Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

Eumerin wrote:


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!

squidhills wrote:

Eumerin wrote:


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.

 Elemental wrote:

 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.

 Psienesis wrote:

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.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/28/7083373/look-at-this-chart-of-average-metacritic-scores-what-happened-in-2007

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.

There's a horde of money in YouTube.

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.

There's money to be had and people have it.

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.