Elerond

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage. I would argue that you could say that Battlemage is also only archetype in most AD&D CRPGs that you can play as you can only decide which combat role you specialize them in, because they had little to nothing spells and abilities outside combat, although they were able to effectively fulfill more roles than what PoEs wizards can, but this is deliberate design choice from Obsidian, because they didn't want wizards be similar default party member choice like it was in those games (you could play them without wizard, but that usually made things harder especially in later parts of the games). Archetypes that wizards have in PoE depend on how you specify them. But their main role in game's combat is to be versatile crowd controllers. They can play role of Glass Cannon by focusing on long range spells and doing lots of AoE damage and disabling opponents or by focusing making themselves able take hits in front line by using self boost spells and using cone and other short ranged spells to dismantle charging enemies they can take role of arcane warriors. And of course you can mix this two extremity to something else with addition of their single target spells, which gives them change to work in damage dealing and leadership roles (although they usually can't do as good job as classes that are meant to specialize on those roles). From role-playing perspective main difference between classes in PoE is what role they play in combat, although there is some difference between classes in conversations and how NPCs react towards them. So there is versatility in PoE's wizards but it will never rise on similar level than what you get in AD&D and wizards probably will not be able to compensate other class roles same way as they do in AD&D, as Obsidian don't want PoE's wizards be similar superior beings that they are in AD&D in latter levels. But there is much more choice to personalize your characters in PoE than what there are in AD&D, even though roles that classes can play in combat maybe more restricted, this is because of talents that you can pick for your characters.

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D. For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it. Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve. Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

Most choices seem to get mentioned quite surreptitiously, like how Hawke mentions their romance option or lack of it in conversation. How many people that you haven't killed can be found to be part of Wartable missions. How Dagna will be you arcanist if you helped her in DA:O get study in Circle.

Highest tier for schematics is, in my understanding, 3 (I haven't found higher tier stuff) highest tier for materials is 4 (which are things that you get from dragons). When you hire arcanist you have option to add masterwork material (which are fade touched materials that you find some times when you pick materials) to any weapon or armor you craft. In runes superb is highest level that you can do (if there is not something hidden stuff that I haven't found out).

When there is infinity supply of free (you need to use herbs to craft them but those grow every where and you are hard pressed to run out of them) potions in your use I don't see why one would not use them. You don't need them to win fights against dragons but using them removes any fear that dragon somehow could kill your party members. I say that those fights are easy because I compare them to dragon fights in other Bioware games, like BG2 and DA:O where one needs much more control over fight to win even in high levels and with good preparing (if you don't use cheese tactics). But point in my critique was that by doing all the side content in game your character's level (including gear) rises so high compared to offered content that it removes challenge from the combat. I am know that those dragon fights are quite hard if you try them low level character's and low level gear as dragon in Hinterlands, which is level 12 dragon handed my ass to me when I tried it first time with level 8 characters, and hardest dragon in game (level 23), I killed in my first try with my 23 level characters.

Dragons can kill you if you don't prepare you anyway against them, but with right equipment and right potions they are quite easy. If you have high resistance against their breath attack you can quite easily ignore it. With high bonus damage against guard you can remove dragon's guard quite fast making their ability to call hundreds of points of guard protection much less annoying. Close combat rogues deal most damage in the game, so you should have least one of them in your party (killing blow, shadow strike, etc. abilities do 1000-4000 damage against dragon depending on other damage bonuses you have, if you have maxed out 3-tier weapons, with master runes) Mages with revive spell and barrier keep your party alive even most harsh situations, but you should watch that they don't die when dragons call dragonlings to help them Maxed out regeneration potions heal its user self and all other character's in party so if all four members drink one you can be quite sure that your party members will not die for next 70 seconds and then you drink next potion. You can carry at least 5 per character, so it is quite while before you run out. Maxed heal potions give heal your party members from brink of death to full health. Your party can carry 12 them with inquisitor perk that rises your carry capacity from 8 to 12. And that is all that you need to know how to deal with the dragons.

What difficulty are you playing at? I get beaten up by dragon 4 levels below me. :/ Normal or what ever is name of that difficulty level that game offers as default. Dragons become easy when you get high level gear, you find only little of good gear for dragon hunting, but if you gear up your party with self crafted weapons and armors that are made from tier 3 schematics and materials, and max up your heal and regeneration potions you will find out that dragons to be quite easy pickings, and it probably also help to rise your resistance against that element which dragons uses as its breath attack.

It was probably animating that female NPC character that eat all their resources from bug testing

I would rate it somewhere in upper part of middle of their whole product range, I would say that it is quite equal level with DA:O. From their fantasy RPG's only Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark are definitely better products as whole.

My opinion about game after 117 hours of play Game is buggy as hell. Game crashers regularly on badly formed Direct3D call, I would guess that problem is in some effect in game as crashing happens in some maps more often than others. And it probably don't show itself on all the settings, but sadly it do on setting which game runs best on my computer. There is problem in loading NPC on the maps, as sometimes NPCs are missing on the map, this is most notable in Skyhold. There are lots of scripting problems in the maps especially if you don't follow linear paths in quest solving in maps where you have already opened alternate paths. PC controls suffer from lack of polish and sometimes game has hard time to let player click objects. Minor conversation can go in state where player can accidentally move away them or attack enemy or NPC if they use keyboard short cuts. Game general performance level is poor, and game has unexplainable drops in frame rate in areas where there should be none. Combat gameplay is acceptable but not anything special or really enjoyable, although I have played game so that I try complete every side quest that there is which is caused my characters be 7-8 levels higher than is recommendable in main missions and combat has become non-challenging and effortless thing that one can't even argue to take any time. Even hardest dragon in the game was easy pickings. Tactical combat view is quite useless in actual combat, although it helps when you need to revive you party members, which I haven't needed to do in long time. Tactical combat view works well to go around interface bugs in click-able objects like wheels. Tactical view probably become more useful in combat in highest difficulty and friendly fire setting turned on if you don't do all the side quest and level your party to too high level. Exploring game play is ok, but collecting every singe collectible that there is becomes very tiring if you missed them when you first explored some area. I would say that they should take example from AC4 and give player ability to unlock location for every collectible item or even better not to but them in the game in first place as they don't really fit in the theme of the game. Story is typical Bioware product, it is compelling enough to follow through, but also it's not literal master piece, although in game writing it is in top end of AAA games. Party members and their dialogs are probably best part of the game, which is typical thing for Bioware product, although there is not necessary enough that to support going through all the side content fetch missions. Romance plot lines seem to have much lighter tone in this game than what in previous Bioware products. And Bioware seems to added more Garrus style friendmances in the game. So final verdict game is compelling, but buggy and PC version suffers from lack of polish.

That is quite brilliant scene, cheesy, fun and has very tongue in cheek feeling, which is my opinion better than many of their soft erotic scenes that they usually offer as rewards for completing the romance plot line.

Hawke is returning their original home land. And their family belongs in nobility, although has lost their wealth so I would not say that Hawke is not necessary your most typical immigrant.

I would say that it is clearly sarcastic piece, because of it's tone, metaphors and examples that are used.

the gay pirate? bio romances is terrible, but the biowarians ain't aiming to be insulting. the toee gay pirate were, at best, sophomoric. am suspecting that a troika developer lacking in maturity were angry 'bout having the toee brothel cut, so the gay pirate were added as a childish bit o' revenge 'gainst the publisher. is not as if we were particular offended by troika's efforts, but the gay pirate were not a well-written romance and it weren't funny neither. as an aside, juhani were in kotor, yes? is our recollection that kotor were released a bit before toee. HA! Good Fun! Its possible that it was the first game where gay characters could get married (yet another pointless feature that amounted to nothing in the game itself). I read it in some article ages ago and my memory is fuzzy. The only reason I remember it in the first place is because of how silly it was and how out of place it seemed in a typical DnD romp. There was possibility to get married with same gender character for male and female characters in Fallout 2, but Temple of Elemental evil was first tittle under D&D license where it was possible. EDIT: My first impression about DA:I after hour of gameplay is that game seems to be quite buggy at least on AMD's cards on PC and graphics can glitch so that you need to restart to game to continue. Performance is poorish, interface for PC is worst in series. Inventory system is absolute awful. Tactic view seem to be more joke than actually useful tool. Graphics are pretty when they work, although some reason character hairs shine like they are metal (although this don't necessary happen with all hardware as it don't exists in console version or Bioware's example streams for PC). Story seems to be typical epic Bioware story and npc's seems to have fun lines and good voice acting. So for PC user I would recommend to wait patches and updated graphics drivers before buying it.

So it is competently transparent for legitimate game buyers by obscuring what executables are doing. So it is program in you computer that can give ability to virus and malware writers to hide their software from virus scanners and other security tools. Sounds absolute harmless like their previous protection that give same virus and malware writers ability to use rootkit to hide their programs from operating system and virus scanners. I need to check it more closely before I buy the game (or any other game from EA or any other company that uses it)

no. don't care though. heck, dragon age has fighting qunari women in their games, so am not certain what the actually point is, but the only thing we find disturbing about gaider comments is that bioware/ea felt the need to censor such comments that were neither profane nor vulgar. instead o' being able to discuss openly, censoring is the more reasonable expedient. all too often, censoring is a greater condemnation o' the class or group being "protected" by the censorship than it is a criticism o' the speaker o' the offending language. HA! Good Fun! Are there Muslims in your country who ar not originally from your country? Soon they will take over your country and force you to accept their Shariah Law, they will also run amok because of their holy book. And the priests conspire to block the spread of Islam, reacted, such as Burn Koran Day, for example... That's what in David Gaider mind when creating the race of Qunari in Kirkwal, Muslims who come to white men country, immigrants, living under democracy, protected, and later want to change it and force everyone to accept it...and Christians feel threatened by Muslims When David Gaider say Qunari are "militat islamic borg", we can see clearly what actually the plot he created about the Qunari in Kirkwal...unless you want to deny such thing happen in white men block of the world. I know about "Islamophobia" in white men country, i know most Muslims are immigrants in white men country, i know what happen... You think "it just a game", no...since DA2 it not just a game anymore, it's a medium of propaganda In my understanding David's inspiration for Qunari comes from mix of Jewish and Chinese ideologies. And Qunari are treated with suspicion and even hostility because they are strangers, their belief are only used to fuel those feelings in people by some individuals that want to use that distrust among people to further their cause (mirroring how things happen in our world). Qunari's decision to take over Kirkwall was based on that they saw that Kirkwall is rotten to its core and only way to clean it was to them to take over its ruling. And on this they work more like western colonialist than Muslims or any other group (Russians [and people from old soviet countries], Romani people, Jewish people, Somali people [both Christians and Muslims] and in some extent all dark/er skinned Africans and Middle Eastern people) that currently are demonized in "western countries" ("" because people that come from western countries also get demonized in other western countries, even if they share religion, skin color and that so called European culture heritage). I would say that DAII's picture of things is not neutral, but propagandist elements that people see in it come mostly from people own world view than DAII's writers, but of course my perspective towards it is also colored by my world view and experiences, so it is not any better or correct than anybody else's view or feelings.

Technically singleplayer is still in.It's just forced online. But this make Elite look more and more like a glorified tech-demo. Technically there is no single player, but mode where you don't come contact with other players, but economy, discovery etc. things are impacted by actions of other players even in that so called single player mode. Which means that player's that play this so called single player mode can find them hard pressed to find well profitable missions in starting systems and unexplored systems near starting systems are most likely stripped bare from all the valuable resources, which will make advancing in the game quite time consuming for new players.

i didn't play DA:2.but i saw the game playthrough\analysis on youtube,i could clearly see a change in how the chantry and the mages were depicted in DA:O the chantry didn't look so evil or oppressive as the catholic church was hundreds of years ago in DA:O there were many that didn't believe into the maker and Andraste,having theories that the Maker is nothing more that a powerful spirit of the fade that got corrupted and when the tevinter mages went into the fade the "maker" turned them into the first darkspawn and sent them back to spread their god's illness. or that Andraste was possessed by a Spirit that made her believe into the Maker. In DA:2 it looked that the chantry was the oppressive evil organization and the mages innocent that fight back But DA:O's chantry and DAII's chantry are different organisations, even though they are parts of same larger organisation. DA:O's chantry is Ferelden's chantry that got cleaned from political corruption in Ferelden's civil war, where DAII's chantry is Kirkwall's chantry that has been in power hundreds of years and is as corrupted as everything else in Kirkwall that is city that is rotten to its core. And I disagree your view about portrayal of mages in DAII, as they are full of bloodmages, hedonists etc. people that use their magic to give them power over others or raise havoc or something similar. To me Mages, Templars, Chantry and other factions in Kirkwall all were corrupt and quite despicable, except some few individuals, which you can found from most of the organisations. I would say that Qunaris probably had most clear picture about Kirkwall and its population. Whole DAII seems to consist of choices between two evils without middle ground or better/good choices. And I would point out that Sebastian and Leliana and some other character's in DAII show that there is decency in Chantry as whole, even though it is hard to find in Kirkwall's chantry. And there is people that don't believe in Andraste and Maker also in DAII, but apart from Qunari and Tal-Vashoths they don't play that big part in main plot. So overall DAII is as nuanced as DA:O, but perspective to things is colored by corruption of Kirkwall and difference of position and situation where Hawke is compared to Warden.. But of course player's preconceived notions about things can color how they see what is happening and what is told in the game.

But Dragon Age:Origin is not like that, nothing against or pro-religion in that game, even in the Circle main quest and Mage origin are not about religion at all. You can play neutral all the time if you wish. There are some positive values you can see about religion in DA:O, such as Templars protecting innocents in Lothring, the Chantry become safe haven for the desperates in Lothering and Redcliffe. The knights defending Redcliffe are faithful and good. Chantry reward anyone doing their quests in helping people. And so about religion of other races, the Elves, the Dwarves, and Sten the Qunari. They are shown neutral through out the game. Even there is lore saying about war between Elves and Human, but that's history and have two different version, up to you believe which one or don't care. And also one of your choice may lead to Crusade toward dwarves but it is not shown in the game. In DA2 the game push you to compare, but all comparisons are bad, there is nothing positive about religion or people with religion in DA2. what they want to show you is religion is bad, peoples with religion are bad people, religion bring destruction to the world. They shove it to you through out the game, you have nothing to compare except all negatives, the conclusion is religion is bad. Based on that they make DA:I world...where the world is in destruction because of what happen in DA2, that is religious people messed things up. it's clearly an atheist propaganda, unlike DA:O The way i see it is a "change of policy" in BioWare... I don't think it is change of policy in BioWare but that DAII is story focus heavily on corruption and rottenness of Kirkwall, and how those things lead uprising of mages against Templars. Religion comes in picture only because Chantry has so much political control in Thedas similarly to Catholic church during Renaissance. So it is more about social structure than religious beliefs, as most people in the game seem to have deep belief that Andraste and her god is real.

I hope that the let me to play human hating elf or/and qunari that aims to convert everybody to follow the Qun or be cut down.

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ? But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003 By taking military actions against Taliban, Al-Qaida, etc. organisations instead of supporting local law enforcements and keeping open ended authorization for use of military force also means that he keeps his country in warlike state and there is high change that those local law enforcements and governments lose their authority in eyes of their citizens (which can strengthen popularity of those who openly oppose them and USA [and other western countries]). Of course there are compelling reasons why those drone and special force strikes are done (which ineffectiveness and inability of those local authorities are probably most compelling ones). But such military actions come with cost that USA is seen as hostile country by many (outside of USA) and that those military actions aren't accepted by all people in USA and same time some people in USA see them as too lenient, which both weakens Obama's popularity and strengthens his opposition. It is not easy situation to him (as he is too warmongering for at least some of his supporters and he isn't warmongering enough to people in his opposition), but I am not sure if that factored very much towards result of this election, as usually foreign policy don't factor very much in elections in USA.

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful.

So we shouldn't discriminate pedophilia, necrophilia etc.? Those aren't defined as sexual orientations, but more types of sexual aesthetic preference/attraction (similar to preference towards thin/larger individuals, or specific skin or hair color). Pedophilia is also categorized as mental disorder as pedophilic acts cause harm. Necrophilia is seen socially unacceptable because it is seen to be disrespectful for the death and their families.

Optimally police would have acted like London's police in this incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7firDaaFVgo Here is example from Chinese police how group of police can take knife away from mentally disrupted person without lethal force. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3d_1389243834&selected_view_mode=desktop Police in the video may have not break the law, but their decision and acts are far from what they should have been, which will decrease public trust towards police as institution which usually means that public is less inclined to ask police's help and offer help for them in future, which will make police's job harder and more dangerous and also which will decrease general safety of public. I would say that generally police should not only follow the law but enforce it in way that looks and feels good for public, because that will increase public trust and general obedience towards police. EDIT: Fixed url in video about London police

Still a bad name, it needs to be health and they need to call "health" wounds, and the "wounds" need to be called injuries. I disagree, because I think endurance describes better what that pool represent in the game, character's ability to endure short time pain and suffering. Where health as term describes something more long lasting than that. Although I think that injuries could be better term than wounds for those before rest minuses, but I feel that difference is so small that it matter very little to me.