I adored the first game, really thought it was a pure gem. Was very disappointed in the second however, thought it smaller, more limiting, less exciting and less likeable characters.
Hopefully they go back to the roots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Release date is Nov 7th I think?
However, the stars are aligning right for this third installment.
I actually liked 2 and the good things it was trying to do, but like many I could see all the problems. I was burned like many others and was going to hold off entirely.
This time around though, there's the fact that it's gotten a full 3 year development span this time. A lot of what they're showing and talking about goes directly against the problems of DA2, which stemmed from that game's horrid attempt at being a yearly franchise.
Now I kind of wish someone could get the Dragon Age license for a good miniature game. There's so many factions now it could actually work.
Well, we do know that Hawke is back. Say what you will about DA2 as a whole, Hawke's story was interesting.
Not sure what Gaider did to piss everyone off though.
I'm at the point where I know I'm going to buy DA3. However, I will not pre-order it and will still wait for after release reviews. If there's good pre-order DLC like they always do, I'll just buy it. Heck, I still have leftover Bioware points. I would rather pay them extra for a good game from the very start, than risk funding an incomplete or rushed game like DA2 was.
Hawke was a pretty generic guy imo. I don't recall him being anything special...he basically is a refugee who got in a city with a 99% crime rate. He had no character whatsover :(
And iirc, Bioware said that Hawke will make a return.
Agreed, Sigvatr. Hawke is a Shepherd-style non-character: too generic to be interesting and too pre-written to be customizable. They are going this route again in DA3, right down to the dialog wheel.
Gaider wrote DA3 btw and hey guess what there is another gay male mage companion (although this one is gay even if you play a lady).
I wonder if anything the player does in DA3 will matter or if it will be like DA2.
I'm looking forward to this. I loved the first one, apart from the player character. DA2 was the opposite. I LOVED Hawke's character. There was a distinct sense that he/she wasn't just doing what he/she did to save everything and everyone ever. H/shee was just making the best choice out of what he was given. And that humanises him/her. If DA3 captures that, with the gameplay aspects of the first one, it'll be perfect.
I'm pretty stoked about this honestly as I was a fan of the past two (and all of their DLC). Interested in seeing the 'open world' they're going on about along with the new companions.
Apparently, not only Hawke reappears but so does your Warden from DA:O.
I'll get it. I loved the first one and at least enjoyed the second one. I hope this one doesn't follow the trend of dumbing down that most RPGs seem to be embracing. But it probably will.
Is all the DLC free? That is one of the things I hated in DA: All this content that was hidden behind an invisible paywall. Expansions are ok, but when I would run into the beginning of quest and the game start asking me for more money, I was livid.
AdeptSister wrote: Is all the DLC free? That is one of the things I hated in DA: All this content that was hidden behind an invisible paywall. Expansions are ok, but when I would run into the beginning of quest and the game start asking me for more money, I was livid.
It appears to be the version of the game without DLC.
I don't think you'll miss much, though. Off the top of my head -
- Shale isn't available (which is unfortunate, as Shale's an amusing black humor character)
- The Warden's Keep is unavailable; it's a small dungeon with some unique content, but doesn't really add anything to the plot iirc (it also cuts out the "Not-Baby Clark Kent" easter egg random encounter)
- A DLC made available shortly after release allowed you to go back to an early game location; this won't be available. Oddly enough, this *might* be useful lore-wise in Dragon Age Inquisition, as some very interesting bits of information concerning Fereldan and Orlais were discovered in this DLC. There's a possibility that this will come back up again in Inquisition.
The other DLC stuff is either in-game items (such as the Blood Dragon armor, which is also available in ME2 and DA2 if you bought the DLC for DA:O) or not playable within the main scenario - i.e. stuff like Leilani's Song, Awakenings (which is the Expansion), etc...
It appears that the game is only available through the 14th. You can register for the game now on Origin, and download it later (i.e. after the 14th) if you so choose.
Edit - I don't know whether there are hints about missing content with Shale and The Warden's Keep. Both were available at launch to anyone who pre-ordered (which I did). I do know that you won't notice that the third DLC is absent. I finished the game before it was released, and there no hooks within the game tied to it until Bioware released it later on (the trigger for it is a random encounter on the road).
With Shale, you will find the NPC that will sell you the control rod if you don't have the DLC, but attempting to buy it instead brings up a notice that you need the DLC to purchase and use the item.
Likewise, iirc, you can get the opening conversation about the Warden's Keep from the merchant guy that triggers the quest, but once the conversation ends, you get the pop-up that the quest is part of a DLC.
Basically, you get the "hook" for the adventure that gets you Shale (or the Keep), but it is clearly advertised to you that this requires a specific DLC.
Lame about how they try to push the DLC on you, but you are essentially getting an entire standalone game for FREE.
Some of us paid the full $50 for it and still got our money's worth.
So try it for free already.
The DLC is there if you like the base enough that you think you want to pay the devs something.
Likewise, for Dragon Age Inquisition, they've stated from the beginning they're not going to put companions behind the DLC wall again, at least not anyone critical to the story. They've followed through with that since there's no DLC companions, no one locked behind pre-orders.
The game also has had a full 3 year development time, unlike DA2, which is the one most people had a problem with.
^^ agreed.
DA1 was a really awesome game, releasing it for free is cool, a few people I know didnt pick it up at the time (for shame) but now get to experience it.
Personally I couldnt care about the DLC or not.
I just hope they go back to the style of 1 rather than 2 for Inquisition.
I've not pre-ordered it this time based solely on how DA2 turned out, but from all I've seen and read so far, it should be better this time around. It also had a lot more development time, so it shouldn't feel as rushed as the 2nd game. I also recall they said that DA3 is supposed to hit somewhere in the middle of Origins and DA2, being a happy medium that combines the best elements of both. Still waiting for a review first, just in case.
I shouldn't bash DA2 too much, though. It fell very short of the awesomeness that was Origins, but when viewed on its own and without these ultimately disappointed expectations, it's still a good game that had great characters and some amazing writing.
Oh ... and DA3 will apparently feature co-op multiplayer. Curious how that will turn out to be. I've sunk many, many hours into ME3's multiplayer, and I'm eager to see if my current Dragon Age pen&paper RPG group will be able to recreate the party in the video game for some co-op action.
Also lol @ "here's a free game for you!" - "does it have all DLC?" - "uh .. no?" - "this sucks!"
I must be the only mofo on the planet who liked DA2. Any of you ever been inside a warehouse? You seen one, you've seen 'em flippin' all. They're big, empty rooms stacked with random crap.
DA3 MP sounds interesting. I had a lot of fun with ME3s, and I thought the mechanic was pretty brilliant.
Psienesis wrote:I must be the only mofo on the planet who liked DA2.
Nah. I actually "grew into it" - it just took time to see the game's own values over what I was missing from Origins!
Psienesis wrote:I had a lot of fun with ME3s, and I thought the mechanic was pretty brilliant.
Agreed. It's funny how a simple wave combat arena can be so entertaining. The classes really worked out nicely.
Plus, you finally had a chance at playing a non-human character!
Bioware hasn't completely alienated me yet, I'm still riding on the ME1/DA:O high, those games were so enjoyable. The rest of the Mass Effect series was decent as well. I don't want to talk about DA:2 though. I just can't summon sufficient level of nerd-rage to hate bioware like some people do.
I'll almost certainly get DA3 or DA:I or whatever they're calling it.
Psienesis wrote: I must be the only mofo on the planet who liked DA2. Any of you ever been inside a warehouse? You seen one, you've seen 'em flippin' all. They're big, empty rooms stacked with random crap.
DA3 MP sounds interesting. I had a lot of fun with ME3s, and I thought the mechanic was pretty brilliant.
dao has a super generic storyline filled with slogfest combat. Only thing going for it was the origin stories. da2 removed that and left the slogfest (added moar gaymance).
Besides who needs dai when witcher has had better nude scenes?
The Witcher is a great series (though the CCG sex-games of the first were laughable), but it's not the same vibe as DA. Sure, in both cases, you're playing a character that has a pre-defined role in the world, but in TW, it's a much more straight-jacketed role. Geralt is Geralt is Geralt. There's very little you can do that fundamentally changes who the character is or how he acts.
DA has far more open options for character-building.
Also, if you don't like gay romances, don't have one, it's that simple.
Psienesis wrote: Also, if you don't like gay romances, don't have one, it's that simple.
I suspect that at least some of the complaints about it come from how Anders was mishandled in DA2. His dialogue and romance track are written in such a fashion that giving him a friendly greeting when you first meet him is seemingly treated as flirting. It's not that the protagonist greets Anders in a particularly flirtatious fashion. Rather, it's that literally within the first few friendly comments that you make to Anders, you pretty much have to say the equivalent of "Not interested!" in order to get yourself back off the romance track with him (as indicated by the relevant conversation symbol).
But the DA2 romances weren't handled well in any event. The fact that everyone (except the DLC character) was treated as bi- where the protagonist was concerned, was a rather stupid design decision. Isabella, sure. Her tendencies that way had been suggested in the first game. But every single last one of the others as well?
But the DA2 romances weren't handled well in any event. The fact that everyone (except the DLC character) was treated as bi- where the protagonist was concerned, was a rather stupid design decision. Isabella, sure. Her tendencies that way had been suggested in the first game. But every single last one of the others as well?
Well, Aveline and Varric were both straight. Of course, they were the two you couldn't romance at all...
Personally, I only bothered with the romance storylines on one playthrough. I went for Isabella because I thought she'd be more fun. I ended up disliking her a lot (not as much as I ended up hating Anders and what's-her-name-the-Elf-Bloodmage, tho) and during my second playthrough, the only characters I was interested in were married to their XO or their crossbow, so I got no play.
I suspect that at least some of the complaints about it come from how Anders was mishandled in DA2. His dialogue and romance track are written in such a fashion that giving him a friendly greeting when you first meet him is seemingly treated as flirting. It's not that the protagonist greets Anders in a particularly flirtatious fashion. Rather, it's that literally within the first few friendly comments that you make to Anders, you pretty much have to say the equivalent of "Not interested!" in order to get yourself back off the romance track with him (as indicated by the relevant conversation symbol).
This is kind of a thing with Bioware, because, as near as I can tell, they write the storylines to permit only so many of these conversation-cutscenes between characters.
The other BW game I'm playing these days is Star Wars: The Old Republic and, for the Jedi Consular storyline, they throw two Companions at you that are potential Romances, and the Flirt chat options kick off almost immediately (and some of them are rather forward for... anyone, really, but especially a Jedi!). Now, I play hard-line Jedi, so attachments to people are verboten, being a violation of the Jedi Code... but you have to put these two down hard and fast, before you start getting into stringing-them-along territory and earning Dark Side points for your deceptions.
But the DA2 romances weren't handled well in any event. The fact that everyone (except the DLC character) was treated as bi- where the protagonist was concerned, was a rather stupid design decision. Isabella, sure. Her tendencies that way had been suggested in the first game. But every single last one of the others as well?
Remember that DA is the first game BW released that toyed with the Romance options. This would be further refined in Mass Effect, where some characters are gay, some are straight, and some are bi. They backslid in SW: TOR (probably due to MPAA and EA pressures), and all of your character Romance options are strictly hetero. This changes slightly in recent updates, allowing bi/homosexual romance options, but only with minor, inconsequential NPCs in side-missions. BW/EA has been taking a lot of flak since the game came out over this, though.
Psienesis wrote: Remember that DA is the first game BW released that toyed with the Romance options. This would be further refined in Mass Effect, where some characters are gay, some are straight, and some are bi. They backslid in SW: TOR (probably due to MPAA and EA pressures), and all of your character Romance options are strictly hetero. This changes slightly in recent updates, allowing bi/homosexual romance options, but only with minor, inconsequential NPCs in side-missions. BW/EA has been taking a lot of flak since the game came out over this, though.
?
While it's not clear, I assume by "toying" you're referring to same sex romance options. Those have been around for both sexes since at least Jade Empire, and weren't handled anywhere near as clumsily in that game as they were in DA2.
Straight romances in Bioware games have been around since Baldur's Gate 2.
The romances in DA2 were pretty bad. And I rather liked the game. I think it was because Aveline was about the only character who - based on her actual personality - would have been worth romancing. And with the way the beginning scene worked that went right out the window. Isabella seemed cool right up until you found out what a terrible person she is, and Merrill? Sheesh. No.
Psienesis wrote: Have to admit, I turned BG2 off after, like, 15 minutes. The 2nd ed ruleset never, IMO, translated well to a computer game.
Oh lord, yes. It aged so badly. Every single fight basically is: pause, buff entire party with a super-clunky interface, rape enemies. Repeat. Boring as hell :/
illuknisaa wrote:Besides who needs dai when witcher has had better nude scenes?
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I don't get what your point is.
Bioware promotes itself as a forward thinking company that creates engaging characters and mature games but when it comes time to show mature stuff they just pussy out.
So far dragon age is nothing but gakky anime drama with grind fest combat.
Hey, Bioware is super progressive. They got a gay character in DA2.
A super clichee character who threw himself at the first butt in sight, reducing the character to his sexual orientation alone. Not to mention that most characters were made bisexual. Because progressive.
My point ... I'm not sure I made a point, rather than a sad realisation/observation.
It's interesting how a whole lot of people seem to bash these games based on featuring romance options not only pandering to the traditional selection of heterosexual chicks for your male character but actually featuring something for everyone, and then turn around praising a game as sexist as The Witcher for its nude scenes. If you want hardcore pornography, perhaps you'd be better off watching a couple videos on the web? I dunno about you, but I'm playing RPGs for their story. Either way, I think that post was a good insight into why the gaming industry looks like it does. Or society in general (bonus points for using female genitalia as an insult, by the way - it suits this argument perfectly ). Hence the "nice things" meme.
On a sidenote, I'm also undecided about whether I should really call the usage of nude scenes "mature", by the way. It certainly is content meant for adults, but the unhealthy fixation some people seem to have on it does not strike me as an adult mindset.
My point ... I'm not sure I made a point, rather than a sad realisation/observation.
It's interesting how a whole lot of people seem to bash these games based on featuring romance options not only pandering to the traditional selection of heterosexual chicks for your male character but actually featuring something for everyone, and then turn around praising a game as sexist as The Witcher for its nude scenes.
Wait, I thought you always argued in favor of diversity? Can't there be Bioware's written-by-a-high-schooler romance games featuring progressive content for those that like that sort of thing, as well as the Witcher's approach?
Seaward wrote:Can't there be Bioware's written-by-a-high-schooler romance games featuring progressive content for those that like that sort of thing, as well as the Witcher's approach?
To be honest, at this point I've come to believe that society at large is currently not capable of dealing with that much diversity/freedom. In an ideal world, unveiled* sexism, racism and religious zealotry at the player's fingertips would merely add to a game's immersion and storytelling potential, but in reality and given our culture's current climate, they can easily turn out to be a supporting vehicle for some players' wicked personal beliefs, so if it were entirely up to me, I would say that exerting caution/restraint rather than pandering to these tendencies would have a positive effect on society.
Ultimately, it comes down to what you believe the ideal society should look like, and what you would be willing to sacrifice for it.
I mean, it would be less of a problem if this were some sort of side effect or niche phenomenon, where a responsible society could afford to ignore it. But it isn't, at least from what I have seen and played.
(*as in: directly applied to other human beings or real life religions, and thus explicitly mirroring real world issues, rather than being "cushioned" by limiting their application to non-human species and fantasy faiths)
I won't be buying it. I'm a little sick of Bioware's Awesome Button "RPGs" wherein you can complete the entire game rather easily without ever spending a point on any of your skills. There are just better actual RPGs out there these days.
A good / incredibly annoying thing is that I don't need to try to justify that. Being a PC gamer, the collectors edition doesn't exist in the UK, except for the ridiculously priced 'Digital Download Deluxe' edition.
Seaward wrote:I'm a little sick of Bioware's Awesome Button "RPGs" wherein you can complete the entire game rather easily without ever spending a point on any of your skills.
To be fair, the "awesome button" meme has absolutely nothing to do with attributes or difficulty, but visual representation of gameplay. I'm also fairly sure that no-one has finished any of the DA games without increasing their attributes. Or, well, if they did, they probably shouldn't play on the easiest difficulty. I know I died a lot in some segments of DA2.
Huh, thanks for the hint! I was considering gamersgate.co.uk, but it is quite a bit cheaper on your page.
Did a bit of googling for customer reviews, and it seems they check out.
I won't be buying it. I'm a little sick of Bioware's Awesome Button "RPGs" wherein you can complete the entire game rather easily without ever spending a point on any of your skills. There are just better actual RPGs out there these days.
This doesn't make any sense. Someone needs to stop sipping on the Haterade and avoid Reddit.
I loved the Mass Effect series and Dragon Age 1 (and KOTOR), but the demo for DA2 didn't do it for me.
The apparent return to form (of DA1) with Inquisition has my attention, but I'm going to hold out and see what the response is to people playing the actual game. A woman I was dating played through Bioware's games at my suggestion, and loved all of the above and DA2.
And that's why we're not dating anymore.
I kid, there are other reasons. But her enjoying DA2 did make me ponder firing it up. Just never got around to it, and am tempted to get through it before Inquisition, so until I hear the latter is solid, I'm skipping the former.
I kid, there are other reasons. But her enjoying DA2 did make me ponder firing it up. Just never got around to it, and am tempted to get through it before Inquisition, so until I hear the latter is solid, I'm skipping the former.
DA 2 simply is a mediocre game. It's a mediocre game on its own and a terrible, terrible successor. Now that Bioware has produced two bi-polar games, maybe they can find a good middle ground with Dragon Age 3. Unless they shoehorn the demon baby in. Like, really, don't.
I liked DA:O OK, but I found my group to be non-awesome, some of the characters really grated on me.
I liked Dragon Age 2 better. I found the mechanics to be too dumbed down, but I found the characters to be much, much more likeable - to the point I'd say I liked Dragon Age 2 substantially better than the first one.
So I'm sort of hoping they can take the best elements of both and make the best Dragon Age yet. I'm going to wait for some early reviews but the truth is unless they're hideously bad I'm likely to buy it no matter what, I want some closure to the story.
LordofHats wrote: The sad part for DA2 is that you could see the great game sitting there, but all we got was a pile of unfinished and unpolished garbage
Exactly. The premise was pretty good actually - having a story centered around Hawke, a single guy, instead of Hawke the "ISAVETEHWORLD" dude again was a good idea and I was excited for it. Poor, spammy combat system, Bioware (tm) companions and 3 dungeon designs for the entire game, among other things, ruined it. DA2 made a lot of good small decisions, e.g. changing the crafting system. But overall, it failed at being a good game.
Bioware really needs to get out of their clichee comfort zone with the characters and stop protecting them in 3 layers of plot armor. Plot armor is the worst thing you can do as a writer as it basically says "We know this doesn't work!". It failed with Kai Leng and it failed with Anders. Don't do it again...
The thing I think of most when I think of DA2 is self defeating story theme. The game tries to play this story of mages who are unfairly oppressed by those douchy Templars, but I'll be damned if it was impossible for me to turn my back for 5 seconds without them going "BLOOD MAGIC IM AN ABOMINATION NOW HRRRR" on me.
Seriously. Trying to play a reasonable well meaning person in that game was like slitting my wrists. I sided with the Templars at the end just cause everything in the game proved them right XD
They started out with Merill who used blood magic with a "Meh, it gets stuff done and I will be careful!" attitude which isn't too bad...and then proceeds to make it clear that mages of all kinds are bad, bad, bad and a threat to peace.
DA:O did a good job at showing blood magic and its role and, more importantly, of mages who are aware of their great power and...great responsibility. Enter DA2 which poops all over this...
I liked Anders in awakening, but in DA2 he was just insufferable. That tattooed assassin was worse though. He's one of those characters you can play Linkin Park to.
LordofHats wrote: The thing I think of most when I think of DA2 is self defeating story theme. The game tries to play this story of mages who are unfairly oppressed by those douchy Templars, but I'll be damned if it was impossible for me to turn my back for 5 seconds without them going "BLOOD MAGIC IM AN ABOMINATION NOW HRRRR" on me.
Seriously. Trying to play a reasonable well meaning person in that game was like slitting my wrists. I sided with the Templars at the end just cause everything in the game proved them right XD
I played a mage and sided with the Templars on my second run through DA2 for this very reason. Every single damn magic user in this game, bar Bethany and Hawke is a foaming-mad, blood drinking, crazypants crazyface. Every. Single. One. Even Merrill. Especialy Merrill.
My first playthrough, I went as a fighter and sided with the Mages, because Bethany. But after seeing the story play out and how 75% of everything you fight is a blood mage, or was caused by a blood mage, I had to side with the Templars in my second playthrough, just to see if it ended any differently. Everyone still ends up dead, but at least I don't feel like as much of a sucker for Annulling the mages, instead of backing them.
I really hope Bioware handles mages more intelligently in DA3 than they did in DA2, because I'm going to hate it if I have to stab every mage I meet.
Speaking of stabbing mages... why did Bioware remove the ability to permanently drop characters from your group in DA2? In DA1, if you didn't want somebody hanging around your camp after you recruited them, you could send them packing and not have to look at them anymore. In DA2, you could just avoid using them, but they still showed up in group movie bits like at the end, and you kept getting quest markers on the main map reminding you that they had quests to give you. I would've given anything to tell Merrill "Go feth yourself, you fething knife-eared blood mage. Do not come near me or my friends, and leave town before I sic the Templars on you." Sure, killing her at the end of the game was nice, but I'd rather she just left my game entirely right after i met her.
LordofHats wrote: The thing I think of most when I think of DA2 is self defeating story theme. The game tries to play this story of mages who are unfairly oppressed by those douchy Templars, but I'll be damned if it was impossible for me to turn my back for 5 seconds without them going "BLOOD MAGIC IM AN ABOMINATION NOW HRRRR" on me.
Seriously. Trying to play a reasonable well meaning person in that game was like slitting my wrists. I sided with the Templars at the end just cause everything in the game proved them right XD
I played a mage and sided with the Templars on my second run through DA2 for this very reason. Every single damn magic user in this game, bar Bethany and Hawke is a foaming-mad, blood drinking, crazypants crazyface. Every. Single. One. Even Merrill. Especialy Merrill.
My first playthrough, I went as a fighter and sided with the Mages, because Bethany. But after seeing the story play out and how 75% of everything you fight is a blood mage, or was caused by a blood mage, I had to side with the Templars in my second playthrough, just to see if it ended any differently. Everyone still ends up dead, but at least I don't feel like as much of a sucker for Annulling the mages, instead of backing them.
I really hope Bioware handles mages more intelligently in DA3 than they did in DA2, because I'm going to hate it if I have to stab every mage I meet.
Speaking of stabbing mages... why did Bioware remove the ability to permanently drop characters from your group in DA2? In DA1, if you didn't want somebody hanging around your camp after you recruited them, you could send them packing and not have to look at them anymore. In DA2, you could just avoid using them, but they still showed up in group movie bits like at the end, and you kept getting quest markers on the main map reminding you that they had quests to give you. I would've given anything to tell Merrill "Go feth yourself, you fething knife-eared blood mage. Do not come near me or my friends, and leave town before I sic the Templars on you." Sure, killing her at the end of the game was nice, but I'd rather she just left my game entirely right after i met her.
You must have a heart of stone, because I loved Merrill to pieces. She was just too damned cute.
She was essentially the equivalent to a cute, somewhat precocious kid, who was running around with a nuclear detonator. And insisting that there was no need to worry and everything was under control, but also refusing to put down the detonator.
You must have a heart of stone, because I loved Merrill to pieces. She was just too damned cute.
My heart was not made of stone, but there was no room left in it because it was already filled with Varric and Aveline.
That, and the fact that my Hawke had an apostate mage for a sister in a city full of Templars, why the feth would I want to be seen in public with a blood mage? Especially an elven bloodmage?
Ander's was by far the worst of the Carth-like characters that appear in every Bioware game. By far.
He only gets props from me because I really didn't see it coming;
Spoiler:
Granted that just makes him a bigger ahole, cause he blew up the only person who was considerate of what he wanted. Just another reason to start smiting those mages. They're too dumb to live.
I found few of the party members in DA2 at all interesting. Merrill and Isabella were really only cool because they were in DA1. Varic was charming enough, but Varic's kind of a dick. I don't even remember what characters I used throughout that game.
As DA2 drew to a close, I was pretty sure it was crap. Then came an opportunity for redemption:
Spoiler:
The choice (a novel concept for DA2) to kill Anders. But then you just mercy kill him. He deserved beheading at the very least.
And so DA2's failure was complete. Even the ending, where you learn once and for all that nothing you do in the game matters at all, was not as bad as that.
Yeah. That game was blatantly unfinished when they released it. None of the plot lines really tied themselves up in a sensible manner, and every single one felt like a draft version of a much better storyline that got rushed out with some holes plugged by whatever came to the devs mind first.
Even the Hud felt like something improvised at the last minute and thrown together.
Seaward wrote:I'm also someone who selected Soldier in ME3 and didn't spend a single talent point just to see how difficult it'd be. It wasn't that difficult.
That's because ME3 was a shooter and all the abilities you'd unlock were just bonuses to make life easier.* You don't need it if your aim and reflexes are good enough (meaning: not getting hit in the first place and making sure that all your shots count).
The Dragon Age series on the other hand had attributes you had to raise, and not doing that would make the game considerably more difficult. Not only because you'd lose out on hitpoints, damage and resistances, but even items you'd end up being unable to equip.
(*: even more in ME2 and ME3 than ME1, which had a lot more "traditional" RPG mechanics than its "streamlined" sequels)
Forar wrote:But her enjoying DA2 did make me ponder firing it up. Just never got around to it, and am tempted to get through it before Inquisition, so until I hear the latter is solid, I'm skipping the former.
Do it. The demo didn't convince me either (in fact, I was rather angry at BW for having dumbed down a lot of core features), but what made me still enjoy the game in spite of this initial disappointment was the interaction between the characters. Arguably BioWare's strongest point regardless of the game.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:My favorite 2 companions in DA2 were Isabella and Varic.
Previously someone commented on how you end up in a relationship with Anders if you say anything that isn't, "Get bent, douchebag." as soon as you meet him, which was pretty annoying.
Truthfully I was pissed that I had put up with the guy for as long as I did in the game, that I had to wait until after he'd done the most terrible thing he could think of, then I get to shank him in the back quietly. feth that. Dude deserved to die like Loghain did in my DA:O playthrough, disgraced and beheaded in front of everyone that knew him.
And I'm pro-Merril side. The kid with a nuclear detonator is pretty spot on, but she's so damn cute about it I can't help but dig her.
Two side notes: 1, Aveline not being romancable made zero sense as she was the only one my 'good guy' was interested in. 2, same goes for Verric and my smart ass rogue female Hawke. That would've been an EPIC pairing.
I guess Dragonage 2 did its job well afterall, because I came away from the game thinking "wow, they were trying really hard to make the Mage vs. Templars conflict morally complicated, but the Templars were completely in the wrong at almost every point."
BlaxicanX wrote: I guess Dragonage 2 did its job well afterall, because I came away from the game thinking "wow, they were trying really hard to make the Mage vs. Templars conflict morally complicated, but the Templars were completely in the wrong at almost every point."
The thing is though, I never felt that they were wrong in any way. Maybe they were bigger dicks than what was required, but overall, I sided with the mages.
I didn't feel like the mages vs templars debate was all that one sided. In the stricter chantries mages are basically slaves; with the caveat that instead of being dismissed like most slaves - they are instead hated and feared. Large segments of the population are shown to completely distrust them, even when they act with the best of intentions. That could very easily drive one to extreme measures, especially in the knowledge that people like you used to pretty much rule the world.
And whilst there is a lot of overlap, there should be a distinction drawn between being a bloodmage and being possessed by a demon. People can use blood magic without being an abomination and/or being friendly with demons. The two are often conflated - almost to an exclusive degree- in DA2, whereas according to lore the two are not the same at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I liked Loghain. He might actually be the only character in either game that I actually liked.
Manchu wrote: I liked Loghain. He might actually be the only character in either game that I actually liked.
Loghain was a very good character and well-written. At the start of the game, he is immediately made to look like a bad guy, giving the player the motivation and a clear-cut "villain". The blight is a huge threat, of course, but having a central, personalized villain always is a stronger motivation. Over the course of the game, however, you realize that Loghain, by refusing to intervening in Ostagar, he did his part of saving Ferelden by not foolishly sacrificing them for a mad king, but saving them for the final assault on the Archdemon.
Furthermore, Loghain makes for the best ending. By letting him take the final blow on the Archdemon, all of Ferelden's power is saved, Alistair (or more likely his blood...) and the actual ruler Anora rule over Ferelden while the Warden, greatest and most powerful hero of all times, is still alive as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I didn't feel like the mages vs templars debate was all that one sided. In the stricter chantries mages are basically slaves; with the caveat that instead of being dismissed like most slaves - they are instead hated and feared. Large segments of the population are shown to completely distrust them
...and DA2 shows that they are right. Mages in the DA universe, if we take DA2 as canon, are loose cannons of the worst sort that need to be controlled. If given the choice in DA3, I will immediately side with the Templars and will do anything to weaken the mages.
The graphics look good, but I am not a fan of those character portraits. The style does not appeal to me. Oh, and it looks like I'm going to have to get a PS4 after all. Dammit.
Sigvatr wrote: Mages in the DA universe, if we take DA2 as canon, are loose cannons of the worst sort that need to be controlled.
Absolutely correct. They had to write Meredith as an Überbitch just to make the Mages more sympathetic/the Templars less obviously correct. But if you can control your pride when dealing with her, it is easy to see that you cannot fault the substance of what she says but only how she says it (setting aside her mad streak).
Sigvatr wrote: Mages in the DA universe, if we take DA2 as canon, are loose cannons of the worst sort that need to be controlled.
Absolutely correct. They had to write Meredith as an Überbitch just to make the Mages more sympathetic/the Templars less obviously correct. But if you can control your pride when dealing with her, it is easy to see that you cannot fault the substance of what she says but only how she says it (setting aside her mad streak).
The problem with mages vs templars is that they both have their faults. One faction actively enforces slavery, and the other faction is full of, well, dickbags.
But they effectively enslave the magi. Case in point, the rite of annulment in DA:O.
On the other hand, mages are portrayed as a bunch of power-mad crazies who just want to blow everything up.
Let's switch the order of these statements:
Mages are portrayed as a bunch of power-mad crazies who just want to blow everything up.
They effectively enslave the magi. Case in point, the rite of annulment in DA:O.
Mages must be controlled. There is no other choice or solution to the problem. They need to be controlled with an iron grip. Case and point: Anders. Marill. Jowan. Pretty much every single mage you encounter. Wynne doesn't really count, though, as she's less of a human and more of a magical being itself.
I think it is very telling that the wiser mages who care about more than themselves do not think the circle system itself is bad even if they have complaints about specific incidents with Templars.
thedarkavenger wrote:Both factions are meant to portray a necessary evil in society.
The thing is, nobody truly "needs" mages. Their services are just bonus.
Chantry creed actually promotes treating mages as a part of society, even justifying their existence by stating that "magic was created to serve mankind, not rule it". Ideally, the Templars exist to protect both the people from the mages, as well as the mages from the people (and themselves). The problem presented in the current era is that after so many centuries, a sort of corruption has set in with the Templar Order, causing many of its soldiers to stray from their ideals and succumb to the feeling of having a lot of power over other human beings. This isn't any different from the issues a lot of police forces or militaries have to deal with, either, especially as a strong esprit-du-corps that connects the members of an organisation can cause leaders to dismiss complaints or attempt to window-dress breaches of their code and outright atrocities out of misguided cameraderie and/or shame. Cleverly, BioWare is once again mirroring real world issues here. Except that with the Templars it may be even worse because they're essentially addicts whose minds are, sooner or later, affected by lyrium exposure.
In some cases, Templars even allowed themselves to be guided by bigotry or barely subdued hate caused by personal experience. Take Knight-Commander Meredith, for example. Her own sister was a mage, and her family decided to hide her from the Chantry. Ultimately, the girl got possessed by a daemon and killed her entire family save for Meredith, who became an orphan cared for by the church (and ultimately inducted into the Templar Order). Is it any wonder she has a bit of a bias regarding mages' claims to be able to take care of themselves? Especially given that Kirkwall had a long-standing problem with blood mages due to the Veil being thin there? And especially given how the First Enchanter wasn't very forthcoming and cooperative, instead trying to cover up everything his rogue charges did, blocking Templar investigations at every step?
Originally, this is what the Seekers were created to do. Keep a look at the Templars and "watch the watchers", as the saying goes. Kind of like an internal investigations division for the police. Except that the Seekers as an organisation messed up twice - once because they allowed this cancer within the heart of the Templar Order to fester for too long, affecting ever more generations of guardians (possibly due to personnel shortage; surely the Seekers cannot be everywhere as once, just like real world investigators), and secondly because of their last leader, Lambert van Reeves, who was an exceptionally bad choice for the job. For you see, Lord-Seeker Lambert was born in Tevinter, where he served with the Imperial Chantry and happened to believe in coexistence with the mages. Forming bonds of friendship with one such mage, he used his position in the Chantry to further erode the safety guards in place to control the mages, and assisted in his friend's rise to power until he became the first mage to become the Black Divine. Once on this throne, abuse of power became rampant and Lambert began to see he got duped. Ridiculed by his former friends and chastised for his views he left to join the Seekers.
So the boss of the organisation that is supposed to check if the Templars are treating the mages too roughly was a mage-hater himself, and this showed in the policies and orders that ultimately culminated in the Mage-Templar War, which did not start with the bombing of the Kirkwall Chantry, but with the White Spire's moderate Knight-Commander Eron being relieved of his duty and control over the Order held by Lambert himself, who used his position to dismiss the worries of other moderate Templars like Eron's former second-in-command, Knight-Captain Evangeline, and install extremists more suitable to enforce Lambert's personal views regarding mage control. What happened in Kirkwall was merely lighting the fuse, but the true explosion came when Grand Enchanter Fiona foolishly tried to turn a harmless meeting into a second vote for independence (notably after the first one, held after the Kirkwall incident, had already failed due to most First Enchanters voting "no") and Lambert, just looking for an excuse to shut down the conclave, had the place stormed by his troops, forcing everyone's hands.
And now here we are. Basically, everyone messed up, but there are some whose blame is heavier than others'.
/fluff
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I mean, the Fade is pretty much the warp. Except not as fethed up.
Yeah, good point. Probably because the Spirits take all concepts and emotions rather than just focusing on the strongest ones. And there seem to be a lot less Spirits than Warp entities, at least in terms of manifestations.
Though I'm sure there are areas of the Fade that are just as insane as the Warp.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:But then again, only those with very strong character and constitution are supposed to resist contact with the warp, so it works out in the end.
What role could constitution possibly play in a realm where the laws of physics do not apply?
thedarkavenger wrote:Both factions are meant to portray a necessary evil in society.
The thing is, nobody truly "needs" mages. Their services are just bonus.
Chantry creed actually promotes treating mages as a part of society, even justifying their existence by stating that "magic was created to serve mankind, not rule it". Ideally, the Templars exist to protect both the people from the mages, as well as the mages from the people (and themselves). The problem presented in the current era is that after so many centuries, a sort of corruption has set in with the Templar Order, causing many of its soldiers to stray from their ideals and succumb to the feeling of having a lot of power over other human beings. This isn't any different from the issues a lot of police forces or militaries have to deal with, either, especially as a strong esprit-du-corps that connects the members of an organisation can cause leaders to dismiss complaints or attempt to window-dress breaches of their code and outright atrocities out of misguided cameraderie and/or shame. Cleverly, BioWare is once again mirroring real world issues here. Except that with the Templars it may be even worse because they're essentially addicts whose minds are, sooner or later, affected by lyrium exposure.
In some cases, Templars even allowed themselves to be guided by bigotry or barely subdued hate caused by personal experience. Take Knight-Commander Meredith, for example. Her own sister was a mage, and her family decided to hide her from the Chantry. Ultimately, the girl got possessed by a daemon and killed her entire family save for Meredith, who became an orphan cared for by the church (and ultimately inducted into the Templar Order). Is it any wonder she has a bit of a bias regarding mages' claims to be able to take care of themselves? Especially given that Kirkwall had a long-standing problem with blood mages due to the Veil being thin there? And especially given how the First Enchanter wasn't very forthcoming and cooperative, instead trying to cover up everything his rogue charges did, blocking Templar investigations at every step?
Originally, this is what the Seekers were created to do. Keep a look at the Templars and "watch the watchers", as the saying goes. Kind of like an internal investigations division for the police. Except that the Seekers as an organisation messed up twice - once because they allowed this cancer within the heart of the Templar Order to fester for too long, affecting ever more generations of guardians (possibly due to personnel shortage; surely the Seekers cannot be everywhere as once, just like real world investigators), and secondly because of their last leader, Lambert van Reeves, who was an exceptionally bad choice for the job. For you see, Lord-Seeker Lambert was born in Tevinter, where he served with the Imperial Chantry and happened to believe in coexistence with the mages. Forming bonds of friendship with one such mage, he used his position in the Chantry to further erode the safety guards in place to control the mages, and assisted in his friend's rise to power until he became the first mage to become the Black Divine. Once on this throne, abuse of power became rampant and Lambert began to see he got duped. Ridiculed by his former friends and chastised for his views he left to join the Seekers.
So the boss of the organisation that is supposed to check if the Templars are treating the mages too roughly was a mage-hater himself, and this showed in the policies and orders that ultimately culminated in the Mage-Templar War, which did not start with the bombing of the Kirkwall Chantry, but with the White Spire's moderate Knight-Commander Eron being relieved of his duty and control over the Order held by Lambert himself, who used his position to dismiss the worries of other moderate Templars like Eron's former second-in-command, Knight-Captain Evangeline, and install extremists more suitable to enforce Lambert's personal views regarding mage control. What happened in Kirkwall was merely lighting the fuse, but the true explosion came when Grand Enchanter Fiona foolishly tried to turn a harmless meeting into a second vote for independence (notably after the first one, held after the Kirkwall incident, had already failed due to most First Enchanters voting "no") and Lambert, just looking for an excuse to shut down the conclave, had the place stormed by his troops, forcing everyone's hands.
And now here we are.
/fluff
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I mean, the Fade is pretty much the warp. Except not as fethed up.
Yeah, good point. Probably because the Spirits take all concepts and emotions rather than just focusing on the strongest ones. And there seem to be a lot less Spirits than Warp entities, at least in terms of manifestations. Though I'm sure there are areas of the Fade that are just as insane as the Warp.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:But then again, only those with very strong character and constitution are supposed to resist contact with the warp, so it works out in the end.
What role could constitution possibly play in a realm where the laws of physics do not apply?
Didn't Tuska survive the warp because he is really, really tough? I always thought exposure to the warp would be like standing in front of a volcano.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Didn't Tuska survive the warp because he is really, really tough? I always thought exposure to the warp would be like standing in front of a volcano.
I had to re-check for that name, but I'd argue that this orc wasn't actually in the "real" Warp. A daemonworld on the fringes of the Eye of Terror is still a physical thing, and I assume it'd have most of the laws of our normal world (gravity etc) in place.
What I meant was the "raw" Warp where everything is really just a big, gooey mess of purple energy where things change, manifest and dissolve every (proverbial) second or so.
That's just how I picture the "real" Warp to be, mind you.
But they effectively enslave the magi. Case in point, the rite of annulment in DA:O.
On the other hand, mages are portrayed as a bunch of power-mad crazies who just want to blow everything up.
Let's switch the order of these statements:
Mages are portrayed as a bunch of power-mad crazies who just want to blow everything up.
They effectively enslave the magi. Case in point, the rite of annulment in DA:O.
Mages must be controlled. There is no other choice or solution to the problem. They need to be controlled with an iron grip. Case and point: Anders. Marill. Jowan. Pretty much every single mage you encounter. Wynne doesn't really count, though, as she's less of a human and more of a magical being itself.
They also enslave how many humans? If they deem a mage too dangerous, they cut off their ability to feel emotions.
My point is that neither faction is wholly in the right. They're both flawed. I find myself supporting neither, over my experiences of both games.
Manchu wrote: Do you think there is a difference between being imprisoned and being enslaved?
Well, being imprisoned usually follows committing a crime. Being imprisoned because you have the potential to commit a crime would be pretty much slavery in my eyes.
Bromsy wrote:Well, being imprisoned usually follows committing a crime. Being imprisoned because you have the potential to commit a crime would be pretty much slavery in my eyes.
Or if you are otherwise a threat to your community.
Current example: people infected with the ebola virus. Mages aren't imprisoned, they are quarantined.
Magic is both a blessing and a curse. Mages need to be kept in check as a matter of necessity. However, it should be done as humane as possible, and this is where the Templar Order sometimes falls short of its ideals. I'm sure it's also different depending on the region, though, depending both on local culture (affinity to violence + native population bias against mages tainting possible recruits even before they join the Chantry) and whoever is the Knight-Commander in charge of the area. I mean, the guy from DA1 seemed pretty sensible, right? And got along well with his First Enchanter, too.
(says I, currently playing this character in our DA P&P and keeping a watchful eye on the group's mage)
Compel wrote:Methinks Lynata has read Dragon Age: Asunder a few times too many.
Just once, actually. I was a bit pissed by
Spoiler:
Evangeline siding with the mages instead of going for a third way, especially as she already had the Divine on her side when it came to opposing Lambert
Sometimes it feels as if BW is pushing the "side with the mages, pleeeassseee" a bit too hard. Then again, I'm Pro-Templar, and I often hear Pro-Mage fans complaining about BW supposedly always making them look bad with the blood magic and possessions. So maybe the writers are doing the exact right thing?
It's almost like a social experiment! Psychologists and sociologists would probably have a field day just reading the BSN forums whenever that discussion breaks out again.
Oh well. At least it seems as if in DA3 you finally build a proper coalition out of all those splintered factions by pointing them at a bigger problem.
Also, I really like the memes born from the whole blood magic and templars thing.
To me, slavery turns a person into an object that is owned. We don't say the state owns prisoners; but we do say prisoners are the responsibility of the state. The state can very severely limit the liberty of prisoners but the prisoners remain persons under the law. I think the same is true of the Mages. Their freedom is circumscribed because of the magnitude of danger inherent to their abilities; but they are not objects that the Templars can do whatever to them.
But you do make a really good point about prisoners and crime. Mages generally aren't guilty of any crime; even the Chantry does not IIRC teach that being a Mage is a crime. It is more of a condition. So the Circles are more like asylums or hospitals. Mages are not imprisoned because of some crime; rather they are institutionalized because of their condition. What is interesting is that the Templars and the senior Mages cooperate in administering treatment and care. And really, it is the Mages rather than the Templars who are the "doctors" in this metaphor. The Templars are just the orderlies/administrators.
Manchu wrote:So the Circles are more like asylums or hospitals. Mages are not imprisoned because of some crime; rather they are institutionalized because of their condition. What is interesting is that the Templars and the senior Mages cooperate in administering treatment and care. And really, it is the Mages rather than the Templars who are the "doctors" in this metaphor. The Templars are just the orderlies/administrators.
A clever analogy, if you don't mind me returning a compliment.
This is also what I got from the Dragon Age P&P RPG, whose books went through BioWare approval. It's a cooperation - and it explains why most First Enchanters voted "no" for independence from the Chantry, after the Kirkwall incident.
The most common troublemakers in this setup are the young ones. Young mages (like Anders) who don't want to conform, and young Templars whose zeal has not yet been tempered by the wisdom and compassion of age and routine.
Lynata wrote: Sometimes it feels as if BW is pushing the "side with the mages, pleeeassseee" a bit too hard.
Agreed -- as I mentioned above, I think it is because there really is no convincing systemic argument against the Templars. All complaints about the Templars come down to individual lapses of discipline and/or personal honor/ethics rather than with some flaw inherent to the institution.
But as you can see, I am also pro-Templar -- although I like to say as a result of objectively considering the setting rather than rationalizing the setting after siding with the Templars. As much as Morrigan annoyed me, I really despised Alistair.
If anything, I guess Anders could have hardened my hopefully objective view into something more militant.
Lynata wrote: Sometimes it feels as if BW is pushing the "side with the mages, pleeeassseee" a bit too hard.
Agreed -- as I mentioned above, I think it is because there really is no convincing systemic argument against the Templars. All complaints about the Templars come down to individual lapses of discipline and/or personal honor/ethics rather than with some flaw inherent to the institution.
But as you can see, I am also pro-Templar -- although I like to say as a result of objectively considering the setting rather than rationalizing the setting after siding with the Templars. As much as Morrigan annoyed me, I really despised Alistair.
If anything, I guess Anders could have hardened my hopefully objective view into something more militant.
Well, I think the lyrium addiction and quite likely mental imbalances caused by it's consumption aren't the greatest things ever. I'd even posit that the 'individual' lapses are in fact systemic lapses caused by those very mental imbalances - paranoia and hatred of magic.
Manchu wrote: I'm not sure I know the truth about lyrium. Is it actually more than a leash for the Templars? Does it actually make them better at what they do?
One thing is certain: the side effects are known and one would guess the Templars take certain precautions against them.
What are you referencing when you say that the side effects are known?
Bromsy wrote: What are you referencing when you say that the side effects are known?
The codex entry in DAO and Alistair's dialog.
You mean the one that says
Often portrayed as stoic and grim, the Order of Templars was created as the martial arm of the Chantry. Armed with the ability to dispel and resist magic in addition to their formidable combat talents, the templars are uniquely qualified to act as both a foil for apostates - mages who refuse to submit to the authority of the Circle - and a first line of defense against the dark powers of blood mages and abominations.
While mages often resent the templars as symbols of the Chantry's control over magic, the people of Thedas see them as saviors and holy warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to protect the world from the ravages of foul magic. In reality, the Chantry's militant arm looks first for skilled warriors with unshakable faith in the Maker, with a flawless moral center as a secondary concern. Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes time to make difficult choices.
The templars' power derives from the substance lyrium, a mineral believed to be the raw element of creation. While mages use lyrium in their arcane spells and rituals, templars ingest the primordial mineral to enhance their abilities to resist and dispel magic. Lyrium use is regulated by the Chantry, but some templars suffer from lyrium addiction, the effects of which include paranoia, obsession, and dementia. Templars knowingly submit themselves to this "treatment" in the service of the Order and the Maker.
It is this sense of ruthless piety that most frightens mages when they draw the templars' attention: When the templars are sent to eliminate a possible blood mage, there is no reasoning with them, and if the templars are prepared, the mage's magic is all but useless. Driven by their faith, the templars are one of the most feared and respected forces in Thedas.
--From Patterns Within Form, by Halden, First Enchanter of Starkhaven, 8:80 Blessed.
So what measures do they take to gauge the degrees of addiction, paranoia, obsession and dementia? What empirical statistics are available?
Sigvatr wrote: Templars do not suffer these symptoms. They have a constant supply of Lyrium.
In DA2, you meet a former templar who is a wreck because of no longer being able to get Lyrium legally.
There are rumors and/or canon that suggests that lyrium addiction can be cured, much like a heroin addiction. Weening the subject off of it slowly because going cold turkey will either kill or drive the subject insane.
This seems like quite a cool idea, I wonder how it'll work in actual practice. If it requires you to remember what your choices were from DA1 for example, Im boned since I can barely remember last weekend.
It's an awesome idea. I don't have my old savegames anymore and don't have the time, or motivation, to play through the entirety of DA:O + Awakening again.
Lyrium has its costs, however. Prolonged use becomes addictive, the cravings unbearable. Over time, templars grow disoriented, incapable of distinguishing memory from present, or dream from waking. They frequently become paranoid as their worst memories and nightmares haunt their waking hours. Mages have additionally been known to suffer physical mutation: The magister lords of the Tevinter Imperium were widely reputed to have been so affected by their years of lyrium use that they could not be recognized by their own kin, nor even as creatures that had once been human.
Bromsy wrote: So what measures do they take to gauge the degrees of addiction, paranoia, obsession and dementia? What empirical statistics are available?
Statistics are unnecessary to understand exposure to lyrium causes those problems. I don't know whether Thedas has IRL modern medical science (seems doubtful) yet they somehow do know all that stuff about lyrium.
Sigvatr wrote: Loghain was a very good character and well-written. At the start of the game, he is immediately made to look like a bad guy, giving the player the motivation and a clear-cut "villain". The blight is a huge threat, of course, but having a central, personalized villain always is a stronger motivation. Over the course of the game, however, you realize that Loghain, by refusing to intervening in Ostagar, he did his part of saving Ferelden by not foolishly sacrificing them for a mad king, but saving them for the final assault on the Archdemon.
Yes, and no.
Loghain's real problem was Orlais. He was still paranoid about Orlesian ambitions against Fereldan. Given that he'd fought in the resistance during the Orlesian occupation, this is understandable. But it also caused him to persuade Cailin to block the Orlesian Grey Warden contingent from entering the country. If he hadn't done that, then the King's army likely could have held its position until the reinforcements arrived, and the combined army could have dealt with the Blight then and there.
Amusingly enough, if you leave Loghain alive in DA:O, and then play Awakenings, you meet up with him as he's being transferred to the Orlesian chapter of the Wardens. He comments on the irony of the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I didn't feel like the mages vs templars debate was all that one sided. In the stricter chantries mages are basically slaves; with the caveat that instead of being dismissed like most slaves - they are instead hated and feared. Large segments of the population are shown to completely distrust them
...and DA2 shows that they are right. Mages in the DA universe, if we take DA2 as canon, are loose cannons of the worst sort that need to be controlled. If given the choice in DA3, I will immediately side with the Templars and will do anything to weaken the mages.
The problem in Kirkwall is that both sides are essentially correct. There are a lot of mages in Kirkwall consorting with demons, or engaging in other forbidden pursuits. And the head of the tower is actively communicating with one (specifically, the insane serial killer mage who murders Hawke's mother). Meanwhile, there are Templars engaging in anti-mage activities that even Meredith, the head of the Templars, doesn't condone (a letter that you find on the Templar in Ander's second mission consists of Meredith telling the Templar not to do the exact thing that you just stopped him from doing). And the abuses on both sides push their counterparts to get even worse.
The background lore discovered during the game hints that the Tevinter mages did... something... that makes it easier for demons to tempt mages in Kirkwall. This is a possible explanation for why there are more abominations in Kirkwall.
It's somewhat ironic that one of the most sympathetic Templars you meet in DA2 (and he does come across as fairly rational and level-headed) is the same one who was screaming to burn the tower down in DA:O.
The problem with Mages is not that a few of them break the rules. The problem is that the consequences of even one of them breaking the rules can be devastating.
By contrast, the damage any given "bad" Templar can cause is extremely limited.
Bromsy wrote: And whilst there is a lot of overlap, there should be a distinction drawn between being a bloodmage and being possessed by a demon. People can use blood magic without being an abomination and/or being friendly with demons. The two are often conflated - almost to an exclusive degree- in DA2, whereas according to lore the two are not the same at all.
According to the fluff (I don't think it ever becomes available in-game), Blood Magic also allows mind control. iirc, this is the real reason that it's banned. The fact that it produces abominations is merely an additional concern.
It's somewhat ironic that one of the most sympathetic Templars you meet in DA2 (and he does come across as fairly rational and level-headed) is the same one who was screaming to burn the tower down in DA:O.
That's not Cullen's fault. He was having a really bad day.
For what it's worth, when I play DA3, I'm siding with the Templars as hard as I can. Meredith was driven crazy by a demon sword, she wasn't always a psycho. On the other hand, every mage bar Bethany and Mage-Hawke was insane or a blood mage, or both. I've learned my lesson, Bioware. Annulment for all!
It's somewhat ironic that one of the most sympathetic Templars you meet in DA2 (and he does come across as fairly rational and level-headed) is the same one who was screaming to burn the tower down in DA:O.
That's not Cullen's fault. He was having a really bad day.
For what it's worth, when I play DA3, I'm siding with the Templars as hard as I can. Meredith was driven crazy by a demon sword, she wasn't always a psycho. On the other hand, every mage bar Bethany and Mage-Hawke was insane or a blood mage, or both. I've learned my lesson, Bioware. Annulment for all!
Well...
There was that one mage in DA2 who sneaked out of the tower to lose his virginity...
(of course, given what he was telling people, you could probably argue about the "sanity" part...)
I really want this game to be good, but after two Bioware games that botched or visibly skimped on their endings, I'm waiting for reviews that specifically mention if the ending was satisfactory.
Reviews are subjective, especially when it comes to story and narrative preferences. I, for example, happened to really like the finale of ME3, which would probably render my review unsuitable for you.
If you want to make sure, I suspect the only thing you could do is to read spoilers to avoid any surprises.
Lynata wrote: Reviews are subjective, especially when it comes to story and narrative preferences. I, for example, happened to really like the finale of ME3, which would probably render my review unsuitable for you.
If you want to make sure, I suspect the only thing you could do is to read spoilers to avoid any surprises.
Yes, though 90+% of the people who address the ending having nothing nice to say about it will be reasonably convincing if it happens. There are reviewers I trust to actually play the whole game and mention if it comes unglued at the end.
Lynata wrote: Reviews are subjective, especially when it comes to story and narrative preferences. I, for example, happened to really like the finale of ME3, which would probably render my review unsuitable for you.
If you want to make sure, I suspect the only thing you could do is to read spoilers to avoid any surprises.
Yes, though 90+% of the people who address the ending having nothing nice to say about it will be reasonably convincing if it happens. There are reviewers I trust to actually play the whole game and mention if it comes unglued at the end.
I'm with you on the ending, I sort of got it, but the execution was disjointed and poorly done. I have no problem with the hero dying to end the series, or the fight, or whatever. I had a problem with just how gakky it was executed.
As for DA3, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they realize their mistakes and simply make a DA3 that's a combination of DA1 and DA2.
Honestly looks more than DA:O or DA2 ever were. They really seemed to have tried to cater specifically to the gripes of players from older games as best as possible and took cues from games that have been doing well. I expect great things this November.
Yes, though 90+% of the people who address the ending having nothing nice to say about it will be reasonably convincing if it happens. There are reviewers I trust to actually play the whole game and mention if it comes unglued at the end.
Not when it comes to game reviews. All too often, people jump on a bandwagon, pro or con, which loses any sense of proportion to the actual quality of the game. I'm also one who was fine with the ME3 ending, down to simply pressing a button. There's a bajillion Reapers. Was I going to fight them all? Haha, no.
Remember, gaming journalism has virtually no ethics. Never has. Game reviewers almost always work for a company that has a vested interest in receiving advertising dollars from game producers. Write bad reviews, ad dollars dry up. It's a gakky system, but it's how gaming journalism has been done since its inception.
Remember, gaming journalism has virtually no ethics. Never has. Game reviewers almost always work for a company that has a vested interest in receiving advertising dollars from game producers. Write bad reviews, ad dollars dry up. It's a gakky system, but it's how gaming journalism has been done since its inception.
Oh yes, professional game journalism is quite thoroughly bought. But I'm talking about people on Youtube with less or no money on the line, who have a good record of not getting swept into the hype. They're out there, if you look.
Elemental wrote:But I'm talking about people on Youtube with less or no money on the line, who have a good record of not getting swept into the hype.
Or the hate train, I'd hope. For some reason, gaming seems to have become so incredibly polarised that nowadays you either have to love or hate something. Sense of entitlement, kneejerk reactions and the mob mentality of the internet have certainly become more problematic over the years.
It's also not even remotely true that people on Youtube have no money on the line. Total Biscuit runs his YouTube channel as a business because that channel makes him money. A lot of money. There are several 'broadcast' companies on YouTube the hire and sponsor YouTubers.
If you are big on YouTube or Twitch, you will frequently receive "sponsorship" offers. Make a show about a certain game, get bonus cash. Furthermore, this gives you special treatment when it comes to (unjustifed) copyright claims, sort of a White List Light.
Heh, if you're subscribed to any number of youtube game channels, you can spot when a company has paid for content then lifted a video embargo, so you see a mass of videos pop up about the same game.
That said, despite the fact that they play a game is being bought, to which I say a guy has to make a living. Most of the time, if it's a decent game, it will show decently. There's no hiding something that's a bad game just by having a youtuber play it. Something about seeing the game actually being played by a variety of people that play it in different ways is actually a very good way to get an idea of whether you'll like it or not.
It's pretty much exactly what we want in terms of coverage, which is long format, in depth looks at how something plays.
). Hence the "nice things" meme.
