Dragon Age News Thread

Not true at all. Origins was the very first chapter in the story and gave us the groundwork to work on, but it most certainly didn't claim that all it says is set in stone - the only reason you view it like that is because it was our first contact with the universe and it was its role to introduce it to us.

But even in that chapter there were many conflicting information about many aspects of history, culture, life, races or rumors and now each installment brings more information, oftentimes contradicting what was established before.

It is also entirely untrue that DAI replaces it with nothing and it's preposterous to claim so. We know so much more now than when we began our journey with DAO and evidence keeps mounting - even if that evidence flies in the face of many things people thought were certain.

No, it isn't. It hasn't really been that long ago when people believed in supernatural origins of humans or that Earth was the center of the universe. Some people still can't believe just how different the world is now that we have more reliable ways to study it - so much in fact, that at places there's concerted backlash against science and what it uncovered.

And it's not just findings on the fields of physics or biology - many things from our history turn out to be not how people were remembering it. Some people are still shocked that across history there not only were other thriving cultures outside of Europe, but some of them indirectly or directly shaped ours, for example.

In many ways Bioware is inspired by that shock of discovery, which is why - I'm sure - the story resonates so well with our own history or coping with the fact that the world is, in many ways, very much not what we imagined it to be. IMO we're still dealing with that shock as a civilization.

Haha - oh, if only 80% was certain...

Drakon is obviously based on Constantine the Great and just like Constantine didn't "start Christianity", Drakon didn't "start the Chantry" per se. What they did is they gave them a foothold to thrive by either converting to that religion or converting everyone else.

If it's any consolation, DAI is supposed to be the Part One of a two part story. It does raise a lot of questions - probably because, in the original draft of the story, most of these questions got answered later on. But that "later on" has been chopped off and lumped into it's own story. It might help clear the air and provide more concrete knowledge of what's what, but we haven't gotten to it yet. We're just waiting in intermission. 

...An intermission that looks like it'll last five or six years...

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

OMG, the cheeky bastard.

You made me laugh, papa. Yes, we have discussed this before. The Tweet brought it up again. Because for once, there was a Gamer Article saying they'd done something right and Mike was all like, "Yes, this awesome was intentional from the start." And I'm like, but it's NOT awesome. Now all we have are opinions. Even the stuff Solas told us is an opinion.

I thought that was universally agreed...

Well... it could be a dream But in Thedas dreams can come true. Literally.

Yes. I completely agree with everything.

It's fun for some things, particularly the religious aspects of lore, but it would be nice to know that some things are true. I don't want to have to question everything; it's exhausting. At this point, I'm ready to just limit discussions to events that take place in the games and ignore all the rest. Even with player choice, there are some events that happen regardless. Player choices are also knowable variables that I can examine, as opposed to nebulous past events.

Meh, there are other fandoms that have been going on for far longer where lore is known and established. People are more than happy to continue to read and discuss Star Trek lore, a franchise that is 50-years-old*. Your view may be the case for some people, but doesn't apply to everyone interested in Dragon Age lore.


* I have no interest in the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek, as it obliterates the canon I know, so I'm only speaking from the POV of the original canon.

I specifically addressed the issue of multiple outcomes when I said that player choices were variables I could examine and know, even if I choose to take a different path.

None of that has any impact on my experience with the games themselves, or how I play them, the characters I can create, and the characters I interact with. I like the traditional fantasy, sword 'n' sorcery aspects of DA. That's also why I like Skyrim. Much of my roleplay in those games is focused on what my character is experiencing, not meta information. For Bioware games specifically, the characters are the big draw. They happen to exist in a particular world, which I learn about as I play the games.

Neverwinter Nights was my first major experience with a SP fantasy RPG. I was tremendously disappointed with my experience with NWN2 (developed by Obsidian, not Bioware). After that, I played DAO and had a great experience because I felt that that is how NWN2 should have been done. I became aware of Dragon Age through TV spots in the latter half of 2009. I got the game for Christmas, never having followed the game or its development. That is how I came into Dragon Age. I tend to not explore the lore in a broader sense outside of the limits of my character development. For example, I've learned more about Andrastianism and the Chantry as a result of developing my Inquisitor, who is Andrastian.

My point still stands with my frustration at their intentional design of the lore being based on unreliable narrators. To me, the fact that that is somewhat realistic has no significance. This is a fictional universe, created by a company. It didn't have to be done that way. They chose to make the lore this way. That is their prerogative, but that doesn't mean I have to like that aspect of it.

This argument comes up occasionally and I always post the same opinions. Others post counter-opinions. Nothing has changed my view; I continue to dislike it, even as I enjoy the games themselves, which, to me, are about far more than their lore.

Eric H. Vela‏ @erichvela
@mike_Laidlaw Saw an article about AAA game devs want to be transparent but can't. Public comments on it showed exactly why they can't. ☹️

Mike Laidlaw‏ @mike_Laidlaw
Yep. Also in a lot of cases, too much transparency might cause problems for publicly traded companies.



[HASH]DAT
(Delete the hashtag when quoting - thanks!)

Well, not a hammer, but perhaps a gentle nudge towards the thread that's been created for this...

bsn.boards.net/thread/13281/article-dragon-readiness-break-richer


Tx!

Some gamers are too set in their ways to change.