aries101

Actually EA doesn't seem to be selling Ultimate Editions anymore(or at least I couldn't find them for ME2 or 3). Also the engine isn't mod friendly, so you may be disappointed on that front. There is an edition out where you buy ME1 to ME3 in a bundle. I know because last weekend I was visiting my local gamestop shop and they had this edtion of all the ME games. No DLC though. Also Aaryn Flyn has asked what we'll like to see in final (ultimate) edition of the ME games released so far... There is also an ultimate edition available on EA's Origin DA: Origins which contains Awakening all the dlc...

One of his conclusions seems to be that this game reminds him a lot of Assasin's Creed. And I have to say that I completely agree with him. I have asked this maybe 2-3 times on the Bioware forums but never gotten a direct answer as to why this or if my intuition about this is correct. As for the exploration and the visuals, I have had a fear - or intuition - that Bioware wanted to turn the DA franchise into some sort of skyrim game e.g. Bioware wanted to take several clues from Skyrim for inspiration when they wanted to make DA: Inquisition. And it certainly seems that I was correct. Statements from lead devs. have confirmed this. Sadly - however - it seems like Bioware's thinking at the moment is this: Skyrim sold 20 million copies. If we, Bioware, make a game that looks and feels and plays similar to Skyrim, we will sell, maybe 5 or even 10 million copies. Since a lot of people played Skyrim as their first rpg...it must therefore followt hat they want something like this in a rpg from Bioware. However, Im not so sure about this. Bioware rpgs have always been strong in story and characters where Bethesda's rpgs always have focused on exploration. They are two distinct - adn different - ways to make an rpg. And I'm not so sure that Bioware will sell between 5-10 million copies of this game.

People didn't complaint about Hawke's personal story. Or at least, that wasn't the meat of most complaints I heard. They complained that the entire last act was on rails and the bad guys dropped philosophical differences for pure crazy. People actually liked the Qunari plot. But the personal plot was just a narrative McGuffin. Something you followed to get hooked into the real plots. I mean, the personal story stops being relevant even halfway into the game. Of the three major plot threads, two of them were save the world. And one of those fails simply because the city of Kirkwall is full of crazy people. When has there been a BIoware game in which the last part of the game, the end game, wasn't on rails? None - at least noone that I can remember. Even in BG1 you became locked down at a certain point in the story and you need to defeat the bad guy (Sarevok). Bioware games are telling stories, and as we know a story needs a beginning, a middle and an ending. People complaining about the entire last act being on rails may have thought that this game were an rpg like Oblivion or Skyrim! Or maybe they wanted DA2 to be just like Oblivion or Skyrim. I, for one, like DA2. It is a much better game that some people give it credit for. The design ideas were great; the execution of them certainly not. I'm, as I stated in my latest post, not blind to the flaws of DA2; the wave combat, the enemies appearing out of thin air etc. etc. My point just being this: if you play NWN1, and ICWD2 (which I have recently), you'll see just how game development has developed since 2001/2002 - for the better, imo. Re-used areas a lot, enemies attacking you to the moment you land in a new part of the (world) map, enemies also popping out of the ground etc. etc. The characters in DA2 were great; they were distinct and certainly memorable. Many people, including me, play Bioware games for the story, the characters, and yes, some play them also because of the romances. Other people play (bioware) games, rpgs, because of the gameplayand the ability to micromanage everyting, including the inventory. I, for one, liked the neat inventory in DA2. Much better than the one in DA:O and much much better than the one in ICWD2. I hate having to spend like 2 hours selling stuff etc. etc. Bioware games have hardly ever been about the gameplay...

Yes, the BIoware games have from way back in 1998 or 1999 been about the chosen one, the ancient organisation, the saving the world, the big bad guy to defeat at the end. And what happenes when Bioware decided no to do this (trivial) thing/game anymore? There were much rejoi....eh...I mean, complaining. And about what: reuse of areas (play NWN, the first, or IWD2 and you'll se reuse of areas in a much grander scale than in DA2), enemies popping out of the ground, and the plot/story in DA2, Hawke's personal story. To me, DA was good game, at least as good as DA: Origins, if not a little bit better. DA2 did have better written companions as well as other npcs, the side quests in DA 2 were excellent, I found, compared with those in DA: Origins (minus 1 or possibly 2 in DA: O ). To me, the story in DA2 is a tightknitted personal story dealing with how Hawke rises to power in Kirkwall, the city of chains, by her/his own accord. I can certainly see something to complain about - the wave combat, (try playing IWD2 again!) Orsino's turning into a Harvester, Hawke not being able to stay neutral when forced to choose between the mages and the templars, Anders's reason for doing what he does at the end of the game isn't that well explained, imo. However, overall, I enjoyed the game greatly and found it nice that it didn't use the trope/klichée of the chosen one, the secret organization etc. etc. Yes, the game certainly has flaws, but then DA: O also did have it flaws* - which game doesn't. To me the idea seemed OK, but the execution and design choices(?) were a bit, if not, much lacking. Meaning this: Bioware simply didn't have time enough to make a great game - 6-12 more months of game development for DA2 would have been great. Legacy and Mark of the Assasins prove this, I find. * never again the Fade or the Deep Roads in DA: O.

I remember back in the day when Oblivion was developed, and maybe also the first Mass Effect? way back in 2005-2006; buzz words then were 'sucked into', immersed, and may favorite 'innovative'. They were used so often and so frequently that they quickly became clichées (is this an english word?) or stereotypes, thus losing their original meaning. Anyway, the BSN is used to Gaider's talking points (hey, we've dealt with Chris Priestly for nearly 10 or 12 years, 5 or 6 of those as Evil Chris, we can take a bit of venting from Gaider, David). Gaider is the one person who outright tell people; "hey if you don't like the game for x,y or z reasons, don't buy it." And from being part of Bioware's community for nearly 12 or 14 years now, I find that most people on the BSN respect David Gaider for saying this. Why? I think it is because it isn't marketing speech, and people at the BSN can feel that there actually is a person behind these statements, not some company drone or robot delivering prerecoded marketing messages. To me, Ray and Greg, the founder of Bioware, became just this, even if it (technically) still was their company. I mean, statements surprise and delight? etc. etc. didn't make sense at all - at least from my, and probably other's, perspective as well.

I'm way behind in my playing of pc video games, so I just started Arcanum as the rpg. And The Black Mirror (BM1) as the adventure game. And most shockingly; both games work well on Windows 7! Arcanum maybe even better than on Windows XP! Fallout 2 works as well...

Actually, it didn't. I think it sold something like 100.000 copies or maybe it was about 4000,00 00 or so in the first year after its release. PS:T's problem was - and is - this: It was released on December 12th, 1999, please look here here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape:_Torment In Euope (at least in Denmark) ot was released 5-6 months later or maybe a year later, in the year 2000. Why am I calling this a problem, then. Simply because of this: In 1997 or even 1998 you could make a living out of making a game which sold maybe 200,000 copies or even 100,000 copies. The guys behind the Arcanum game (and Temple of Elemental Evil) were also affected by this, Arcanum sold like, I think, 400,000 copies of the game. And yet, it wasn't enough to cover the costs of making the game (royalties not being paid may be another reason). Eventually the game ended up selling like a million copies or so, but this is over a span of more than 10-12 years. (from release in 1999 to 2012/2013). Way back in 19997-1999 you could, as I said, get by with making a game which sold about 400,000-500,000 copies. In 1999-2001 the big IT crash boom happened; a lot of game studios closed, EA took over some game developing studios and closed others etc. etc. And Troika and Interplay went belly up as well. Interplay/Black Isle, I don't still have the all the facts on this one. Troika, it seems that Troika Studios were formed by a lot of developers who simply burned through the money they got from the publisher faster than - ehm - fire? At least that the story I've heard - or rather read After 2001 and certainly after 2006/2007, a game really needs to appeal to a broader audience in order to make the return of investemnts (roi) that the investors (shareholder value) want. Many game companies have also been forced to close since they couldn't find investors backing their next game; the studio behind Titan Quest comes to mind. The point of all this is to say this: Please don't compare the state of the video market in 1997-1999 with the state of the video game industry it has became in 2012-2013; in order to make money for both developers and publishing houses, it it necessary to make games that appeal somewhat to a more broader audience than way back in 1997-1999. Even PS: Numenera's 1 million backers (or maybe 1,5 million backers) wouldn't be near enough for Bioware to get their invested money back, money they've spent on DA: Inquistion. This game needs to sell at least 2 million, if not 2,5-3,0 copies to break even.

I just watched on DVD the movie Snow White and the Huntsman - a very, interesting take on the Snow White story. Speaking of dwarves they are vert different than any dwarves I have any seen. One of them says this: if you start humming, I'll slap you...because one of the others dwarves started singing 'hey, hey to work we go'. Very, very funny :D I've also just watched Total Recall (the new version). To me, it is even better than the Total Recall movie with Arnold S. as the main character. It seems to take the short story We can remember it for your wholesale by Philip K. **** seriously.... I've also just watched My week with Marilyn which is the best portrayl of Marilyn I've seen yet, both as a person and as an actress.

Sp where do this is leave us that bought the game at gamer's gate, I think? And downloaded it legally? and have a legally downloaded file for Mysteries of Westgate? Can we still get the game to activate at the servers or? is our purchase null and void? This is exactly the reason why I always want a disc version of game, since any company can just state that another company is in breech of contract. And then pull the license from the other company.

I just saw on DVD the new Spiderman movie - The Amazing Spiderman. Fantastic movie that really takes the creation myth of Spiderman very, very seriously and actively makes the story of Peter Parker becoming Spiderman believable. Especially with how a young man comes to term with his superpowers. I have also seen the new Batman movie - the Dark Knight Rises. And I was very confused - to me the creators of this game didn't know where they wanted the story to go. And what is the deal with the new villain, Bane? Why is he the villain? It seems to me that the new Batman movie, DKR, had at least three main plots which didn't connect at the end...

An example of long term consequences in an rpg is the now famous first Witcher game. The game plays out differently if you side with the elves or the law? (sorry, I forgot what the elves opponents are called). Also, some quests in DA:O and even 1 or 2 in DA2 do this. In the first Witcher game the story also unfolds differently if you kill certain people or don't kill certain people. Also, the game just moves on with the story if you take too long to finish certain quests. What is the casual marketplace these days for computergames? I would consider myself a rather hardcore gamer ---- however, I simply don't have the time anymore to sit down very night and play for 3-4 hour straight. I like DA:O and DA2 because the game can be played immediately, without a walkthrough at hand, and it is (nearly) always clear what I, or the party, needs to do. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In baldur's gate, the party is poisoned if you talk to a certain npcs. there's no warning of this. Another example is this: In HotU, I'm at the ilithid and beholder caves. Little did I know that I needed the mirror from another quest here. No hints of this are given anywhere in the game that this piece of glas/mirror is important and that one needs to hold onto it. Because it is a quest item to be used later. DA:O and DA2 did away with these sorts of things. I like this, since I, as said, don't have time anymore to travel back and forth etc. too many times.

I've just watched The Artist - b/w homaging the great twenties in moves and films. After the first ½ hour, I was ready to give up on it, but then suddenly this amazing story unfolded. I've also watched a great film called the Music Never Stopped. It is about a young man who in 1978 still thinks he lives in 1968. Through music he and his father heals both themselves and the generation gap (from 1968) in the US.

Bioware's formula, have been from day 1, when they started making rpgs, like this: slay the evil thing that destroys the land, then it went into the join a supersecret organization, and then it went into the become a grey warden/spectre terriritory. I, and many others at the BSN were quite happy when David Gaider announced that there would be no secret organization, no joining of such an thing and no slaying the big bad thing at the end. OK, that one they kind og missed - with not 1, bit two! boss fights at the end. One of them rumored to be in there because EA wanted it so.... To me DA2 tells a personal story about Hawke wwho rises from poverty to riches, because of her own deeds, because of what she does. The characters and story to me are really memorable and stand outs like characters in a play or in a movie: varric, isabella, aveline, fenris, sebastian and so on. They all have their own motivations for what they do, whih gives way for interesting emotional storytelling: I was crushed when, after I killed the arishok, isabella din't bring back the book she stole from them. I was horrified when I found out what happened to my mother, and tried to save her, but couldn't. As for the reused areas, yes DA2 had them plenty - like most other games have. However, DA2, did not conceal these reused areas as well as other games do or did. Bioware's games have always told a story - and alas, a story must end. In the end, you can support Anders, you can kill him, you can help him gather the material he neeeds, but he still does what he does. Because he must - so the plot and story of the game can move along. (a very interesting thread over at the bsn forum exists about what he did, why did it, and should he have done it). I agree, though, that Bioware needs to learn how to add player agency (or maybe rather the illusion of player agency) into their games. It is sorely lacking from DA2, maybe because it went too fast and quickly with developing the game. However, two dlcs have come out: Legacy and Mark of the Assasin. Legacy had great strategic and tactical combat as well as very interesting fight at the end with the conductor of the elements. Mark of the Assasin had a branching story where the story split up in two ways for you to take: in the castle, either the stealth route or the combat route. It has a very long boss fight at the end; there's no autosaves or any possibilities for saving the game, meaning if you don't kill the boss in the first try, you're in for long fight. (nearly 20-30 minutes, I think) The story in Mark of the Assasin was also rather well done and told. Bioware's strengths have always been their stories, their characters etc. --- not the gameplay nor the combat in their games. And as said, choice and concesequence? in a Bioware game? Choices nearly all lead to the same conesequences in games from Bioware.

I tried looking also - the only thing I could find was this: http://forums.pocket...ic=24535.0;wap2 and then this: http://www.shsforums...iwd-2-spoilers/ I hope you do have the 2.01 patch ? You could always use the console to move you to the next area. In the Infinity Engine games, when you press x on your keyboard, you get the location, showing something like x 2650 y 3050 area 800 or something like that. Judging from the links I've posted above, it seems you need to the exit the map to go to The Severed Hand? A stupid question, maybe: are you sure you've killed all enemies on the map? In the original Icewind Dale game, I though, I killed all enemies on the map. Turned out that there was one little bugger who were half hidden....Again, this is just me checking.... edit: I did some further checking and found this: " When the group lands in Kuldahar, they discover it has been invaded by the Legion of the Chimera.[36] They meet the Archdruid of Kuldahar, who tells them that a portal has been opened to allow yuan-ti from the Jungles of Chult to assault Kuldahar.[37] After the group prevents the attack, the Archdruid tells them that they may reach the Severed Hand through an exit at the bottom floor of the Dragon's Eye.[38][39] The group travels through Dragon's Eye, and proceeds to the Severed Hand.[15][40]" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icewind_Dale_II It seems to me you're here? Help can also (maybe?) be found in this old thread at the neoseeker forums: http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/4094/t463088-stuck-in-dragons-eye/ Help is also maybe in this thread? http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/4094/t300043-dragons-eye-help/

Let me start by saying that I do like DA2 - a lot in fact. It is nice to see Bioware breaking away from their formula - saving the world, joining a secret organisation, slaying the big bad thing at the end of the game. Yes, there were certainly some very (essential) things that could have been better: the wave combat, the enemies appering out of thin air, and the way the story was told. Especially since the story didn't give the player much choice - or made player agency important. As for choice and consequence that mattered, this has never been among Bioware's strength when making games. Nearly every choice in the dialogue in BG1 and BG2 etc. leads to the same outcome. Way back in 1998 and 2000 one of the biggest complaint on the old bioware forums was that each dialogue choice had the same outcome, or nearly the same. In DA:O, Bioware did something to rectify this by making quests with more than one outcome e.g. the verewolfe quest. As for the re-used areas, try playing Neverwinter Nights and watch, see and learn just how many re-used areas there are in that game. The OC in NWN is the weakest part of this game, the second expansion HotU shows me that Bioware learned how to work with the Aurora engine, i.e. how to create a good and compelling story etc. As for the combat it is better in HotU than in the NWN OC. However, the combat in NWN etc. is still very bad, imo. I do not feel I have any influence on what my characters are doing - I click: my character moves until her move is finished, and then I click on her again etc. etc. PS: As for who the Maker is ---- try playing Hordes of the Underdark, the second expansion to the Neverwinter Night game. You'll learn that the Maker is a sorcerer who is now af demi-lich. And who has abandoned his creations, the golems. And the golems try do something that gets the maker back to them. As for Witch Hunt and the use of the Eluvian Mirror in that expansion to DA:O, Bioware has used mirrors before, they're all over the place in Neverwinter Nights and its expansions.