Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Dragon Age: Inquisition

1356712

Comments

  • ScotGaymerScotGaymer Member Posts: 525
    edited April 2014
    @Ayiekie‌

    I think we are essentially saying the same thing just in different ways lol.

    It's just that you feel that her behaviour is excusable and I do not.

    Take the Eluvian. Yes it is an important piece of Elvhen history, and important in that it seems to employ Teleportation Magic in a setting that does not have Teleportation Magic which would be a hugely important magical breakthrough if it could be discovered how this was accomplished. It would be a massive moral, and political win for the Dalish if she could do it.
    However it is NOT "saving all of Elvhen history single handedly" - she is saving one single piece. A piece that has already killed one of her friends, nearly killed another, and has resulted in her own mentor turning away from her.

    She isn't a fool, though she certainly acts like one, she knows what demons are and the risks of doing what she is doing is. In the end, you are right she eventually sees the light, but that it took the loss of EVERYTHING she held dear for to admit she was wrong?
    Dear god I wanted to slap the stubborn cow. lol.

    There were other ways, she could have sent word to other clans for information, she could have contacted a circle, or perhaps gone to Tevinter. Granted visiting a circle or going to Tevinter would have been massively risky for her, but no more than CONSORTING WITH A DEMON is.
    No she seized on the quickest and easiest option available to her to repair the eluvian out of sheer stubbornness - because Marethari told her that repairing the eluvian was too dangerous - as a way to try and prove herself to her people and to prove herself right.

    She wasn't at all sensible about it, and in the end it resulted in the death of her mentor, and possibly the destruction of her whole clan. Because she was stubborn. Because she was determined to "save her people" - because fixing a magic mirror will do that for reasons - no matter what anyone thought.
    She dug her heels in and knowingly marched straight down that destructive path, and someone else paid the price for it.

    I do not like people who are that willfully stubborn. Thus I do not like Merill.

    EDIT:
    As to Marethari - I agree that she was as prideful and stubborn as Merill in this situation and that she wholly made it worse. However I give Marethari more of a pass than I give Merill because Marethari didn't cause the situation, she was only trying to contain it so no one got hurt.

    The impression I got was that Marethari loved Merill a mite more than she probably should have; by that I mean I think she loved Merill the way a mother loves her daughter rather than the way a mentor loves her student.

    I think that love is what caused her to behave a little irrationally. Because she could see the woman she considered her daughter marching straight down the path to self destruction and could do nothing to save her except wait and hope. And she waited and hoped for nearly a decade, keeping the clan where it was WAAAY beyond what was safe for a Dalish clan, just because she loved Merill.
    Her stupidity comes in that she didn't tell anyone how she felt, or why she was doing what she was doing. She didn't communicate to her clan what was going on, and left them to guess. And when you leave people guessing in an uncertain and frightening situation they are always going to assume the worst.

    So the Dalish assumed that Merill had fallen and become an Abomination and for some reason their leader wouldn't deal with her. So they reacted with hostility to her.

    And eventually Marethari hit upon a solution. An epically stupid solution, but one that would allow her to save Merill, allow her to return to the clan, and allow the clan to leave for safer climes.
    She let the demon take her instead of Merill. After all from Marethari's point of view it was better that she die taking the risk of the demon possessing Merill with her, so that an unpossessed uncorrupted Merill could return to the clan.
    But stupidly she hadn't told the clan ANYTHING, and thus when she died, the clan rightfully assumed Merill-the-abomination was responsible. And thus Merills exile became permanent, and the clan was left without a Keeper.

    Bunch of frakking idiots. lol.

    But as stupid, stubborn, and short sighted as Marethari was you can tell it came from her utmost desire to protect her daughter essentially. And given that it came from a good place, I find I can't be quite as critical to her about it as I am to Merill and her desire to prove herself right to mummy.

    SapphireIce101
  • SapphireIce101SapphireIce101 Member Posts: 866
    I agree with @fitscotgaymer‌, I think Marethari did what she did out of love. Not necessarily pride.

    The thing about DA2, there seems to be a lot of retardism in a lot of varying degrees. When it comes to companions, Varric and Aveline seem to have a minor degree. While Merrill, and Anders have a huge degree. I find that Fenris and Isabella are kind of in the middle.

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,263
    Two new trailers from E3





    Aristillius
  • elementelement Member Posts: 833
    I thought da2 was a miserable experience with mediocre writing and forgettable 2 dimensional characters.
    But, worst of all was playing the entire game with an utterly dislikeable character and a terrible dialogue system.

    Im still not convinced by da3 tbh the game play stuff really doesn't reveal anything. That said ill most likely be picking it up it does add proper character creation which tbh is kinda enough for me to give it a look.

    Also the whole elf clan was lame it should have been all new characters rather then returning characters also it just added a massive elephant in the room for my import game

    badbromanceCatoblepas
  • SapphireIce101SapphireIce101 Member Posts: 866
    So far, there's only one thing that I don't like it, and that's the Ferelden Stronghold being in Redcliffe. Mostly because one can choose if Redcliffe becomes a ghost town or not in Origins.

    elminsterBlackraven
  • ronaldoronaldo Member Posts: 258
    It's coming out on my birthday! :-) I'm really looking forward to this. DAO was a great game and DA2 was average at best.

    I have high hopes for this game, just hope my computer can run it.

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,263
    new foooooootage!

    Check out these two new gameplay videos
    (Hope, you don't mind the German subtitles on the first one)







    Ravenslightronaldo
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,192
    So after a tremendous amount of searching (it was -really- hard finding a straight answer to it for some reason) I've come across the fact that this game won't require persistent online drm, aka steam/Origin. An answer to this was important to me because I always feel cheated when I go out of my way to get a physical copy of a game, only to find I could have saved myself the trouble since the entire thing needs to be downloaded and played online anyway. Inquisition will require one-time activation via Origin but that's not a dealbreaker for me... I know it is for a lot of people though. Weird people >.>

    I'll still be wary and not get this game at launch though. Dragon Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 proved that Bioware is easily capable of wrecking a good IP and I'm not handing them my cash until I know they're not doing that. Still, judging from what I do know of Inquisition so far, it will be the DA:O2 I've been waiting for.

    jackjack
  • JonelethIrenicusJonelethIrenicus Member Posts: 157
    So the ninja dance mage is still there, casting magic as fast and often as an archer shooting arrows and the pathetic dialogue wheel. So much roleplay

    jackjack
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    So far, there's only one thing that I don't like it, and that's the Ferelden Stronghold being in Redcliffe. Mostly because one can choose if Redcliffe becomes a ghost town or not in Origins.

    This game takes place like fifteen years or more after Origins. People could have just moved back there.
    element said:

    I thought da2 was a miserable experience with mediocre writing and forgettable 2 dimensional characters.
    But, worst of all was playing the entire game with an utterly dislikeable character and a terrible dialogue system.

    Im still not convinced by da3 tbh the game play stuff really doesn't reveal anything. That said ill most likely be picking it up it does add proper character creation which tbh is kinda enough for me to give it a look.

    Also the whole elf clan was lame it should have been all new characters rather then returning characters also it just added a massive elephant in the room for my import game

    What massive elephant in the room is that? I never played an elf in Origins.

    So the ninja dance mage is still there, casting magic as fast and often as an archer shooting arrows and the pathetic dialogue wheel. So much roleplay

    Mages can shoot their auto-attack about as fast an archer shoots arrows, but their actual spells have cooldowns and casting animations. The DA games have never been about having long casting times. A lot of spells come out almost instantaneously even in Origins.

    As for the dialogue wheel, it's really not any different than organizing dialogue options in a list, other than being less clunky looking than a list. So, yeah, lots of roleplay. It is, after all, a Bioware RPG.

    Aristillius
  • ButtercheeseButtercheese Member Posts: 3,745
    On one hand, I really want to play this game.
    But on the other, I really don't want to give EA my money.

    The struggle is real, mates. The struggle is real.

    jackjack
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,810
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 19,029
    edited August 2014
    To me, it looks like a worse version of Skyrim. Every DAI trailer I watch, I see limited Skyrim. Even the dragons are there too.

    I will hardly buy it.

    Danathion
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,263
    edited August 2014


    Post edited by Shandyr on
    ronaldo
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    If it play more like Dark Souls and less like Jade Empire it might be great.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    bengoshi said:

    To me, it looks like a worse version of Skyrim. Every DAI trailer I watch, I see limited Skyrim. Even the dragons are there too.

    I will hardly buy it.

    Eh, what? Dragon Age: Origins came out before Skyrim. If anything, Skyrim is a sandbox "version" of Origins. Nevermind that the comparison is pointless, because again, Skyrim is a sandbox game, and Inquisition is more of a traditional CRPG. Apples and oranges.

    Aristillius
  • ButtercheeseButtercheese Member Posts: 3,745
    @Schneidend‌:
    The elder Scrolls is waaaaaaay older than Dragon Age and Skyrim hardly reinvented the wheel for the series.
    Besides, all the AAA games these days want to be open world like Skyrim and GTAV because "open world" is apparently a seal of quality (people are idiots).
    @bengoshi‌ does make a good point, DA:I will be typical EA again, just a money grab, something that tries to cash in on Skyrim's success.

    Nothing with the EA logo on it these days is a trustworthy product, never forget that.

  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,192

    Nothing with the EA logo on it these days is a trustworthy product, never forget that.

    But I hear their newest sports game is totally original with a host of new features and innovative new mechanics that redefines the genre! Surely it won't just be a carbon-copy of last year's version with different names, slightly polished graphics and a new soundtrack. People wouldn't be dumb enough to shell out for that rather than just request updated teams as a patch or downloadable content.... right?

    ButtercheeseThePlanarTraveler
  • ButtercheeseButtercheese Member Posts: 3,745
    Three words: Swimmingpools and toddlers.

    SilverstarThePlanarTravelerRavenslight
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    @Schneidend‌:
    The elder Scrolls is waaaaaaay older than Dragon Age and Skyrim hardly reinvented the wheel for the series.
    Besides, all the AAA games these days want to be open world like Skyrim and GTAV because "open world" is apparently a seal of quality (people are idiots).
    @bengoshi‌ does make a good point, DA:I will be typical EA again, just a money grab, something that tries to cash in on Skyrim's success.

    Nothing with the EA logo on it these days is a trustworthy product, never forget that.

    I know Elder Scrolls is older than Dragon Age, but Skyrim itself is not, and @bengoshi implied that DA was copying Skyrim because it had dragons, when Skyrim was the first installment where you fought any significant number of dragons, if any.

    I don't share your cynicism toward EA. Sure, Madden is crap, but I've enjoyed every Bioware game that's been released under EA's banner. More to the point, it can't really be a money grab when it's one of the biggest Bioware games in scope to date, if not the biggest non-MMO they've made, period. If Battlefield or Dragon Age were a money grab, they wouldn't be putting such a huge amount of development resources into them and just churn out a new iteration every year. If DA:I were a money grab, it'd be the fifth or sixth game in the series by now, not the third. If DA:I were a money grab, they'd be promising 30+ hours for a completionist playthrough, not 100+. A money grab puts a paywall in its multiplayer, not free with purely optional micro-transactions like DA:I's multiplayer.

    The "open world" promise is not really an attempt to emulate Skyrim, as the game will still make use of BG-style map-travel. Just the areas will be bigger and more open. If anything, they're trying to get back to their BG roots with big places you can explore. The plot necessitates a big, open game, besides. This is the DA where the whole world is genuinely in peril, so naturally you've got a lot of ground to cover to stop the demon invasion.

    SilverstarAristillius
  • HeindrichHeindrich Member, Moderator Posts: 2,959
    I haven't played the earlier Dragon Age games, so I am very much a neutral observer on this issue... But I must disagree with you @bengoshi‌ ... The gameplay footage and the media released for DA:I has been pretty impressive thus far. If the storyline is half as good as the Baldur's Gate trilogy, and they actually pull off the stuff they have promised, then this could be an amazing game.

    If anything I am a bit concerned that they might be trying to do too much in one game. I am not sure how they can accommodate all the ambitions they have claimed to be aiming for. For example how can you have a open world sand box kinda game, where your actions determines the outcome of the geopolitical background... And still have a compelling narrative and compelling characters? I am no Skyrim veteran, but I understand there were quite a lot of contradictions and plot loopholes that arose from player choice in the ES games. I find that kinda thing quite immersion breaking.

    So far though DA:I looks very promising and exciting to me, even though I got no concept of the factions or any attachment to the characters returning from the previous games.

    AristilliusRavenslight
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Heindrich said:

    I haven't played the earlier Dragon Age games, so I am very much a neutral observer on this issue... But I must disagree with you @bengoshi‌ ... The gameplay footage and the media released for DA:I has been pretty impressive thus far. If the storyline is half as good as the Baldur's Gate trilogy, and they actually pull off the stuff they have promised, then this could be an amazing game.

    If anything I am a bit concerned that they might be trying to do too much in one game. I am not sure how they can accommodate all the ambitions they have claimed to be aiming for. For example how can you have a open world sand box kinda game, where your actions determines the outcome of the geopolitical background... And still have a compelling narrative and compelling characters? I am no Skyrim veteran, but I understand there were quite a lot of contradictions and plot loopholes that arose from player choice in the ES games. I find that kinda thing quite immersion breaking.

    So far though DA:I looks very promising and exciting to me, even though I got no concept of the factions or any attachment to the characters returning from the previous games.

    I would honestly say that the DA franchise, both Origins and 2, topped Baldur's Gate 2 for characters and story. And, considering that DA:O and DA2's stories both had a big impact on the political scene of their respective regions, I'd say DA:I is up to the task of balancing the large scale political intrigue with characterization and character-driven arcs. DA:I is one a larger, almost global scale, politically, but the game is also promising to be twice as long as the previous games for a completionist playthrough, so it sounds like they gave themselves the room they needed to do both geopolitical and narrative impact plenty of focus.

    I'll happily sum up the factions at play, as best as I know them. The Chantry, the church, is basically already on your side, as three of its best people have been assigned by the Divine (female pope, basically), along with a token force, to assist you. A lot of the Templars from the Chantry, however, have split off to form the Red Templars and hunt down mages and fight against the mage rebellion that the ending of DA2 sparked, so they're an obstacle you may have to either get on your side, avoid, or destroy. By that same token, there's a huge rebellion of pissed off mages sparking all over the world, so they're an issue as well. There's also the Tevinter Imperium, a nation that is not unlike ancient Rome if it were ruled by mages, that plays a role, and you'll have to work around or with them in some capacity. If Tevinter is as involved as I think they are, then the other faction they've been warring with for decades, the Qunari, will also play a role. The Qunari are a monolithic empire with a religion, The Qun, that deeply informs their culture. They are primarily composed of a race of horned giants, but any who join and convert are called Qunari, whether elf, dwarf, or human. They have a bit of a Blue and Orange morality thing going on, as while their society is very rigid, and they are imperialist conquerors, their society also functions /really/ well, with most of their non-giant subjects being happy and prosperous, and so they more or less see their conquest and spread of the Qun as just being the right thing to do. They're probably the most complex and fascinating faction in the Dragon Age universe. How deeply involved they'll be in DA:I I don't know, but considering one of your potential party members is a Qunari deep-cover agent named Iron Bull who has grown accustomed to his cover identity, and you can choose to play as an exiled qunari giant, I certainly hope they're a key part of the game.

    HeindrichAristillius
  • TheElfTheElf Member Posts: 798
    I liked DA2 quite a lot even though it admittedly was a lot worse than the first in many ways. I'm sure I'll get it at some point, but I haven't really gotten at all excited or followed anything about it. Too many great kickstarter RPGS comint out, especially Pillars, so I keep forgetting about it.

    JuliusBorisov
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    I have to say that DA:I, looks so far, at least impressive.

    At least.

  • AristilliusAristillius Member Posts: 873
    Im absolutely looking forward to the game, but I am sceptical about whether they will be able to live up to the hype. Will be interesting. Also, EA might have a deservedly dubious reputation, but I think it is premature to judge the game as a failure as of yet.

  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,192

    Im absolutely looking forward to the game, but I am sceptical about whether they will be able to live up to the hype. Will be interesting. Also, EA might have a deservedly dubious reputation, but I think it is premature to judge the game as a failure as of yet.

    Bioware had allready been absorbed by EA when they released DA:O hadn't they? And most people seem to be in agreement that one was good. The later Mass Effects have also been well received to a large degree. So I don't see why this game should be any different in that regard.

    Aristillius
  • NWN_babaYagaNWN_babaYaga Member Posts: 732
    I would like to know if anyone who was so pis*sed about DA2 and swore to never buy a product from them again forget all their justified action in ripping it apart and now just be a mindless drone again ready to throw their money into the EA money machine. hah. Yeah, i bet most of them will buy it !
    But i not ehehehehe.

  • ChildofBhaal599ChildofBhaal599 Member Posts: 1,781

    Im absolutely looking forward to the game, but I am sceptical about whether they will be able to live up to the hype. Will be interesting. Also, EA might have a deservedly dubious reputation, but I think it is premature to judge the game as a failure as of yet.

    Bioware had allready been absorbed by EA when they released DA:O hadn't they? And most people seem to be in agreement that one was good. The later Mass Effects have also been well received to a large degree. So I don't see why this game should be any different in that regard.
    Well ME1 released under Microsoft so the EA takeover happened after that. Considering DAO took about 4 years I don't think EA got to influence it much at all within a year. I'll admit I still enjoyed ME2 but there was already a lack of exploration at that point.

  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,192

    I would like to know if anyone who was so pis*sed about DA2 and swore to never buy a product from them again forget all their justified action in ripping it apart and now just be a mindless drone again ready to throw their money into the EA money machine. hah. Yeah, i bet most of them will buy it !
    But i not ehehehehe.

    Dragon Effect 2 was disappointing in many ways, but not so bad I swore to never buy another Bioware game. That would be dumb. I actually think it's a great action-RPG but a horrible Dragon Age. It seems DA:I might be the DA:O2 we never got... I wouldn't know though, I haven't kept up to speed on it at all. I'll watch my brother play it for a while before I decide whether to get it or not.

    NWN_babaYaga
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190


    Dragon Effect 2 was disappointing in many ways, but not so bad I swore to never buy another Bioware game. That would be dumb. I actually think it's a great action-RPG but a horrible Dragon Age. It seems DA:I might be the DA:O2 we never got... I wouldn't know though, I haven't kept up to speed on it at all. I'll watch my brother play it for a while before I decide whether to get it or not.

    While I think DA2 was a fine Dragon Age game, I do certainly agree that DA:I is much more like DA:O in some good ways, chiefly being more Origins-style character creation. DA:I is also giving all platforms the option to pull the camera out for a tactical view, something that the previous engine made impossible for console players.

    Silverstar
Sign In or Register to comment.