Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Sarex]

But the one in the picture is a Dwarven broodmother. Awakening had a human.

 

I don't buy it, where is her beard?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You mean Volo just said Humans were Hawter than Dwarfs?

[Volourn]

"I don't buy it, where is her beard?"
 

Vast majority of dwarf females don't have beards. FACT.

 

 

"You mean Volo just said Humans were Hawter than Dwarfs?"

 

Broodmothers are not dwarves and elves. They are tainted beings cursed to be doomed. That is no dwarf. Trust me.

[Malekith]

I demand race to play a role in what kind of baby you get when you romance the broodmother. Quanari? Baby ogre. human? Hurlock. Dwarf? whateverthe****wasnamed.

Reactivity for the win.

[Sarex]

I demand race to play a role in what kind of baby you get when you romance the broodmother. Quanari? Baby ogre. human? Hurlock. Dwarf? whateverthe****wasnamed.

Reactivity for the win.

 

Anything else will totally break the immersion for me.

[Serrano]

"I don't buy it, where is her beard?"

 

Vast majority of dwarf females don't have beards. FACT.

 

 

"You mean Volo just said Humans were Hawter than Dwarfs?"

 

Broodmothers are not dwarves and elves. They are tainted beings cursed to be doomed. That is no dwarf. Trust me.

 

So that's your dark secret.

 

Anyway I am almost certain that the Brood Mother in DA:O was/used to be a dwarf who was transformed into a Brood Mother. The crazy lady (Who admittedly isn't the most reliable source of information) rambed on about the process, the implication being that different races produce different spawn and that's the Darkspawn reproductive cycle.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Serrano

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

LOL, I read 'hurlock' as 'Hurlshot'.

[Volourn]

"nyway I am almost certain that the Brood Mother in DA:O was/used to be a dwarf who was transformed into a Brood Mother. The crazy lady (Who admittedly isn't the most reliable source of information) rambed on about the process, the implication being that different races produce different spawn and that's the Darkspawn reproductive cycle."
 

That is how broodmothers are made. That doesn't make them dwarves or whatever race they used to be.

[lobotomy42]

 

 

I've made my thoughts known on DA2, but I played the game for sixty hours and so more than recouped my expenses, thus it fulfilled its main purpose.

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes.

 

I love how on the one hand, games are art and BioWare are artists and they have heart and soul and they really know how to write characters that speak to you, and they are transformative experiences!!! But on the other hand, I guess if you do some voodoo demon-nerd-wizard algebra sorcery and divide up your life into discrete parts of time and equate them into a dollar amount then all that other stuff doesn't matter because hey, you got your money's worth didn't you? Sheesh, what more do you people want?!?

 

 

Games, like most major film releases, are commercial art.  They represent a view, they can have depth, a message and integrity in delivering that message, but there are also constraints on the process of creating them and on the types of art/product that can be released.  They exist with one foot in the art world and one in the world of consumer products.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

I've made my thoughts known on DA2, but I played the game for sixty hours and so more than recouped my expenses, thus it fulfilled its main purpose.

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes.

 

I love how on the one hand, games are art and BioWare are artists and they have heart and soul and they really know how to write characters that speak to you, and they are transformative experiences!!! But on the other hand, I guess if you do some voodoo demon-nerd-wizard algebra sorcery and divide up your life into discrete parts of time and equate them into a dollar amount then all that other stuff doesn't matter because hey, you got your money's worth didn't you? Sheesh, what more do you people want?!?

 

 

Games, like most major film releases, are commercial art.  They represent a view, they can have depth, a message and integrity in delivering that message, but there are also constraints on the process of creating them and on the types of art/product that can be released.  They exist with one foot in the art world and one in the world of consumer products.

 

The validity of games as art is another matter entirely worthy of its own thread (I think we once had one) I would say that BW writing style focuses more around the companions than the overall themes of their story. In fact their stories usually end up being weak whilst most companion interactions are what gets praised.

 

As for games being art, I've settle on the fact that most game art falls under the category of being applied art and that everyone seems oblivious to judge games artistically for what makes them art, which is the mechanics.

[AGX-17]

Games, like most major film releases, are commercial art.  They represent a view, they can have depth, a message and integrity in delivering that message, but there are also constraints on the process of creating them and on the types of art/product that can be released.  They exist with one foot in the art world and one in the world of consumer products.

So Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is art? Putting in the minimum, phoned-in effort masquerading as "art" for the sake of pursuing profit is significantly different from something made specifically with an artistic vision and purpose (i.e. Journey.)

 

Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times.

Edited September 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Orogun01]

 

Games, like most major film releases, are commercial art.  They represent a view, they can have depth, a message and integrity in delivering that message, but there are also constraints on the process of creating them and on the types of art/product that can be released.  They exist with one foot in the art world and one in the world of consumer products.

So Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is art? Putting in the minimum, phoned-in effort masquerading as "art" for the sake of pursuing profit is significantly different from something made specifically with an artistic vision and purpose (i.e. Journey.)

 

Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times.

 

Since you brought it up, what do you consider to be the requisites to qualify a medium as art?

[Volourn]

"Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times."
 

Art does not neccessarily mean good, awesome, or terrific. Art is art. A 6 year old's  ugly stick figure drawing is as much art as a Picasso even though Picasso's is obviously superior.

 

Period.

[NOK222]

"Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times."

 

Art does not neccessarily mean good, awesome, or terrific. Art is art. A 6 year old's  ugly stick figure drawing is as much art as a Picasso even though Picasso's is obviously superior.

 

Period.

 

Yawn

[Sarex]

"Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times."

 

Art does not neccessarily mean good, awesome, or terrific. Art is art. A 6 year old's  ugly stick figure drawing is as much art as a Picasso even though Picasso's is obviously superior.

 

Period.

 

If everything is art, then nothing is art.

[HoonDing]

:philosoraptor:

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[licketysplit]

 

"Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times."

 

Art does not neccessarily mean good, awesome, or terrific. Art is art. A 6 year old's  ugly stick figure drawing is as much art as a Picasso even though Picasso's is obviously superior.

 

Period.

 

If everything is art, then nothing is art.

 

 

I actually agree with Volourn on this. The quickest way through the semantics is to say everything can be art. But then you have good and bad art. That way you're knocking the distinction off a pedestal where it shouldn't be. 

[Orogun01]

 

 

"Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times."

 

Art does not neccessarily mean good, awesome, or terrific. Art is art. A 6 year old's  ugly stick figure drawing is as much art as a Picasso even though Picasso's is obviously superior.

 

Period.

 

If everything is art, then nothing is art.

 

 

I actually agree with Volourn on this. The quickest way through the semantics is to say everything can be art. But then you have good and bad art. That way you're knocking the distinction off a pedestal where it shouldn't be. 

 

The distinction of good art and bad art is one matter in the discussion, more relevant is the difference between fine arts and applied arts. Also, not everything is art because of verisimilitude. Art is representative of something, it can be as abstract as a concept or shape or as definite as a photograph. Things that don't emulate, that lack similitude are not art.

[AGX-17]

The distinction of good art and bad art is one matter in the discussion, more relevant is the difference between fine arts and applied arts. Also, not everything is art because of verisimilitude. Art is representative of something, it can be as abstract as a concept or shape or as definite as a photograph. Things that don't emulate, that lack similitude are not art.

The fundamental basis, for me, is intent. The most fundamental basis of art is derived from the human capacity for symbolic thought, but the common understanding of "art" among laymen is something which is created with deliberate intent to be aesthetically pleasing or to convey some kind of message. A great novel might be considered a work of art by many people, but only a minuscule number of people (if any,) would consider technical manuals to be works of art simply based on the fact that they contain a series of symbols (letters, forming words,) which convey concepts and ideas.

 

There have been all kinds of artistic movements, like "found objects" as art, but even then, the artistic "value" is associated with the choices of objects by the "artist," which delves more into the realm of Dada/Avant-arde, which is more about reaction to established standards and definitions of "art." Which brings us back to intent. But, as with all things, it's a matter of perception and personal bias. Some people will define anything as art, or things which most others would not, even if no artistic intent was involved.

 

At any rate, the end result of all of this is: OPINIONS

 

 

 

So yeah. Back to the bearded-woman fetish lived vicariously through dwarves in fiction.

[alanschu]

"No one spoke about popularity as it is irrelevant."

 

"but is still able to garner its dedicated following of fans."

 

'Nough said.

 

I win again.

 

My point was that there are still people that really like the game, despite of its shortcomings.

 

I'm willing to concede that the scale of Alpha Protocol's support is probably not as good at Dragon Age 2's, but my intent was not to address popularity.

 

 

Since you brought it up, however, a problem with DA2's sales figures, however, is that it can be difficult to disassociate those that bought the game but were ultimately not satisfied.  This is true of all games, but Dragon Age 2 has an advantage over Alpha Protocol in that it's a sequel (of a pretty well received game).  BioWare may also have a stronger reputation than Obsidian which could lead to greater sales.

 

On a personal level I was saddened that Alpha Protocol was hit with such scathing reviews over some of its gameplay elements, when I felt it played similarly to games like ME1 and the first Deus Ex.  But I also have a large bias towards Obsidian's games so any suppositions that I make regarding AP's success had it been done by BioWare are just that, suppositions.

[HoonDing]

Creating a sequel even with slightly changed gameplay always causes a ruckus.

 

It happens even with decade old games, just look at Dungeon Siege 3. Or the drama each time a new Elder Scrolls game is released.

 

 

[Halaster]

"EA is BIO. Whatever BIo decides is EA decides. BIO, as a company, does NOT exist. This is NOt the same as BIO being able to tell Interplay to scrwew off, we're taking our ball elsewhere. EA is BIO. Good, the bad, the ugly.

 

Why do you lie? BioWare is a subsidiary of EA, in other words it is a separate legal entity, a company in its own right (how much practical autonomy it has is a separate matter). It will cease to be a company following one of two things A) A merger with another EA group entity B) a transfer of its trade and assets followed by a liquidation.

 

Why don't you just google "BioWare ULC" and then stop spouting this rubbish again and again all over various forums? Just because in the eyes of Moore (or some other overpaid EA suit) Bio is treated as a "division" does not make it disappear as a distinct company, in much the same way as me thinking of you as a "moron" will not make you disappear as a human being.

[Nepenthe]

 

"EA is BIO. Whatever BIo decides is EA decides. BIO, as a company, does NOT exist. This is NOt the same as BIO being able to tell Interplay to scrwew off, we're taking our ball elsewhere. EA is BIO. Good, the bad, the ugly.

 

Why do you lie? BioWare is a subsidiary of EA, in other words it is a separate legal entity, a company in its own right (how much practical autonomy it has is a separate matter). It will cease to be a company following one of two things A) A merger with another EA group entity B) a transfer of its trade and assets followed by a liquidation.

 

Why don't you just google "BioWare ULC" and then stop spouting this rubbish again and again all over various forums? Just because in the eyes of Moore (or some other overpaid EA suit) Bio is treated as a "division" does not make it disappear as a distinct company, in much the same way as me thinking of you as a "moron" will not make you disappear as a human being.

 

 

You're right, but having separate legal personality has **** all to do with the subject matter, IMO.

[anubite]

EA controls BioWare's purse strings, if not directly, certainly indirectly. They are their boss. They listen, they cooperate, they're one entity. If BioWare doesn't operate under EA's collar, they sure haven't done a good job setting themselves apart from EA's policies - they've pretty much spearheaded all of them. Tacked-on online, ton of DLC, faster and more frequent releases, streamlining, misleading users about features*, et cetera

 

Maybe BioWare gets more flak than they deserve, but there's no doubt EA has significant influence.

 

*(You can pull interviews with prominient BioWare employees around the release of Mass Effect or Dragon Age and scratch your head about what universe they live in when they boldly proclaim things that turn out to be positively untrue:

 

Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”

 

Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C…..The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them."

 

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”

 

“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.")

Edited September 17, 2013 by anubite