt about it - metaplot's been there since DAO.
Also, yes - the world also does revolve around Solas. He's arguably crated the whole of modern Thedas. He's the pivotal character foreshadowed to appear since DAO.
That you don't like it - OK, fine. Some people simply don't like that kind of storytelling - I personally enjoy it a lot, but I see how it may not be other people's cup of tea. But that's what they've been aiming at since the beginning and it's the story they want to tell, how they want to tell it. You can either accept that and enjoy the ride (or, well, not), or just be done with it. There's just no other way around it - they won't just suddenly start making "standalone" games - if anything the overarching plot only got tightened with Trespasser.
No story and no character should exist as merely an enabler for another story or character. If the former aren't allowed to properly shine on their own merits and the latter aren't able to, then both are a waste of my time. And I'm going to be especially p*ssed off if the themes and people (including my own character) I got emotionally invested in are among those rendered irrelevant that way.
I'd be totally fine with Trespasser if we got to play as our Inquisitor in DA4. If not, I feel like it's a slap in the face and terrible send-off to one of our protagonists, and I'm getting sick of Bioware doing that. Just my opinion.
I personally am fine with either continuing with my Gale or starting a new character, so it makes no difference to me, honestly. I do wonder which way Bioware will swing though on the issue, as I can understand the issues some might have with leaving the Inquisitor behind in DA4.
Also, out of curiosity, when you say "sick of Bioware doing that" to which protagonists are you referring that had terrible send offs? Mass Effect?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and only underscores my point.
Corypheus and the Inquisitor -- both alone and together. Unfortunately, neither of them is given any chance to be an actual character, nevermind the supposed antagonist and protagonist. With such complete disregard for the two most crucial characters of a story, you don't have a story, especially when that disregard also extends to the themes the story pretends to be about.
The problems with Inquisition's story and characterization were annoying enough before Trespasser pretty much revealed them to be deliberate.
No story and no character should exist as merely an enabler for another story or character. If the former aren't allowed to properly shine on their own merits and the latter aren't able to, then both are a waste of my time. And I'm going to be especially p*ssed off if the themes and people (including my own character) I got emotionally invested in are among those rendered irrelevant that way.
DAO is a standalone game and it was developed to be in that way regardless of the tiny connections it had with DAII there was no meta plot yet.
DAII was the one who changed the narrative style and they even messed up badly since the well of sorrow was a DA2 project and it was regurgitated in DAI while Hawke was supposed to be at the place of the Inquisitor.
Yup, I was talking about the past. Actually I did mean sadistic choice, as in this Sadistic Choice
Remember that an Old God soul is just that: An Old God soul, not an Archdemon soul. We don't know much about them, so it's possible her intentions are rather benevolent or neutral.
Solas believes strongly in personal freedom, especially freedom of thought. He's opposed to binding and any other form of mind-control on principle, it's not because of Mythal specifically. It's as simple as that. Whatever bad he's capable of, I bet he'll still be vehemently opposed to mind-control to accomplish it.
I'd be totally fine with Trespasser if we got to play as our Inquisitor in DA4. If not, I feel like it's a slap in the face and terrible send-off to one of our protagonists, and I'm getting sick of Bioware doing that. Just my opinion.
.
Also I'm kinda tired of leaving old characters behind too. I understand it but then, they proved it's possible to bring them back via hawke. Even if I can't play them at least have them a part of the story. 15 hour war table missions don't cut it
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and only underscores my point.
Corypheus and the Inquisitor -- both alone and together. Unfortunately, neither of them is given any chance to be an actual character, nevermind the supposed antagonist and protagonist. With such complete disregard for the two most crucial characters of a story, you don't have a story, especially when that disregard also extends to the themes the story pretends to be about.The problems with Inquisition's story and characterization were annoying enough before Trespasser pretty much revealed them to be deliberate.
Sorry, but what is problem for you aren't problems for others. I find Inquisitor to be well-realized (a victim of circumstances with an extraordinary destiny thrust upon them and asked to grow into their role as a savior and Thedosian demigod) and now only having more chances for even more realization - way more than Hawke and HoF ever had. We could have known more about Corypheus, but overall his role in the story is intriguing and fairly unique - he's a pawn to powers he barely understands and an unwitting, ironic savior of Thedas.
And the "he wasn't given a chance to be an actual character" is nothing more than an empty slogan. Archdemon was as dangerous and crucial to the story in DAO and we hardly knew anything about it. Was it necessary for the story to be good? No - the story doesn't have to rely on deep characterization of its antagonist to move (some stories don't even have an antagonist), ESPECIALLY one that is NOT a stand-alone story, and we get to know more and more about the world and who nudges or shoves history in it in later installments, unfolding the bigger picture before our eyes. Corypheus served similar role - he was the catalyst for the main story, whose main focus was the rise of Inquisition AND slowly unraveling the mysteries of Thedas that go beyond corrupted magister who unleashed something evil on the world and wants to do evil stuff now.
This is a story no, say, TES game could really offer, Why? Because it's impossible for standalone game, even as large as RPG, to ever be given enough space or time to be developed it such enormous scope or complexity. It would have to have a clear beginning, middle and end, with most of its plot being tied to one installment, and by necessity many corners and possibilities would have to be cut.
And with the story how it is in DA, and its current (very possible) direction, there's only more and more potential development for its world and characters on the horizon.
No story and no character should exist as merely an enabler for another story or character. If the former aren't allowed to properly shine on their own merits and the latter aren't able to, then both are a waste of my time. And I'm going to be especially p*ssed off if the themes and people (including my own character) I got emotionally invested in are among those rendered irrelevant that way.
Er, yes they should and they do. That's what a great deal of characters in fiction do. HOW they do it can be a matter of debate, and I'm afraid that in case of DAI you and I won't find agreement. I greatly enjoy Corpyheus' role in the story, even if I wish I could see a bit more of characterization. I loved the fact that a Blight-infected maniac ultimately saved the world from possibly-redeemable old hero and made the world unite itself in their struggles to pull themselves from a brink of chaos they almost brought on themselves by their own hands, through their petty and oftentimes pointless conflicts and inability to unite unless end of the world knocks at their door. Ironic twists of fate, FTW.
And how the Inquisitor is, is of course a matter of how people play them, but I fail to see how they don't stand on their own. They're in a unique position in fact compared to most (all?) Thedas heroes, both in terms of their role in the world, as well as their story - they have an active, complex relationship with possibly one of the most interesting antagonists/characters BW ever had... and in DA4 they'll be established heroes and war veterans who may yet get choices and further development that can go way beyond what we've seen before in any DA game; which would be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve if the story was only limited to one chapter.
DAO is a standalone game and it was developed to be in that way regardless of the tiny connections it had with DAII there was no meta plot yet.
DAII was the one who changed the narrative style and they even messed up badly since the well of sorrow was a DA2 project and it was regurgitated in DAI while Hawke was supposed to be at the place of the Inquisitor.
Wrong. At a time they've been creating DAO they didn't yet know if they'd have a chance to create more installments - that's a different thing from what you're claiming. It's obvious that there's more story, even in DAO.
Now, the game itself couldn't really go into much detail on overarching plot, because DAO's role is really to simply introduce us to Thedas and its problems -- this is why the story may seem to be a bit more "self-contained"... because it couldn't really do much more. We spend so much time on establishing the world and its socio-political or historical landscape that we really only have time to defeat a pretty generic baddie at the end of it. But there are hints all over the place suggesting that there's more plot going to happen in DAO itself; and if you don't believe that then, well... there are tweets by devs like the ones I just quoted.
*sighs* As I said it was an honest mistake. I saw a video that he didn't removed it at all. Wow people are so mean these days!
I don't know what video you watched, but in all of them he removes the anchor. It's only in the romance version that he doesn't take your left hand and do his magic thing. He removes it as he is kissing Lavellan--so all you see is glowing eyes and a kiss.
Wrong. At a time they've been creating DAO they didn't yet know if they'd have a chance to create more installments - that's a different thing from what you're claiming. It's obvious that there's more story, even in DAO.
Now, the game itself couldn't really go into much detail on overarching plot, because DAO's role is really to simply introduce us to Thedas and its problems -- this is why the story may seem to be a bit more "self-contained"... because it couldn't really do much more. We spend so much time on establishing the world and its socio-political or historical landscape that we really only have time to defeat a pretty generic baddie at the end of it. But there are hints all over the place suggesting that there's more plot going to happen in DAO itself; and if you don't believe that then, well... there are tweets by devs like the ones I just quoted.
DAO (the main game) was not developed to be a cliffhanger but to be a self contained chapter and that they later decided to put a slight connection with DAII(which was not even planned) doesn't mean that DAO was projected and developed with that intent.That there are more hints about some of it's lore elements doesn't mean anything those things are not cliffhangers they are there to develop the lore of the world.Is useless for you to try to quote some statement from some Bioware developers or writer because i can just as easily do the same for my pointsthere are tons of interview that confirms that the first DA was not developed to be part of a series and neither was a game that treated the character as an enabler for future plots.
The only thing that is useless here is saying that "you have tons of interviews" while quoting none, which suggests that there's indeed nothing you can back your claims with, or the quotes will turn out to show just how much you misinterpret the devs' words, seeing that so far we only have confirmation after confirmation that they've known a general direction this whole ship is sailing to before release of first game and are becoming more and more overt about it, since we're finally past some grand reveals. And to realize just how far you're off the mark you only have to listen to, say, a three-piece interview with David Gaider for VGS, where he discusses the series and its origins and development in-depth.
He even explicitly tells us in the very first part of interview that the epilogues for DAO were concocted quickly and late in development because initially they weren't certain they'd get to make a 2nd game - which patently shows there were plans for more. That DAO started the series and sets the stage, which ultimately means that there are no titles before it to draw from, or that it makes it *seem* like a standalone game doesn't make it so, especially in hindsight.
So saying "DA was not developed to be a cliffhanger", or "DAO was developed to be made to look like self-contained story in case they wouldn't be able to continue the series" is a way different thing from saying "DAO was designed to be a standalone". It wasn't. Change of plans and development hurdles aside, DAO is what it is - an introduction to the world of Thedas AND a starting point for the series, with their characters carrying parts of metaplot and directly influencing the events in the next game.
Also, out of curiosity, when you say "sick of Bioware doing that" to which protagonists are you referring that had terrible send offs? Mass Effect?
Yeah, basically. Hawke also didn't get a great ending in my opinion, considering all they went through, but it's not terrible. But honestly it only takes one protagonist with a crappy send-off for me to get sick of it, and I was sick of it with Shepard. Ugh, that wasn't fun. I mean, the Inquisitor's send-off isn't as bad, but almost. Of course, that could be fixed for me if their story is not over, but...
Sorry, but what is problem for you aren't problems for others. I find Inquisitor to be well-realized (a victim of circumstances with an extraordinary destiny thrust upon them and asked to grow into their role as a savior and Thedosian demigod) and now only having more chances for even more realization - way more than Hawke and HoF ever had. We could have known more about Corypheus, but overall his role in the story is intriguing and fairly unique - he's a pawn to powers he barely understands and an unwitting, ironic savior of Thedas.
With regards to the Inquisitor, I'll simply say this: I was finally starting to like them in Trespasser - didn't dislike them before, I was just not very moved one way or the other. I felt like they were finally coming into their own and having more of a personality, also helped but not only because of the improved voice work in the DLC. As I'm sure everyone here knows, I think their relationship with Solas, whatever it may be, is a very unique opportunity and something they should capitalize on in DA4. I just hope they do.
DA is planned in the vaguest sense of the term.I was under the impression that they were actually surprised with how well Origins did and that's what prompted them to make a sequel. I think it likely that they have a general idea of major events they want to have happen in each game. Things change though, like the cancellation of the Exalted March expansion, so nothing is ever set in stone.
DAO is a standalone game and it was developed to be in that way regardless of the tiny connections it had with DAII there was no meta plot yet.
DAII was the one who changed the narrative style and they even messed up badly since the well of sorrow was a DA2 project and it was regurgitated in DAI while Hawke was supposed to be at the place of the Inquisitor.
Of course now i have no intention to post interviews seeing how you labelled the whole thing immediately as "they will be your own misinterpretation of their words"The only thing that is useless here is saying that "you have tons of interviews" while quoting none, which suggests that there's indeed nothing you can back your claims with, or the quotes will turn out to show just how much you misinterpret the devs' words, seeing that so far we only have confirmation after confirmation that they've known a general direction this whole ship is sailing to before release of first game and are becoming more and more overt about it, since we're finally past some grand reveals. And to realize just how far you're off the mark you only have to listen to, say, a three-piece interview with David Gaider for VGS, where he discusses the series and its origins and development in-depth.
Spoiler
He even explicitly tells us in the very first part of interview that the epilogues for DAO were concocted quickly and late in development because initially they weren't certain they'd get to make a 2nd game - which patently shows there were plans for more. That DAO started the series and sets the stage, which ultimately means that there are no titles before it to draw from, or that it makes it *seem* like a standalone game doesn't make it so, especially in hindsight.
So saying "DA was not developed to be a cliffhanger", or "DAO was developed to be made to look like self-contained story in case they wouldn't be able to continue the series" is a way different thing from saying "DAO was designed to be a standalone". It wasn't. Change of plans and development hurdles aside, DAO is what it is - an introduction to the world of Thedas AND a starting point for the series, with their characters carrying parts of metaplot and directly influencing the events in the next game.
Of course i have no intention to post interviews seeing how you labelled the whole thing immediately as "they will be your own misinterpretation of their words"
I already saw that interview it just happen that i don't share your interpretation especially the point of making a frivolous distinction between
"Designed as standalone" and "made to look like standalone" which you defined as an huge difference...mph huge what?
You - "Is useless for you to try to quote some statement from some Bioware developers or writer because i can just as easily do the same for my points"
Of course i have no intention to post interviews seeing how you labelled the whole thing immediately as "they will be your own misinterpretation of their words"
I already saw that interview it just happen that i don't share your interpretation especially the point of making a frivolous distinction between
"Designed as standalone" and "made to look like standalone" which you defined as an huge difference...mph huge what?
Typical deflection tactic in face of lack of arguments to support your own position - instead of proving that the devs words support your claims beyond reasonable doubt, you simply bank on "you wont' believe me" and leave it at that.
Well OK - let's assume I won't believe you. But you're not just discussing with me; you're making claims on public forum and refuse to support them for anyone to believe them.
In other words with such tactics you only further undermine your own position.
And yes - "made to be a standalone story and hardly anything more" and "a chapter of story made to look standalone in case they'd be unable to produce a sequel, but ultimately is part of the planned series with large, overarching plot" are two different animals.
One suggests that they've closed the story in the first chapter and had no plans for sequels/series and only has the vaguest connections to future games, another suggests that they've planned ahead, at least in terms of broad strokes for the main story, and that the franchise was designed to be a series, with DAO as a starting point.
It boggles my mind that I even have to explain it.
That now you're trying to tout the distinction as "frivolous" only shows that you've backed yourself to the corner and now you're conveniently flip-flopping, so it'll make it seem like you're still in the right.
Sorry, hon, but this just won't fly. You said that DAO was designed as standalone, was NOT planned as part of the series and only has the vaguest connections to other games. You've made a claim you can't back up. You can't sell it now as "oh, there's no difference between standalone and appears standalone, but is in fact a prologue to larger series they've planned years ahead".
Oh, and here's something that pretty much goes beyond any "interpretation" - an article from 2008, prior to release of Origins (you can find it after cursory Google search): http://arstechnica.c...-onto-consoles/
"Tudge also confirmed what can be easily determined from the game's title: that Dragon Age: Origins is just the first part of what is expected to be a new franchise. "Dragon Age: Origins really represents three real key elements," Tudge explained. "One is obviously the origins stories. The other is the return to BioWare's roots. And the other one is the origins of the franchise, of the series. We've built the universe from the ground-up to be something we can base a lot of entertainment product in, and Dragon Age: Origins is really just the beginning."
Like, dude... the dev literally says that the fact that Origins is a start of new series is in the game's title.
Well I'm glad you got that out of your system because now you can move on to something you like, right? Unless, you know, you like siting around complaining about a game series you're not going to play anymore.
A forum is for sharing ideas and opinions, not just praising things unconditionally, If you don't like what i have to say about the game, then fine, but you need to grow a thicker skin about it. If you reduce a forum to only those who love the current product and Solas, then it just becomes an echo chamber and is of no practical benefit to anyone. It might make you feel better to gather fellow lovers together and croon over it, and you have the right to do that on specific threads.
The very nature of the thread invites spirited debate. Just because I don't like the game, doesn't mean I don't care about the series.
snip
Retour en haut
