And more on topic, this will probably be the plot:
With 100% unironic sincerity I think they're going to make the Maker show up and be real but with one of two exceptions:And more on topic, this will probably be the plot:
I remember thinking they were following some grand plan from the beginning, and not just making shit up as they go...Is that how you remember it?
When Mass Effect was confirmed to be a trilogy, they had one game out, a rough sketch of the second, and the third was just a paragraph.I remember thinking they were following some grand plan from the beginning, and not just making shit up as they go...Is that how you remember it?
So naive.
Awakening was too easy. The Blight was ended in Origins at great cost, both personal and by the kingdom. In Awakening the world is saved and no one even realizes it. It turns out, it was all just some dude. He dies and the blights are gone forever. So lame.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought I recall an interview where Gaider admitted he didn't like the Darkspawn and wanted to write them out of the story. It was a common criticism that they were 'generic orcs', which was hardly true, but in any case Gaider had nothing to replace them with except even more generic demons. He really just wanted to 'fix' the setting by freeing the mages. Much the same as Rian Johnson, after being handed a serviceable story with The Force Awakens, writes The Last Jedi as a big Fuck You to Star Wars fan while shitting on every piece of lore he could think of.
Imagine Tolkien dies of a heart attack midway through writing LotR. Christopher takes over and, instead of finishing the existing plot, he kills Sauron off in an anti-climax, declared there was nothing wrong with the ring after all, and the real villains were Gondor for oppressing the poor, impoverished orcs.
David Gaider is a man of no real imagination. He can't put himself into the shoes of another person and try to see the world from his perspective. He can only impose his narrow worldview on everything he sees with no regard to sense, logic, or verisimilitude. He can't imagine how a regular medieval human would react to a very real danger of living demonic conduits in their midst, or the ever present threat of being consumed by hellbeasts from the nether realms. Gaider can only imagine how to enacapsulate a story within a narrative of social justice, and ensure the player reaches the 'correct' conclusion by the end. This is why DA2 always ends the same, the mages *will* be freed during the story. The idea of a group of special people being held in bondage, even in fiction--and everyone being pretty okay with it--was unbearable.
Well, it is D&D and 5E Forgotten Realms, so moral grayness isn't really encouraged by the setting, unless it's a "good" demon, since that's apparently a thing in D&D now.Dunno, perhaps it's due to its lack of symmetry in the C&C department which lowers my appreciation for the dialogue itself. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad or too underdeveloped, but it didn't leave as much of an impression as DAO's did. Then again, DAO also went much more into the whole 'morally grey' area with the limited C&C that they did provide, at least for the big consequential stuff hence it's primarily the dialogue that defines the moral alignment of your character. BG3 might offer more C&C, but it's slanted towards good characters rather than being about neutral actions that can be justified either way morally.
But you don't have to be a murderhobo to be evil. There is zero need for you to lift a finger to kill the teiflings. Just ignore them and they'll die.What I'm saying that the emphasis shouldn't be put on that sort of thing when designing evil content. That's just low effort crap, same as with other games that outright conceptualize evil playthroughs as allowing the player to be a murderhobo.
I just don't know how you expect killing NPCs to result in more NPCs for you to deal with.As previously mentioned, I don't think that the tiefling content post-grove is particularly significant or even good, but it's asymmetrically designed when compared to the one you get for siding with the goblins.
Yeah, that's part of what I'm saying. If you have hours of content dedicated to the evil path, you might say "well, Evil has enough content." But then you change that in the last year of development because playtesters crapped themselves at their character being fantasy Patrick Bateman.I don't mind it being optional, but it's outside of that particular backstory that the evil content is most lacking. Perhaps that's part of the reason why if they originally intended it to be the default origin.
Christopher Tolkien would never do such a thing! He is a legend, and we have him to thank for the Silmarillion being painstakingly put together out of his father's disparate writings. He knew his father's intentions and took them very seriously.Imagine Tolkien dies of a heart attack midway through writing LotR. Christopher takes over and, instead of finishing the existing plot, he kills Sauron off in an anti-climax, declared there was nothing wrong with the ring after all, and the real villains were Gondor for oppressing the poor, impoverished orcs.
If you intend for your game to allow for properly evil playthroughs, then evilness shouldn't be a result of fail states to possible quests. An evil playthrough should be about evil actions, not evil consequences as a result of your inaction (which makes your PC neutral if anything). Otherwise it's just bad design and unsatisfying in any case.But you don't have to be a murderhobo to be evil. There is zero need for you to lift a finger to kill the teiflings. Just ignore them and they'll die.
I'm not arguing in favor of adding content for being a murderhobo. Issue is that you can join the goblins as an opposing faction hence they should likewise get content on par with the one you get for joining the good faction. If you were only allowed to either side with the tieflings or ignore them, then there'd be no evil route. Larian gave us an evil route by allowing us to side with the gobbos, but made it less developed than the good counterpart.I just don't know how you expect killing NPCs to result in more NPCs for you to deal with.
Should it work that way for every character? Kill one and a replacement pops up so you won't feel disenfranchised by your choice to murderhobo? I know there are some DMs who will reinvent an entire story when their players decide to burn, loot and murder, but in a game, you can only go so far with that.
[...] But as far as having some extra equivalent of Last Light for evil players or whatever, I don't think that's a fair ask. You get your bloody gobo party. You get your sex scene with Drow Dr Girlfriend. Is what it is.
Agreed. That's the unfortunate reality of what happens when you change things radically so late in development. Same shit with Daisy being cut and the Emperor being shoehorned in in terms of narrative fuckups.Yeah, that's part of what I'm saying. If you have hours of content dedicated to the evil path, you might say "well, Evil has enough content." But then you change that in the last year of development because playtesters crapped themselves at their character being fantasy Patrick Bateman.
They aren't though. They're the result of deliberate choices. It just so happens that evil choices, especially those resulting in death, close more doors than they open.If you intend for your game to allow for properly evil playthroughs, then evilness shouldn't be a result of fail states to possible quests.
They do: Moonrise towers. It's just that the good "faction" can also experience that content. Likewise, if you don't go murder hobo, you can be evil and experience the good faction's content.Issue is that you can join the goblins as an opposing faction hence they should likewise get content on par with the one you get for joining the good faction.
No, I agree that there's less content. I just disagree that it's a problem rather than the only possible outcome for mass murdering two sets of NPCs in the first act (druids and teiflings), and potentially another in the second act.Ultimately though, we can agree to disagree whether they were equal in content since we're getting bogged down in this particular example.
There were definitely illusory choices here, though Gortash's at least gets you to the endgame before breaking the illusion.The critical path is simply thought out with a good PC in mind, so the game has to railroad you back onto that path even if it gives you the illusion of there being an evil alternative in how you approach Ketheric, Gortash etc.
Now there's something we can agree on. Asinine choice btw. So you replace the slightly rapey dream character that the player designed with an even more rapey tentacle monster who wants to brainwash you like he did his last victim. So what if most people don't side with Daisy. Most people won't bang the mind flayer, but they still put that in.Same shit with Daisy being cut and the Emperor being shoehorned in in terms of narrative fuckups.
I think it's more of a problem for me due to the way the game is frontloaded. Unless you're playing Durge, later game just doesn't offer as much stuff for an evil character. Then again, it's generally disappointing regardless of 'alignment'. Game could've used some more time in development.No, I agree that there's less content. I just disagree that it's a problem
Eh, some extra fancy visuals as already advertised for the upcoming patch and a few more bugfixes won't change much. Originally I had higher hopes for a proper enhanced edition that would add more of the cut content and/or expand the preexisting content more broadly, but now I doubt that we'll get much besides what they've already patched in.I don't think content needs to be even at all. All I want is for the ending to have some more polish than it does.
That was just so lazy, man. How hard would it be to add a few new lines of dialogue for an alternate ending. And it's not like they haven't gone out of their way already for that post-epilogue meetup, so they could've done more for Gortash as well. I guess the community just didn't care as much about that as they did about Minthara who at least got somewhat expanded content (and I doubt that it was all just bugs that made said extra content not trigger).though Gortash's at least gets you to the endgame before breaking the illusion.
And it just weakens the plot's cohesiveness imho. Although in general I think that the game's plot was poorly handled. Kind of like with Deadfire's plot being split between geopolitical stuff and deity stuff, here it's with mindflayer stuff and Dead Three stuff. It still works overall, but meh.Now there's something we can agree on. Asinine choice btw. So you replace the slightly rapey dream character that the player designed with an even more rapey tentacle monster who wants to brainwash you like he did his last victim. So what if most people don't side with Daisy. Most people won't bang the mind flayer, but they still put that in.
It's even weirder when you consider the elves being a defeated slave race rather than the ancient omnimportant ubermensch was a point of praise DAO's setting frequently got. People seemed to like Bioware's take on elves and stated it alot. I don't think anyone was out there wanting them to become mary sue demigods for the millionth time in a fantasy setting and Bioware knew that but just didn't give a shit.I think that the worst thing about the lore post-DAO was how they made everything traceable back to the elves tbqh. Cheapens all the other mythologies and makes elven lore convoluted as well.
Imagine having a kid and he plays Fortnite and likes this kind of shit of a game.
You might as well kill him and then yourself for failing in crumbling civilization.
Imagine having a kid and he plays Fortnite and likes this kind of shit of a game.
You might as well kill him and then yourself for failing in crumbling civilization.
TBF, that's probably exactly what our fathers thought when we were playing video games instead of getting laid and becoming aerospace engineers.
It's even more than that. Darkspawn originally weren't in Dragon Age at all but one of the executive producers suggested the idea. Gaider didn't like them but wrote them in begrudgingly, and they turned out to be what was one of the most interesting parts of DA lore.Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought I recall an interview where Gaider admitted he didn't like the Darkspawn and wanted to write them out of the story.Is that how you remember it?
maybe i will even watch video of sucide mission with zero loyalty missions completed just for laughs.I finally watched the trailer. Yeah, its terrible but why do I feel like this will play exactly like ME2? Recruit companions -> loyalty missions -> suicide mission to stop egghead.
maybe i will even watch video of sucide mission with zero loyalty missions completed just for laughs.
Lol, wat? You assume people didn't do it wrong on purpose to kill characters they didn't like.again, for suicide mission to work you should first care about characters dying.