185 réponses à ce sujet

[Moganza]

I'll give DAO another go in a year or 2 and maybe ill get a different perspective. Ill definitely keep a completely open mind. What I will say is that I was very young when I played BG1 and 2. I was around 10 years old when I played BG2 and I generally find it harder to immerse myself in video games these days. I just cant get into Skyrim because its so damn repetitive and all the dungeons look the same to me.
But anyways Obsidian are making a new game called Project Eternity and its a kickstarter project. I suggest you guys check it out if u havent already. Its supposed to be an isometric party based rpg and I hope it turns out good.

[AmstradHero]

joyner1229 wrote...
Couple of things:
1. Here we go again... MINSC is a really mature and believable NPC? Jan? Anomen? Edwin? They are archetypes. Real people? They are not nearly developed and multi-faceted to be real people. Also, real people talk, especially when a lot is going on around them.

Minsc is fairly shallow, but even so, he's not just a brainless hamster lover. He's a lovable, loyal dimwit, but also fiercely righteous and bears a love of nature. He won't let others go around harming innocents or animals, and his adoption of Aerie as his witch (and subsequent berserker rage when she gets wounded/killed) was an excellent touch. The same can be said of all the other characters. Yes, you can shove them into archetypes, but you can do that with any character. That's what archetypes are for. There is a lot of depth and variety within the characters as they're written if you actually examine and pay attention to all the dialogue that the characters have.

joyner1229 wrote...
2. Whether or not the characters in DA:O grate on your nerves, are immature/childish to you, or you don't like them for whatever reason, they are far more fleshed out. As I said, objectively speaking, there is FAR more character-related content in DA. That is fact. Dialogue, quest-related content, reactions to your choices, etc. Also, Sten acts like a child? Wynne acts like a child? Can you give some more explanation.

More dialogue in DA:O than BG2? More voiced dialogue, certainly. More dialogue? Not a chance. Do you have any idea how long Jaheira's romance chain is? Or Viconia's?  Aerie and Anomen are the only two that are about the same length as something from DAO. That's not including all the other conversations that occur between party members as general banter or their interjections within conversations. Seriously, saying that there is more dialogue in DAO than BG2 just indicates to me that you haven't explored BG2.

joyner1229 wrote...
3. Loghain is a Disney villain and not Irenicus? Irenicus is an evil wizard who sought more and more power out of the blue and desecrated the Tree of Life. There's really no grey. Loghain is a grey villain. In fact, people are STILL debating whether or not he's even a villain, what his intentions were by leaving the field, etc.

Loghain is a complex character, of that there is no doubt. Irenicus is most definitely not a grey villain, but that doesn't mean he's not complex. Yes, he's driven by power and revenge, but there's a large question over how much of what he had become was who he was, or what the Seldarine did to him. Would he have become so comprehensively corrupt if he hadn't been exiled and stripped of his heritage? Of his memories? Remember those tanks at the beginning of the game, and his subsequent speech to Ellesime? Irenicus may be undeniably ignoble in his intentions, but that by no means makes him a shallow character. He's an unlikeable villain that can be understood. That's fantastic writing.

joyner1229 wrote...
4. Believable reasons to join?

Really? You're playing this card?
Alistair: Duty.
Morrigan: Forced.
Leliana: Had a vision from the Maker.
Sten: Death or join.
Zevran: Death or join.
These are any less believable than the reasons some of the characters in BG2 have?

joyner1229 wrote...
5. Sidequests: A mixed bag, like most games. Some of BG's side quests are incredibly generic (The Shade Lord's grand plan is, according to Mazzy, "to dominate and conquer"), but some are indeed interesting (I like the City-of-Caverns). But DA:O is the same. There are some good and bad. Main story is more important to me, in general. DA:O is interesting to me. It's emotional, engaging, and while it doesn't reinvent the wheel, I feel the way it tells the story makes all the difference. I feel invested. I feel like Warden. Warden has to make HUGE decisions. Far bigger than the PC of Baldur's Gate. Fereldan's fate rests directly on your shoulders. BG2 is chasing Irenicus and Bodhi. I feel invested in ToB, but that's about it.

This is a personal thing. There were far more many quests in DAO that felt like pure filler, particularly when it came to sidequests.  The main story... DAO was fairly engaging, but I still didn't have the same attachment to the NPCs involved, so I didn't have the same motivation. It was an "end of the world" story, which for me, was far less engaging for me and my character than a story with a distinctly personal focus. I was doing it because it was "what was right", or "because it's either this or die", or "this will get me rich and famous" rather than "I care about my sister who has been kidnapped" or "the world could be destroyed because of my personal presence/involvement", or "I want revenge/power".

joyner1229 wrote...
6. DA:O may be overhyped, but I can't see how you argue that BG isn't. If one is, the other is, as well. My issue with BG overhype is the arguments coming from people who say nothing will EVER match BG just because it's a "classic". Then when I ask for them to support their arguments, I don't get much.

I agree that the BG series does get overhyped, but even with its interface and design shortcomings, it's still an incredibly enjoyable gaming experience to this day. It's not just called a classic because people remember it with nostalgia and rose-coloured glasses. I'm happy to pull it apart for its shortcomings, and have got into arguments with people over this very thing, but it is still a superb game.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 19 septembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[joyner1229]

1. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You admit he's shallow, but then praise his character as lovable (subjective...I find him grating) and nature loving. He's still shallow right? That was my point regardless of whether you find him lovable. Can we just say that we agree he's shallow and move on? How does Minsc develop over the course of the game? And you mention his dialogue, but him protecting Boo from Jan and adopting another witch for his dajemma isn't helping your point. It's proving his shallowness and one-dimensionality even more. I agree that archetypes fit for a reason (because most characters can fit in them). My point is in BG, most (not all) characters aren't significantly fleshed out beyond the archetypes. Minsc being one. Edwin being another. There are characters who are deeper (Jaheira and Viconia), but they are the exception. Again, let's not even bring up BG1, okay?

2. Oh boy. You are insane if you think Jaheira has more dialogue than, say Morrigan. Insane. More ROMANTIC dialogue? Okay, since that's almost the only time the NPCs talk to you in BG. But Morrigan says SO much more it's not even funny. Again, I like concrete examples. You meet Morrigan in the Korcari Wilds and she says a lot, then again after the Tower of Ishal when she joins you and again says a lot. In Lothering, she says quite a bit about the situation and some of the sidequests (the merchant, in particular) and vocally approves or disapproves of your choices. In the Mages Tower she has a LOT to say about the situation once you are inside and you rescue her from her 'dream". This isn't even taking into account the HUGE amounts of dialogue when you initiate conversation with her or her banter with the other companions. This is within the first 1/3 of the game. You are telling me, that Jaheira says as much as Morrigan? Please think about this statement before you accuse me of not exploring BG2 (I just wrapped up a game of BG2/ToB by the way and took Jaheira as one of my companions). If you don't believe me, I will happily provide video evidence.

3. A large question? Or a question glossed over because it makes little difference? I wouldn't even say he's unlikeable. I'm fairly indifferent because he's so generic D&D evil and his plot is so weakly tied to the Bhaalspawn plot. I think there was potential. I'd like to see more about him, in fact. But I stand by my opinion that he's not particularly deep. And since this thread is comparing the BG series to other Bioware series, I find him infinitely less interesting than Loghain.

4. I don't get what you're saying. How are these reasons not believable? Alistair is a Grey Warden. Does it make sense that he wants to avenge his comrades' deaths and fulfill the Grey Warden duty of defeating the Blight? I would say yes. Alistair has a reason to invest in the adventure. Morrigan....well, I don't want to spoil anything. But she has ulterior motives that involve obtaining something crucial from the Grey Wardens. I'd say she has a pretty good reason to stick around, as well. Leliana? Sure, she had a vision. But she says explicitly that she doesn't like seeing people in despair and can help best by helping the Warden. A generic reason? Yes. But a reason, nevertheless. Anomen (you ignored this...) sits in a bar looking for worthy comrades. You say "Yes, I'm a force of righteousness!" Anomen says, "Cool! I don't know you, but let's go save your friend!" Not a good enough reason for me. Why does he care about Imoen or Irenicus? The Order doesn't have duties he needs to be fulfilling? Let's take Aerie. You save her circus. Quayle says that for some reason PC, who is constantly facing down death and treachery, can better "provide" for Aerie (what does this mean?) and it's time for her to see the world. What? Then take a freaking cruise. We're chasing down an incredibly dangerous wizard. Also, for Zevran and Sten you think facing death or joining ISN'T a good reason for joining? Seriously? By the way, Sten was sent to investigate the Blight by the Arishok, so he has more than just facing death as a reason to join.

5. Just curious...how much did you talk to your companions in DA:O? Like in camp and such? I felt NO connection to Imoen. She says close to nothing in BG1, slightly more than nothing in BG2, and again hardly anything in ToB. But I'm supposed to care about her? I know NOTHING about her! Remember that list I made about what I knew about Leliana? Can you tell me that much about Imoen, one of the most "plot-relevant" companions in the series? I'm not going to argue about side-quests. I will agree that BG has some involving side quests (because BG1 is essentially a string of them), but the main quest is more important to me. I'd also like to say, that the tie to PC and the Bhaalspawn in BG2 is very weak to me, and I was getting interested in it at the end of BG1. Honestly, you could take out BG2 and just have BG1-> Throne of Bhaal, and I think it would feel more natural. BG2 is like a major sidequest of blindly chasing a guy you know nothing about and his "lulzimavampirenow" sister. I would take a well-constructed, weighty "end of the world" over this any day. But that's preferences, yes?

6. It is an enjoyable experience. My posts may seem like I don't like it. This cannot be further from the truth. My argument is this: If you like exploring beautiful, open worlds, vast amounts of freedom and less linearity, D&D rules/lore and/or IE: play BG. If you want a deep story, rich characters and narrative, and making huge, impactful decisions at the expense of quite a bit of freedom: play DA:O (or ME or PS:T) over BG. And YOU may not be biased by nostalgia, but come on. A LOT of people are, and not just for this game.

[AmstradHero]

Your first comment about Minsc was in comparison to Shale, but Shale was far more one-dimensional than Minsc. Minsc may be shallow in terms of BG2 companions, but he's still by no means completely one-note. If we're really being honest, Shale is a less complex version of HK-47. There's some amusing dialogue, but there's no real depth. The whole reason Minsc takes Aerie as his witch is because he sees that he's become a failure. He's no longer a mindless (albeit good natured) killing machine, but a character who has emotion and has to come to terms with obstacles.

Morrigan gets a lot of dialogue up front, and I mean a lot. It reduces a lot after that initial heavy burst. For everyone point you raise where she interjects in DAO, I could refer to sidequests (and main quests) in BG2 where Jaheira silently pipes up with a line or two - The Harper quests, druid/ranger quests, pretty much anything in the wilderness, Tradesmeet, Firkraag, skinner murders, etc, etc. The banters exist between characters in BG2 as well. BG2's party roster is also far larger than DAO, and everyone at least has as much dialogue as the non-conversationalist Sten, if not vastly more. Probably the only mainstream RPG you're looking at with more words/dialogue than BG2 is PS:T. The reasons for NPCs to join the player's party can also be simplified in DAO just as much as it can in BG2. The NPCs have motivations in both games, and if you simply enough, you can make their reasons sound very basic.

As for Irenicus versus Loghain, if you're saying Irenicus' motivations are irrelevant, then so are Loghain's. You can't have your cake and eat it too by saying "oh that character's motivations are unimportant because they're just obviously evil.". Morally unambigious characters can be one-note, but Irenicus certainly isn't. I never found Loghain particularly compelling, even though I could tell that he wasn't a clear cut villain. Then again, he behaves with such stupid indifference towards the player that it is ridiculous. Irenicus deliberately goads and plots for the player to fall into a trap. Loghain sends one assassin after the player and then... nothing.

How much did I talk to party members in DAO? A lot. In fact, I exhausted all the dialogue options I could. Also, as a modder, I've plumbed the depths of their conversation trees repeatedly within the toolset. I know how much they have to say. The difference is that DAO does a fair amount of its characterisation through exposition. BG2 did it primarily through their reactions to events and player actions. Yes, DAO does this as well, but it relies heavily on those conversations where the NPC goes "Here, let me tell you about my life..." BG2 does that far less - the player has to use their imagination and intelligence a bit more.

[joyner1229]

Minsc vs. Shale: Minsc is shallow for any companion, BG or not. Again, I will provide CONCRETE examples, rather than generic statements. Shale: A prideful golem who hates birds. That simple? SPOILERS AHEAD!!! Not exactly. Shale sacrificed herself to be made one (the only female), stays with Caridin to fight until the end, and has strong feelings towards the Anvil of the Void quest. You then do her quest and help her recover her past which she was traveling with you to do. Over the course of the game, her contempt for humans and thoughts on the futility of your party's goal of defeating the Blight change completely (talk to her!). She expresses her gratitude for taking the time to help her, becoming her friend, and depending on your choices, inspired by you she wants to go help the Legion hold the line or travel with Wynne to regain her mortality. Her banter reveals her thoughts on religion, magic, etc. and she picks up on things with the companions (Al's hesitance to lead, Morrigan's shadiness, etc.). Can you answer my question? How does Minsc develop over the course of the game? Oh, wait...

"The whole reason Minsc takes Aerie as his witch is because he sees that he's become a failure. He's no longer a mindless (albeit good natured) killing machine, but a character who has emotion and has to come to terms with obstacles."

How poignant. This is grasping at straws if I ever saw it. He is a shallow, one-dimensional character. You admitted this! "Has emotion and has to come to terms with obstacles?" Really? Please reread this ridiculous statement, objectively. Because that isn't generic and certainly doesn't describe every character. And if that is all your looking for in terms of character development, indeed we will not agree on this point...ever.

Jaheira vs. Morrigan: First, let me say: I like Jaheira. She is indeed one of the more vocal companions, and I like her romance (even if I find it a bit creepy since Khalid's body is practically still warm when she starts it). But are you still objectively saying she says more than Morrigan?After the first 1/3 of the game, Morrigan continues to make comments: Nature of the Beast, Orzammar, Denerim, etc. Sure, it's less than the HUGE amount she has in the first 1/3. But you can still talk to her, do her personal quest, Prison Break ('nuff said), hear her reactions to your choices, and of course, she has quite a bit to say if you do or refuse her...ahem...ritual. Let's talk about content. Jaheira saying "This cult is an affront to nature!" is not as telling as Morrigan's thoughts on why Wynne and the circle mages should be abandoned. Often times, BG contributions are like this. Minsc says something about goodness and Boo, Anomen about striking a blow against evil, Jaheira about nature, etc. Again, characters in BG are not much beyond archetypes. Again, if you are trying to objectively say Jaheira says more than Morrigan...well, I don't think you're being objective at all. Maybe more than Sten? Sten tends to shut Warden down, initially. But I still think you're underestimating how much he has to say.

Irenicus: I apologize if I implied his motivations were irrelevant; they're just shallow. His back story is glossed over and made near irrelevant. His relationship with Ellesime is glossed over when they meet. I expected much more (and was looking forward to traveling to his village) given the initial dungeon. And to repeat what I said, Ellesime says Irenicus wanted more power, whatever the cost. That's it. Nothing deeper. D&D evil. Sounds like you want a MUAHAHAHA evil villain leering at you while he performs some dastardly acts. I don't mind this, but I prefer one who actually has a good reason for what he/she does. This is preference, I guess. Indifference? I'd say Irenicus is indifferent to PC in BG. He takes your soul and moves on, not expecting you to catch up to him. I repeat, the tie to Bhaalspawn in BG2 is weak, at best. If you remove BG2 and just go from BG1 to ToB, you don't lose much. In fact, the story feels more natural to me because the main plot of the series (the Bhaalspawn crisis) is uninterrupted. Loghain is fairly indifferent because he is rallying the lands and preparing for the Blight. He doesn't exist just to antagonize the player.

BOTH DA:O and BG do characterization through exposition, banter, and reactions. However, BG PRIMARILY does characterization through exposition if you are romancing the person (I believed I said something along these lines earlier). So, basically it's an argument of 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3. Now, in regards to the BG player filling in the blanks with their vastly superior intelligence over the brain-dead DA players, what is the backstory you created for Minsc? Imoen? I'm curious since you continue to side step my question about comparing Imoen to Leliana (heck, I'll let you use ANY BG character!) in terms of how much we know about them. Look, there are gaps you have to fill with ANY fictional character. But they are easier to fill with DA characters because we know so much more about them and they have deeper personalities. You lived with Imoen for how long at Candlekeep and you still know nothing about her. This intelligence comment is just so absurd and condescending. This is a mindset that pops up in this community every now and then. "BG is a superior game for smart, wizened gamers who actually have taste and don't need big guns and explosions like the CoD crowd." Kindly come off it.

Modifié par joyner1229, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[joyner1229]

Oh, and in regards to motivations: Could you explain Anomen's motivation to travel with you? Than Edwin's? Then Mazzy's? Then Cernd's? Then, we can compare your summaries to my summaries of the DA characters.

[AmstradHero]

joyner1229 wrote...
Minsc is a shallow, one-dimensional character. You admitted this!

No. I said he was shallow. Shallow != one dimensional.

Jaheira still has plenty to say through the main plot and plenty of sidequests. The Harpers, Trademeet (all parts of it), Firkraag, anything in the wilderness, plenty of places in ToB...

Unless we have specific word counts here, I don't think we're going to agree. Even if we did, then there would be the argument of the quality and ability of that dialogue to convey character.

joyner1229 wrote...
Sounds like you want a MUAHAHAHA evil villain leering at you while he performs some dastardly acts. I don't mind this, but I prefer one who actually has a good reason for what he/she does.

No. That's childish, and you're painting it as such.

joyner1229 wrote...
I'd say Irenicus is indifferent to PC in BG.
...
 Loghain ... doesn't exist just to antagonize the player.

Implying that Irenicus does exist just to antagonize the player? Again, you're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If Irenicus exists solely to antagonize the player, then he's not indifferent to the player. You find Loghain more interesting because you care about his motivations more. I found him a fairly easy character to understand - his motivations his background were obvious even if his morals were grey. Irenicus' backstory and how he became what he was was infinitely more interesting to me.

joyner1229 wrote...
This intelligence comment is just so absurd and condescending. This is a mindset that pops up in this community every now and then. "BG is a superior game for smart, wizened gamers who actually have taste and don't need big guns and explosions like the CoD crowd." Kindly come off it.

Intelligence was perhaps harsher than I'd intended, so I apologise for that, but I stand by the sentiment. Games are being more explicit in telling the player things rather than letting them infer it. I can think of no better example than the Extended Cut in ME3. There was literally nothing in it that I hadn't already inferred (at least once BioWare said that the Mass Relays didn't explode) from the original ending.  The extended endings simply handheld the player through something they could have worked out. That's why I found the people who declared the "extended cut fixed the endings" simply lacked imagination and intelligence. I stand by that.

I'll also stand by the fact that MW2 is complete tripe and how its story possibly passes as writing is beyond me. That's not why I played it, but declaring that it has a story is laughable. I'm not a condescending old codger and take umbrage at the accusation - I'll happily enjoy Just Cause, Serious Sam, and Bulletstorm, Darksiders, LA Noire, Amnesia, Dear Esther, heck, bucketloads of games, all for very different reasons. I won't back down from the fact that it'll be a long time before we get something with the depth of writing of say, Planescape: Torment, simply because so many gamers would not be bothered to read that much.

As for character motivations:
Anomen: Seeking a means to prove that he is worthy to become a knight.
Edwin: (He's probably the most shallow) He's seeking power and knows that the player will likely a good way to gain it - he's an evil Thayvian wizard to the core. I didn't know a whole lot about Thay at the time, but Edwin was an excellent means to showcase them.
Mazzy: Adventuring is her life, and her friends have all been killed. She's pledging her support to the person who avenged the deaths of her friends - it's almost an honour debt to her.
Cernd: This is his life as a Druid. He's seeking some sort of atonement for how things turned out with his son, and he knows that the player is an influence on the world that he would see controlled and not get out of balance.

They all have a choice. It's not "die or join the player". It's not "I had a vision".

[Moganza]

While I agree with AmstradHero I suggest you 2 just agree to disagree because both your opinions are carved into stone.

[joyner1229]

"No. I said he was shallow. Shallow != one dimensional."

Let's consult our good friend Merriam-Webster, shall we?
One-dimensional: Lacking depth; superficial
Shallow: Having little depth
But you've seemed to drop your (ludicrous...sorry) argument that Minsc is deeper than Shale, so I'll just move on.

"Jaheira still has plenty to say through the main plot and plenty of sidequests. The Harpers, Trademeet (all parts of it), Firkraag, anything in the wilderness, plenty of places in ToB...

Unless we have specific word counts here, I don't think we're going to agree. Even if we did, then there would be the argument of the quality and ability of that dialogue to convey character."

Well, you say Jaheira STILL says plenty to say, kind of implying Morrigan says more. But whatever. Insanity, but whatever. Like I said, I just played through BG2. Jaheira is definitely one of (if not) the most vocal companions, but she does not say as much as Morrigan. Quality? Ok, we don't have to agree on. But quantity? Trust me. I've played both very recently.

"No. That's childish, and you're painting it as such. "

That was a response to you saying: "Irenicus deliberately goads and plots for the player to fall into a trap." And in terms of this trap, it is a means to an end. Irenicus' goal has nothing to do with the player directly. Let's be honest, BG2 is Irenicus' story. It amazes me that people complain about Hawke being a tool who just gets swept up in circumstances beyond his/her control, but the PC in BG2 is pretty darn similar. And I wasn't saying Irenicus exists just to antagonize the player, I was defending Loghain. In fact, I think I've said the opposite.

"You find Loghain more interesting because you care about his motivations more. I found him a fairly easy character to understand - his motivations his background were obvious even if his morals were grey. Irenicus' backstory and how he became what he was was infinitely more interesting to me."

It's not just his motivations. It's his background, how he got to to where he is, his relationships with other characters, his ambiguity (you say his motivations are clear...can you explain?). Irenicus just wanted more power. Ellesime explicitly states as much. But this is a point that is subjective at best. I see where Irenicus could be interesting to you, but I feel the game could have done so much more whether that be through more cutscenes, dialogue with him or Ellesime, etc.

"Games are being more explicit in telling the player things rather than letting them infer it. I can think of no better example than the Extended Cut in ME3. "

Look, I don't disagree with this. However, I think there is a sweet spot. And it is NOT Baldur's Gate. Let's make a clear distinction. Not fleshed out=/=cleverly designed to stimulate the player's imagination. BG characters are generally not very deep and don't have rich backstories. You keep fighting this. First by saying they ARE deep and then by saying well, not so much, but the player has to fill in gaps. Like I said, ANY fictional character requires you to fill in gaps. But bringing up the Leliana question AGAIN, you cannot tell me as much about any character in BG as I can tell you about Leliana, which is why you haven't answered it. Now, Leliana having this much detail about her life and personality does NOT hold the player's hand and strip them of using their imagination. It brings her to life. It makes her far closer to an actual person than say Edwin.

The example you gave of spelling things out, I agree with. But you can't make that argument with DA characters. It's absurd. And I love Planescape Torment and its writing, but don't act like people not wanting to read is a new phenomenon. It was a problem when it came out, and I honestly believe it is one of the reasons why so many people say BG is the best Infinity Engine game (which drives me insane).

Now, you said before you would happily pick apart BG for its faults. I'd like to hear them from you.

Lastly, motivations:
Good, let's compare:
"Anomen: Seeking a means to prove that he is worthy to become a knight."
He can't do this through other means? Why is he in a bar? But whatever.

Alistair: Comrades (including Duncan, a father-figure) were betrayed and (indirectly) murdered by Loghain. Seeks revenge for that. Seeks to defeat the Blight, as he is only one of two Grey Wardens remaining, and it is the Grey Wardens' ultimate goal.

"Edwin: (He's probably the most shallow) He's seeking power and knows that the player will likely a good way to gain it - he's an evil Thayvian wizard to the core. I didn't know a whole lot about Thay at the time, but Edwin was an excellent means to showcase them."
Another shallow character...

Leliana: Has a vision of the Blight. Very religious and genuinely believes that the Maker wants to her to help the Warden defeat it. However, she also says that she doesn't like seeing the refugees in Lothering in despair and fear, and that she can best contribute by helping the Warden battle the Darkspawn.

Mazzy: Adventuring is her life, and her friends have all been killed. She's pledging her support to the person who avenged the deaths of her friends - it's almost an honour debt to her.
I don't remember Mazzy pledging an oath to PC...but I didn't take her last game.

Morrigan: Flemeth tells her to go with Warden for reasons that are not initially apparent. However, late game, we discover Flemeth's plans. She wants a child with the Archdemon's essence (apparently, this will be explained in DA3). This requires a "healthy" Grey Warden and Morrigan being present when the Archdemon is slain. Subsequently, when she gets what she wants, she leaves.

Cernd: This is his life as a Druid. He's seeking some sort of atonement for how things turned out with his son, and he knows that the player is an influence on the world that he would see controlled and not get out of balance.
I think I remember Cernd just saying he liked to see the world, but what you say isn't a stretch.

Sten: Originally, was sent to Ferelden to investigate the Blight and the threat it posed to Par Vollen by the Arishok. Circumstances led to him being arrested, caged, and left to be killed by Darkspawn. Warden saves him. Sten is clearly interested in traveling with Warden because he/she is a Warden, not just because they saved his life. In fact, Sten is fairly content to stay and die.

I would also like to say, I didn't fill in any blanks. I used ONLY what the game says explicitly. Who has better, more specific and concrete motivations for becoming invested in their respective adventure?

Modifié par joyner1229, 21 septembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[AmstradHero]

Sorry, but while you're resorting to ad homenim, I see little point in the debate, but a few points.

From a literary perspective, one-dimensional means that the character has only a single facet to their character. That is not Minsc. I don't imply that Morrigan has more to say that Jaheira, and I didn't answer some question about Leliana because I never saw it.

Loghain's motivations are that he is fiercely loyal to Ferelden and he'll do whatever he thinks is right to protect it. He's a war veteran and hero. He thinks Cailan is going to roll over to the Orlesians and that Ferelden could fall under their sway, so he does the only thing he sees as right, which is to withdrawal from a losing battle and take control. Loghain effectively wants power just like Irenicus - he's just doing it for the sake of protecting Ferelden.

With Irenicus there's the issue as to why he became obsessed with power to begin with, but then how his punishment turned him into a vile monster instead of potentially redeeming If his punishment had been less severe, would he have become the twisted and malevolent figure that he is in BG2?

The primary point you're arguing here seems to be about characters and characterisation, which is an extremely objective thing. It's very difficult for most people to differentiate between liking the character, and liking the characterisation. I know I hated Fenris in DA2, but I actually ended up liking the writers for making a character that I could hate so unequivocally. We butted heads at every turn, and it was great.

I really liked Leliana as a character, but when I go back and think about her, I can recite a lot of facts about her, but when I boil down to her overall personality and characterisation, she ends up feeling quite light in terms of depth. Sure, there's a lot of content, but when I boil it down:
She's steadfastly devout
She has a youthful outlook somewhat hardened by the world

For someone who is supposedly one of the most complex characters, even compared to Viconia she loses:
She's devout.
She's extremely bitter towards the world, and scared of her fate.
She's struggling to balance her sense of good and evil in the world.

Not exactly a one-dimensional character.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:09 .

[joyner1229]

Ad hominem (not ad homenim...there I go again)? I'm going to just laugh at that, given some of your comments. Also, the bottom line is: Minsc is shallow and one-dimensional. In literary terms, one-dimensional means we see one side of the character, not necessarily that the character only has one TRAIT. A character can be one-dimensional and not just have one trait (like Minsc). And I'm going to remind you that you said he is deeper than Shale. Wow.

Leliana is that simple?
-If you do her quest, you realize she is constantly struggling with her past as a bard. Part of her enjoys killing Marjolaine and all of the thugs you come across. It's actually up to the player (Warden makes many more important decisions) to let her slip back into that life ("the game") or assure her that she doesn't want that life.
-The Gauntlet also suggests that she says the Maker talks to her for attention.
-The details help flesh her out. As I said, you know a lot about your friends, yes? Your family? Details are a part of who they are.

As I said, I like (romanced) Viconia. Guess you forgot that. To me, that is a satisfactory level of depth and development. However, I maintain DA does it better. The DA characters react more to your choices, have more substantial banter, the details flesh them out more, they have better reasons to join/stay with you, etc. Viconia does not "win". She is a solid starting point for the direction BW went in. Unfortunately, Viconia is the exception, not the rule in BG.

"I don't imply that Morrigan has more to say that Jaheira."
I thought this did: "Morrigan gets a lot of dialogue up front, and I mean a lot. It reduces a lot after that initial heavy burst. For everyone point you raise where she interjects in DAO, I could refer to sidequests (and main quests) in BG2 where Jaheira silently pipes up with a line or two - The Harper quests, druid/ranger quests, pretty much anything in the wilderness, Tradesmeet, Firkraag, skinner murders, etc, etc."

Loghain vs. Irenicus: You're implying that Irenicus' background's holes are depth? BW doesn't cover those issues in a way that presents them as important; they gloss over them quickly at the end (like I said, Ellisime's and Irenicus' dialogue is depressingly short and unsubstantial, given how much I thought they would have to say). That doesn't make him deeper. There's no "issue", as you say. You hunt him and kill him. And considering BG2 is really about Irenicus, I would hope that those questions were covered more thoroughly.   But you could raise questions for Loghain to: Was the battle really a lost cause? Why didn't he tell Cailan, if that was the case? Why blame the Wardens? What brought him to this point? etc. And several people throughout the course of the game say Loghain is sensible and never wanted power.  So if power was his goal, as you say, there was a change there.

No, what I'm arguing (as I've explicitly stated) is that BG is a great game. However, nostalgia and general fondness for it have colored people's views to the point where they will not criticize ANY facet of it or admit that another game could potentially do better in a certain area. It's perfect, and that's that. Your defense of Minsc is coming off as that, to be completely honest. Similarly, Moganza came to defend the characters, but said she/he played it when s/he was much younger. The original poster implied that favoring it had something to do with their age. And I made a post about BG1 being overrated on my Facebook wall, and not soon after, a friend wrote "BLASPHEMY!!" Once I laid out my arguments (as I did here), he said "Well, that may be true. I haven't played it in a while."

Again, I will repeat, BG is great, and without it, DA would not exist. But it is not perfect. Every game has strengths AND weaknesses. If you can at least agree with that, I've made my case, even if we disagree about what those weaknesses are.  I do, however, have to point out that you have not convinced me that characters is an area where BG excels over other BW games.  I can't get over this:He's no longer a mindless (albeit good natured) killing machine, but a character who has emotion and has to come to terms with obstacles.

Modifié par joyner1229, 26 septembre 2012 - 11:53 .