12857 réponses à ce sujet

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I agree with those saying that Alistair is a good fighter. He is not the best (I think Sten and Oghren are better in terms of skill and experience), but he has training and he has heart, it cannot be denied. He is courageous on the battlefield.

His problem is not lack of physical skill,  but lack of will and reason.

tklivory wrote...
And I would never want Zevran to be a leader, either.

Depends on what kind of leadership position you are talking about.
I think Zevran would make an excellent leader of the crows.

I was thinking straight-up combat when I said that.  I fully agree with you about a leadership of the Crows.  As a Crow, most definitely he would be a good leader, because he has the knowledge of the organization, understanding of the mechanics of their workings, and the motivation to keep himself at the top.  (Though, since to stop being a leader generally means death, the last is probably the *easiest* facet to attain, heh)

[Costin_Razvan]

My point wasn't that Alistair couldn't fight at all, but rather to fault the game that made him one of the most important characters in the games in terms of fighting the war.

I wouldn't dismiss him from the battlefield, but I wouldn't put him on any pedestal, which is DA:O DOES.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It doesn't. You can ignore him and not take him with you, not even do his personal quest and end up exiling or executing him.

His importance stems from something of actual importance and that's his bloodline. His leadership position is only acquired if you give it to him.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 janvier 2012 - 07:08 .

[tklivory]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

My point wasn't that Alistair couldn't fight at all, but rather to fault the game that made him one of the most important characters in the games in terms of fighting the war.

I wouldn't dismiss him from the battlefield, but I wouldn't put him on any pedestal, which is DA:O DOES.

Hmmm, a pedestal in terms of the whole 'prince thing', yes it does.  (erroneously, which I agree with you there).

A pedestal as a fighter?  I don't feel that from the game, to be honest.  But then, the game is 66% invested in the 'unexpected hero' philosophy too, so I may have just not *seen* it applied to Alistair as well.

So, we're again circling the same point with semantics the only barrier in between us. *shrugs* I'm cool with that.

Modifié par tklivory, 08 janvier 2012 - 07:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
Hmmm, a pedestal in terms of the whole 'prince thing', yes it does.  (erroneously, which I agree with you there).

How exactly?
The whole prince thing is only because of his blood, and the game showed him to be a fool a dozen times over.

The one who was put on a pedestal was Cailan, with the devs actually thinking that I would be sad that he died.

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How exactly?
The whole prince thing is only because of his blood, and the game showed him to be a fool a dozen times over.

The one who was put on a pedestal was Cailan, with the devs actually thinking that I would be sad that he died.

His 'blood' and therefore his bloodright is put on a pedestal, not him.  I should have made that clearer.

Mostly because of Eamon.  I *hated* that whole conversation with Eamon about why he wanted Alistair to be King (the whole 'we can't give up the Theirin bloodline after only 30 years' bit!)  <_<

Yeah, not an Eamon fan.

Also, of the several outcomes for the Landsmeet, the *majority* of them = Alistair on the throne, alone or co-ruler, which indicates the devs thought it was a viable outcome.  (i.e., Alistair, Alistair/Anora, Anora, so 66% Alistair on the throne).  And, it has been stated by DG that his personal 'canon' is Alistair as King (as in the upcoming comic that is coming out in a couple of months).

Maybe that's not a *pedestal* per se, but it certainly is a bias.

And let's not start the Cailan thing again.  There's only so many pictures of him DIANF that I can come up with in short order, ya know.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
His 'blood' and therefore his bloodright is put on a pedestal, not him.  I should have made that clearer.

Mostly because of Eamon.  I *hated* that whole conversation with Eamon about why he wanted Alistair to be King (the whole 'we can't give up the Theirin bloodline after only 30 years' bit!)  <_<

Yeah, not an Eamon fan.

I love Eamon as a character and he almost single handedly made the Landsmeet. His arguments make a lot of sense and are valid, and I am saying this as someone who is not fond of the Therein line and think that it's a dynasty of mediocre unremarkable monarchs that kept Ferelden primitive for 300 years.

Also, of the several outcomes for the Landsmeet, the *majority* of them = Alistair on the throne, alone or co-ruler, which indicates the devs thought it was a viable outcome.  (i.e., Alistair, Alistair/Anora, Anora, so 66% Alistair on the throne).  And, it has been stated by DG that his personal 'canon' is Alistair as King (as in the upcoming comic that is coming out in a couple of months).

Maybe that's not a *pedestal* per se, but it certainly is a bias.

I'd argue that's not the game perse, but rather post-game showing dev bias and more importantly, what most people do. And let's face it, most people would pick Alistair. Just like most would kill King Henselt.

I would not expect Bioware to punish the majority of players in an endgame decision. In fact I am still impressed that they punished those who would pick Harrowmont, which is to say most people. 

Now if Alistair is shown later to be an awesome king while Origins constantly showed him to be foolish, then yea I'd be pissed, but I wouldn't fault Origins, I would fault the writers.

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I love Eamon as a character and he almost single handedly made the Landsmeet. His arguments make a lot of sense and are valid, and I am saying this as someone who is not fond of the Therein line and think that it's a dynasty of mediocre unremarkable monarchs that kept Ferelden primitive for 300 years.

And that's precisely why I see Eamon as a bit of a wanker.  He's obviously well-versed in Fereldan history, and he definitely had his differences with Cailan, so why would he try to perpetuate the line that had held Fereldan back and produced such a fine 'specimen' as Cailan?

His arguments may be coherent, but his entire *premise* was flawed.  Instead of establishing a foundational argument predicated on the need to keep a failing and incompetent bloodline in place, he should have found a better candidate - himself, or Teagan, even - or actually made the arguments himself rather than relying on someone else to do so.  (Yeah, yeah, game mechanics, la la la not listening).

And if he's trying to just do a power grab, that would make more sense, but he comes across as a bit too sanctimonious for that.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd argue that's not the game perse, but rather post-game showing dev bias and more importantly, what most people do. And let's face it, most people would pick Alistair. Just like most would kill King Henselt.

Hmmm, true.  I wonder, do most people kill Loghain, too?  The
average player, I mean, the ones who don't do extensive RP or analysis
of motivations and all that.  He is set up as 'bastard killed the King!' and all that early in the story, after all. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
And that's precisely why I see Eamon as a bit of a wanker.  He's obviously well-versed in Fereldan history, and he definitely had his differences with Cailan, so why would he try to perpetuate the line that had held Fereldan back and produced such a fine 'specimen' as Cailan?

His arguments may be coherent, but his entire *premise* was flawed.  Instead of establishing a foundational argument predicated on the need to keep a failing and incompetent bloodline in place, he should have found a better candidate - himself, or Teagan, even - or actually made the arguments himself rather than relying on someone else to do so.  (Yeah, yeah, game mechanics, la la la not listening).

And if he's trying to just do a power grab, that would make more sense, but he comes across as a bit too sanctimonious for that.

I think he wants both personal power and genuinely believes in the importance of the bloodline.
Why the latter? Stability. Many regimes, dynasties and systems legitimate themselves to most people on the basis of stability. Ferelden only became a state because of the Thereins and it existed as a state only under the Thereins. It is very natural and very normal to have a lot of people who would value the bloodline on this basis.

I believe his premise is flawed, but not entirely. It has its validity and the primary purpose of any state is to survive.
But I personally value vision as much as stability and believe that the latter without the former is simply stagnation.

Hmmm, true.  I wonder, do most people kill Loghain, too?  The
average player, I mean, the ones who don't do extensive RP or analysis
of motivations and all that.  He is set up as 'bastard killed the King!' and all that early in the story, after all. 

Stats were posted with regards to what people choose. Yes the vast majority kill Loghain IIRC.

[Costin_Razvan]

Were can you find these statistics?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Don't know, forgot where I saw them.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Dragon Age has it's own fair share of stupid antagonists: Branka, Howe, Vaughn, hell even Bhelen shows stupidity during the main plot with Vartag and when he attacks the Warden. I won't even talk of Uldred abomination or that desire demon in Redcliffe.

Branka wasn't stupid, neither was Howe. They, like Loredo, are corrupt and couckou in the head, though Loredo was more subtle.
Vaughn is not a character as far as I am concerned, but a caricature. Uldred was botched sadly. 

Would you have handled Vaughan and Uldred differently?

[Costin_Razvan]

Uldred was not even a character, we didn't even get to see him besides him saying one line.

What we see is him possessed by a demon. I don't think he was evil, in fact I would support his ideals.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Branka wasn't stupid, neither was Howe. They, like Loredo, are corrupt and couckou in the head, though Loredo was more subtle.
Vaughn is not a character as far as I am concerned, but a caricature. Uldred was botched sadly. 

Would you have handled Vaughan and Uldred differently?

I guess Vaughan served his small purpose well in CE, so maybe he doesn't need to be changed.

But Uldred, most certainly I would have handled him differently. In many ways, I sympathize with him more than Anders and respect the way he went about things (training an army of blood mages in the middle of the Circle right under everyone's nose? Impressive).

Uldred was an opportunity to explore radical libertarianism and a militant, but smart solution to the mage question (allying with states to oppose the Chantry). Instead, what we got was super rawr evil abomination. I don't really mind that Uldred's plan turned into a disaster and demons went on the loose. But I would have vastly preferred if:
A- Uldred was explored in the Mage Origin more, and that we could talk to him a bit in Ostagar
B- That Uldred was not possessed at the end.

But honestly, I think the whole mage thing in DA could have been handled much better. Demons are overblown and to the extreme in DA2. I would have much rather kept demons as sentient but ultimately week creatures that mages can control. As it stands, it's too much "dark side" vibe that made me despise Star Wars at the end. There are enough reasons to fear and hate mages without abominations. Indeed popular belief could be that mages are inherently demonic and possessed, even if it's untrue. The effect would have been the same. 

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Branka wasn't stupid, neither was Howe. They, like Loredo, are corrupt and couckou in the head, though Loredo was more subtle.
Vaughn is not a character as far as I am concerned, but a caricature. Uldred was botched sadly. 

Would you have handled Vaughan and Uldred differently?

I guess Vaughan served his small purpose well in CE, so maybe he doesn't need to be changed.

But Uldred, most certainly I would have handled him differently. In many ways, I sympathize with him more than Anders and respect the way he went about things (training an army of blood mages in the middle of the Circle right under everyone's nose? Impressive).

Uldred was an opportunity to explore radical libertarianism and a militant, but smart solution to the mage question (allying with states to oppose the Chantry). Instead, what we got was super rawr evil abomination. I don't really mind that Uldred's plan turned into a disaster and demons went on the loose. But I would have vastly preferred if:
A- Uldred was explored in the Mage Origin more, and that we could talk to him a bit in Ostagar
B- That Uldred was not possessed at the end.

But honestly, I think the whole mage thing in DA could have been handled much better. Demons are overblown and to the extreme in DA2. I would have much rather kept demons as sentient but ultimately week creatures that mages can control. As it stands, it's too much "dark side" vibe that made me despise Star Wars at the end. There are enough reasons to fear and hate mages without abominations. Indeed popular belief could be that mages are inherently demonic and possessed, even if it's untrue. The effect would have been the same. 

Good points, KOP.

Vaughan (Sp?) sadly isn't a caricature but a pretty realistic depiction of a rapist/sociopath in power. (Our history features loads of those)

Bit I put in italics: I so agree. Screw Jowan and his Thorn Birds melodrama crap and gimme something interesting instead! Like exploring the fraternities via Uldred & other Senior Enchanters....

Interesting theory there. IMHO DAII went way overboard re: abominations and ignored the human side (No pun intended) of the conflict too much in the long run. Even unwilling mages (Olivia) became abominations....(Isn't that against the lore anyway?)

[Costin_Razvan]

I'd argue that even the Dark Side is way better portrayed then the crap with abominations, mages and demons in DA universe, just my 2c.

As for Vaughn. I'd argue he was written very poorly. Loredo is AWESOME as a character but despicable nontheless.

[KnightofPhoenix]

To be fair, Loredo had a much more important role.

Dark side is portrayed as ****. Sith philosophy on the other hand is not (I still find the Sith Code to be very interesting and something I identify with), but is ruined by the Dark Side almost instantly.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2012 - 09:04 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Yet as CE we see Vaughn at least half of the game time as we do Loredo, Vaughn just fails on every level while with Loredo you do honestly think he is human, despicable as he is.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea Vaughn failed, but honestly I don't think he needed to be anything else. Loredo as a character was much more important and him being a failure would have been more noticeable.

I would much rather compare Loredo to Howe and there is no doubt that the former was better written. Honestly, it was Awakening that made Howe sort of interesting.

Of course I can't think of a Bioware npc at the moment that can rival someone like King Henselt. It took me 3 playthroughs (2 on Roche) but now I appreciate him a lot as a character.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2012 - 04:09 .

[tklivory]

I view Vaughan as a set-piece as opposed to a character. In the City Elf Origin, he's literally just used as a plot device rather than a character, much like the Urn of Sacred Ashes (*cough Urn of Plot Device cough*).  I compare Vaughan to Mouse from the Mage Origin - he's just there to get the plot rolling. It's not a complete failure of a *character*, like Cailan is.

Modifié par tklivory, 11 janvier 2012 - 04:23 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Mouse is infinitely more interesting to me than Vaughn. A demon that not only avoided being "lol I want to kill!" but actually gives advice to a mage?

It was brilliant and I wish that DA demons were morel like that. Subtle, perhaps being a voice of temptation, but not being this overwhelming force that take away sanity. Or that pop out of the ground sporadically....God DA2 is so annoying.

[tklivory]

Heh. I thought you only played DN and HN. I have found you out! (jk)

Good points about Mouse. I suppose I was thinking in terms of 'moving the plot along' more than the writing. Although I have a soft spot for the Sloth Demon in the Mage origins as my favorite demon.

Hmmm... perhaps its better to compare Vaughan to Trian - both are pretty much cariacatures of a stereotype. Much as I love Bhelen as a character, Trian seems... much more *flat* to me.

Can't comment on the DA2 demons, but I do agree that I prefer a Demon who's more snide, sneaky, deceitful, and believable to understand why a mage would go to it or be tricked by it. I always viewed the mage to be cajoled or deceived, not *overwhelmed* by a demon. Uldred needed at least 2 helpers and a lot of help to force abominations, and even then, he had to have a modicum of consent from the afflicted. If they changed that for DA2 for no reason... Hmmm... not so good.

[BevH]

tklivory wrote...

Can't comment on the DA2 demons, but I do agree that I prefer a Demon who's more snide, sneaky, deceitful, and believable to understand why a mage would go to it or be tricked by it. I always viewed the mage to be cajoled or deceived, not *overwhelmed* by a demon. Uldred needed at least 2 helpers and a lot of help to force abominations, and even then, he had to have a modicum of consent from the afflicted. If they changed that for DA2 for no reason... Hmmm... not so good.

As KoP says, the DA2 demons pop out of the ground at you with 2 exceptions that I won't go into here for spoiler reasons.

[pplr]

BevH

Spoilers are ok in this group of threads.

Trian was a flatter character-less vicious or creative than Vaughan (though that isn't saying much).

Vaughan was a murderous and raping brat that actually had the sense to try to talk his way out of a loosing battle. I usually killed him anyway because he is a vicious and murdering jerk who will likely continue to cause problems unless stopped.

But Trian doesn't even have the brains to talk things out when he is either given a chance or needs to (for his own sake). Though I find him dead half the time I played a dwarf noble so maybe he tried to reason with the Carta assassins-not likely but he may have.

[HiroVoid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mouse is infinitely more interesting to me than Vaughn. A demon that not only avoided being "lol I want to kill!" but actually gives advice to a mage? 

When I played a mage, I was disappointed as heck he never appeared again.  He was much more interesting than Jowan and the rest of the origin.