...I hope you're not serious
...I hope you're not serious
So, I wouldn't be such a wanker about this if my post on BSN wasn't deleted, a post describing Bioware as being more apt to borrow from AAA games than indie titles.
Watch Laidlaw squirm @ 39:45
They squee about indie games, with Laidlaw swooning over one particular game from Christine Love. Look her up for fun results. I find it all rather disingenuous.
Edit- got a name wrong.
Watch Laidlaw squirm @ 39:45
They squee about indie games, with Laidlaw swooning over one particular game from Christine Love. Look her up for fun results. I find it all rather disingenuous.
Edit- got a name wrong.
Last edited:
----------------------------------- End of line!
But yeah, the gray vs white&black question did kinda put him against the ropes and he didn't really answer it. Personally I wouldn't call a black&white situation a dilemma, quite the opposite.
Weren't any of the actual writers there? That was a question more suited for the writers. He's the lead designer of the game. Big difference.
Not really, it's one of the core features of these games (DAI and TW3). As the Lead Designer of it you should be able to answer this. It's not like he's asking this super in-depth question about the lore of the game, he's asking stuff related to basic gameplay and story design.
that question answer was awkward to watch but I don't agree with the question. Boware don't always make morality clear cut. Sometimes you can be nice and sometimes you can be an asshole but generally when making decisions you don't know if (for example) saving the templar or saving the mage is the good or bad option.
I thought this up so fast. Hire me Bioware I'll defend you
I thought this up so fast. Hire me Bioware I'll defend you
Well let's use the situation spoken about from Mike. You have 3 choices in how to deal with Connor if I remeber correctly (which I might not).
(1) You can either let the demon live in connor (bad choice), (2) you can let Isolde sacrifice herself to save connor (neutral choice) or (3) you can save connor with the help of the circle mages (good choice).
To be honest, I don't see much problem in deciding what decision is morally right and what the consequences will be.
(1) You can either let the demon live in connor (bad choice), (2) you can let Isolde sacrifice herself to save connor (neutral choice) or (3) you can save connor with the help of the circle mages (good choice).
To be honest, I don't see much problem in deciding what decision is morally right and what the consequences will be.
I believe, in Bioware games, it does not matter much whether you save one or the other. It's just a choice left to your liking as in which one do you want to be allied with. Otherwise they have similar aftereffects on the world, mages losing power or templars losing power. If you support mages, you have quests related to them, if you have templars, you have quests related to them. Afterwards, on an issue in the world, both of them help you the same.
Of course that is only one of the decision making situations Bioware is doing. However in other cases as well, it always seemed to me very clear which is the positive one and which is the negative one.
Of course that is only one of the decision making situations Bioware is doing. However in other cases as well, it always seemed to me very clear which is the positive one and which is the negative one.
Last edited:
Am i the only one who thinks Varric looks like hes trying to morph into geralt?
Regardless wtf is going on?
View attachment 7202
BioWare............
To the first question... uh, no. Lol. To the rest, I like it. He doesn't look like a pretty boy biatch anymore. He's supposed to be rugged looking.
edit: @slimgrin, no clue what he says about Witcher 2 at the end. What in the world did he say? Lol. But anyway, it wasn't that bad really. Funny though.
Last edited:
I'm watching the video right now. Go to 7:15. I told you guys it was like that, in fact he pretty much says it as I did.
What I disliked in DA Awakening for example, spoilers ahead ...
I hope Dragon Age Inquisition will at least have some meaningful choices, like a companion dying when you choose to defend a particular region or not or choosing him/her to be in the party or not, or entire villages being destroyed, that fact that you could get away with your choices really irritated me in their previous games and I hope DAI will different, we will see.
that you could get away with your choices, for example, the choice to either defend the city or the fortress from the feral darkspawn, sure you had to get some work done to make the fortress and its garrison as strong as possible, but realisticly speaking, that would have been a stupid tactical choice to go defend the city while your forces defended the fortress, but you could make it work, with no consequences, sure, most of the garrison either dies or gets wounded, but it is a happy ending afterall.
I hope Dragon Age Inquisition will at least have some meaningful choices, like a companion dying when you choose to defend a particular region or not or choosing him/her to be in the party or not, or entire villages being destroyed, that fact that you could get away with your choices really irritated me in their previous games and I hope DAI will different, we will see.
Well, in DA:I you are basically leading leaders so I imagine if Vivienne dies you will lose the support of mages.
And IF I lose the support of the mages, I want to be handicapped in some way, shape, or form, maybe because of the lack of mages in the final battle, you lose a lot of your army and companions, I WANT MEANINGFUL choices in Bioware's modern games.
Yes absolutely. ME2 did this really good with the suicide mission with the optional upgrade system and not only.
They're still protecting their "creative license" over there, eh.
The indie stuff sounds like EA marketing bullshit. I still can't listen to Mike Laidlaw. I'm sure he's a nice person and all but I associate that voice with being patronized and lied to.
He even says it himself, that there's one good choice and the rest are bad. A better example would be Bhelen and Harrowmont, where the "paragon" choice really does bite you in the ass.
I agree, but seeing as you are an Inquisitor and the supposed Thedasian second Jesus, your choices must have larger consequences than let's say a companion dying or not, I know it is too much to hope for, but I have been spoiled too much by the Witcher series, choices that actually matter.
It was fun, but I want to push BioWare further. Add more variables. Because in ME2, while your decisions did have weight on the ending, you didn't have any reason to not do the loyalty missions or any reason to not upgrade the Normandy. Resources aren't a factor; a decision to gather them doesn't challenge the player as a decision that will open one door, but close another. In ME2 you had very few decisions that closed doors. In what few of them that triggered conflict, you always had a way out. Such as with the Miranda-Jack argument.
I want them to be more devious this time around. Don't give me Outs. Give me a Kaidan-Ashley choice, but this time around with me actually caring about option A or B and them having different meanings.
Last edited: