55380 réponses à ce sujet

[Hekateras]

This is probably one of those time constraints issues - like the fact that each of the companions in general didn't get more than two (often very short) conversations per act. All of the companions suffered from it, Fenris was just more obvious because of how many opportunities were obviously missed.

As I went on here many pages back, the final confrontation with Danarius was rather underwhelming. Considering that Danarius is a powerful mage and Kirkwall is currently in the midst of a mage/Templar crisis and Anders is growing increasingly desperate in his search for allies, Danarius and the Tevinter in general really could easily have played a more active role in what happens toward the end of the game.

You'd think the Imperium would jump at the opportunity to spark a pro-mage revolution in a city in the midst of a mage/Templar crisis. If the Tevinters conveniently chimed in to provide support and leadership to poor oppressed mages not used to governing themselves... Like I said, lots of potential for Tevinter involvement there. That could've been tied into Fenris's companion arc quite well.



I personally don't find the "different viewpoint" argument of Fenris's purpose to be unsatisfying, though. Upsettingshorts, I think it's inaccurate to consider him a walking Codex entry, as you put it. The most detailed Codex entry about the horrors of the Tevinter Imperium and the rule of mages would be worth almost nothing, no impact on the player, because it's just words. Informative words, certainly, but you need more than that to really create an emotional connection.

That's what Fenris does. He's there to remind you, time and again, of the flip side of mages being free, in a way simply reading through a Codex entry once or twice couldn't possibly match. Whether it's through his words, through his manner, through what he isn't saying, or through the way he's so obviously damaged and screwed up, a further example of something that HAS been tainted by magic, he creates an emotional response - no matter if the player agrees with him and/or thinks him to be a whiny *****. And that impresses the issue, the opposite side of the debate, far better better on the player than dry words possibly could.

Modifié par Hekateras, 21 avril 2011 - 12:33 .

[Evindell]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
It would have been nice to see him do something. Have him be the one who wants to turn Anders and Merrill into the templars, and give him a quest where he at least tries to. If that conflicts with his perceived "loyalty", even that could have been played up further with something like him inadvertantly starting to look to Hawke as his new master.

He's just so middle-of-the-road in everything he does. He gets angry, then appologizes. He's very anti-mage, but respects Hawke too much to move against his/her friends. He forms actual friendships with many of the party members. He doesn't have any sort of plot tie-in to at least make his role interesting. I don't dislike him, it's just difficult for me to find anything particularly compelling about him as a character. He really is a decent guy, which strikes me as odd considering the extent of what he tells us he went through.

Eh. I think his reaction to Seb said it all. Even if he did want to turn them in he respects Hawke to much to do it. I like the fact that he has such loyalty to Hawke. (Then of course is the fact that even if he doesn't like Anders and Merrill in combat the two of them are very useful.)

Everything you said about him is things I love about him. I like the fact that he apologizes for getting angry because frankly he should. It's not Hawke's fault what he went through. Him forming friendships gave him a life outside Hawke, no plot-tie in works more in his favor to me because it seems like he's similar to Hawke just stumbling around trying to get by. I think that alone makes him more interesting because alot of his actions are becase he's him, not because he has some larger goal or some voice telling him what to do.

As for him being a decent guy I don't find it odd. All victims of abuse don't react the same way to it.

That said I understand where you're coming from. Even if I don't agree with it myself.

I think you've hit on exactly why I like him as well.

My Hawke, despite being a mage, was just trying to get by in Kirkwall, protecting her mother and living as best she could. She was forced into roles that elevated her above what she wanted. The Arishok attacked, she reacted. Meredith and Orsino were clashing, so she intervened. But, really, my Hawke wasn't all for tearing down the Chantry, but she was for getting rid of Meredith (who I saw as the main problem with the oppression in Kirkwall). Fenris was the only one, it seemed, who wasn't forcing her to choose a side. He wasn't sitting there going "Pick! Now!" You actually didn't have to help him with his companion quests, any of them.

Don't recruit him=never get him

Don't take him to the Holding Caves=he leaves to handle it himself

Even taking him to the Hanged Man to meet his sister gave you the option to hand him over, thus you don't have to help him.

It was refreshing.

[Helen0rz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
In Dragon Age Origins yes.  DG pointed out that this was an issue that they were endeavoring to improve upon in DA2.  He even said that Fenris was an example of that improvement... I'm really not seeing it.

I'm seeing it for say, Isabela and Anders and such, hence my posts here on the subject.

Well, I guess this is where we disagree then. 

lizzbee wrote...

Helen0rz wrote...

Are you sure it wasn't the Mr. and the Mrs.  having a really big fight? or rough sexy time? lol

Oh, I am ze fainting, Monseiur!  Come and ze rescuuuue me wiz your Szward d'Amour!

That's SOME sexy time right there~! Zevran would be pleased

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Dragon Age Origins yes.  DG pointed out that this was an issue that they were endeavoring to improve upon in DA2.  He even said that Fenris was an example of that improvement... I'm really not seeing it.

I'm seeing it for say, Isabela and Anders and such, hence my posts here on the subject.

There are hints that Danarius is going to play some critical plot role later.  I've watched the vid of Hawke betraying Fenris, and Danarius mentions that Hawke has made an important ally.  I'm guessing if you kill said magister, there will be similar opposing repercussions.  Until we see the complete story arc, including DA3, we really won't know for sure.

I think that's the thing with Thane as well-- you've got ins with the hanar with him, maybe, but you really won't know until ME3 comes out.  For all we know both are "sleeper" characters who will have a big story impact later.  It's really hard to judge for sure where things lie in both series.

Modifié par lizzbee, 21 avril 2011 - 12:34 .

[Helen0rz]

Hekateras wrote...

This is probably one of those time constraints issues - like the fact that each of the companions in general didn't get more than two (often very short) conversations per act. All of the companions suffered from it, Fenris was just more obvious because of how many opportunities were obviously missed.

As I went on here many pages back, the final confrontation with Danarius was rather underwhelming. Considering that Danarius is a powerful mage and Kirkwall is currently in the midst of a mage/Templar crisis and Anders is growing increasingly desperate in his search for allies, Danarius and the Tevinter in general really could easily have played a more active role in what happens toward the end of the game.

You'd think the Imperium would jump at the opportunity to spark a pro-mage revolution in a city in the midst of a mage/Templar crisis. If the Tevinters conveniently chimed in to provide support and leadership to poor oppressed mages not used to governing themselves... Like I said, lots of potential for Tevinter involvement there. That could've been tied into Fenris's companion arc quite well.



I personally don't find the "different viewpoint" argument of Fenris's purpose to be unsatisfying, though. Upsettingshorts, I think it's inaccurate to consider him a walking Codex entry, as you put it. The most detailed Codex entry about the horrors of the Tevinter Imperium and the rule of mages would be worth almost nothing, no impact on the player, because it's just words. Informative words, certainly, but you need more than that to really create an emotional connection.

That's what Fenris does. He's there to remind you, time and again, of the flip side of mages being free, in a way simply reading through a Codex entry once or twice couldn't possibly match. Whether it's through his words, through his manner, through what he isn't saying, or through the way he's so obviously damaged and screwed up, a further example of something that HAS been tainted by magic, he creates an emotional response. And that impresses the issue, the opposite side of the debate, far better better on the player than dry words possibly could.

^This

I can't put it better than that

[upsettingshorts]

The term "walking Codex entry" is sort of meant to be deliberately dismissive because I generally don't like it. Of course I recognize the difference between a subjective opinion, passionately offered, and reading one purporting to be objective (or not) from the Codex.

Furthermore, regarding Danarius or future Fenris content that will flesh him or his experience out... I'll believe it when I see it.  That's not to dismiss the possibility, but it's still at this stage entirely speculative.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 avril 2011 - 12:38 .

[yoshibb]

Think if one of us asked David Gaider he would answer? He is the one who mentioned the fact that everyone had a hook to begin with.

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Furthermore, regarding Danarius or future Fenris content that will flesh him or his experience out... I'll believe it when I see it.  That's not to dismiss the possibility, but it's still at this stage entirely speculative.

Exactly, it's pure speculation.  Which is why you're indulging in it by asking what Fenris' point is in the story, when we don't know where the story itself will ultimately conclude.  Not that I have a problem indulging in said speculation-- what else is this thread? 
Well, besides the adorable Fenpics?

[Madame Rose Crimsynn]

@Yoshibb

Maybe. We haven't seen him around here in a while though...

[Heidenreich]

yoshibb wrote...

Think if one of us asked David Gaider he would answer? He is the one who mentioned the fact that everyone had a hook to begin with.

The David Gaider is a Myth. He only apears to answer questions if you spin around 4 times, say "The Chicken", and find a double rainbow's pot of gold.

[Madame Rose Crimsynn]

Heidenreich wrote...

yoshibb wrote...

Think if one of us asked David Gaider he would answer? He is the one who mentioned the fact that everyone had a hook to begin with.

The David Gaider is a Myth. He only apears to answer questions if you spin around 4 times, say "The Chicken", and find a double rainbow's pot of gold.

On it! 

[upsettingshorts]

Well upon re-reading his actual post on the subject the "hook" was something that was more important for the writer, and Fenris has that. What I think he lacks is a significant role in the story. I was using the term "hook" incorrectly until his comments were reposted.

In terms of whether or not he'll comment, I dunno. If he feels like it I suppose, it'd be interesting.

lizzbee wrote...

Exactly, it's pure speculation.  Which is why you're indulging in it by asking what Fenris' point is in the
story, when we don't know where the story itself will ultimately conclude.  Not that I have a problem indulging in said speculation-- what else is this thread? 

Wait, what?  DA2 happened.  I played through it a couple times.  Discussing his role within the game as it is isn't really the same thing as, "there might be more game released in which Fenris has a point."  There may be, there may not.  

I don't have a problem with the speculation either, just saying that pointing to potential unreleased content isn't really an answer.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 avril 2011 - 12:48 .

[Caliyhe]

Heidenreich wrote...

yoshibb wrote...

Think if one of us asked David Gaider he would answer? He is the one who mentioned the fact that everyone had a hook to begin with.

The David Gaider is a Myth. He only apears to answer questions if you spin around 4 times, say "The Chicken", and find a double rainbow's pot of gold.

I thought you had to tap your heels together three times? Assuming you have pretty red shoes.

[Heidenreich]

Caliyhe wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

yoshibb wrote...

Think if one of us asked David Gaider he would answer? He is the one who mentioned the fact that everyone had a hook to begin with.

The David Gaider is a Myth. He only apears to answer questions if you spin around 4 times, say "The Chicken", and find a double rainbow's pot of gold.

I thought you had to tap your heels together three times? Assuming you have pretty red shoes.

No, that's The Jennifer Helper, and the Merril Thread.

[ipgd]

I could maybe buy a slave ending up like Fenris, but considering he had absolutely no memory of life before being a slave at all, and therefor no frame of reference for normality to begin with, I just find it hard to believe he starts out so reasonable. He'd not been free from Danarius more than a couple of years, had he? It just seems like so little time for someone who went through something that should by all accounts left him far more damaged than what he presented. Where did he learn to function so well? Isn't the only group of people he'd been before as a free man a group of rebel warriors? How does someone with no memory of anything other than slavery navigate social situations as well as he does?

Maybe at the end of the game, I could have seen Fenris becoming as well adjusted as he was at the very beginning of DA2. I mean, sure, I guess it's possible for him to be the way he is, but it's not very... interesting. Wasted potential, maybe. Like he already went through all of the difficult parts of his rehabilitation and we're just there, idly dealing with his way-too-understandable-and-harmless-to-really-fault-him-for-it neuroses while he infodumps.

Didn't that make sense for someone who is an escaped slave though. Expressing his opinion than immediately feeling like he was going to be punished for it. Conflicted on how to act as someone who is free.

It would have been very interesting if he were apologizing because he was fearful of reproach, but it just came off more like he was genuinely sorry for lashing out and recognizes his anger towards Hawke was unwarranted. Like a normal person.

[lizzbee]

ipgd wrote...

I could maybe buy a slave ending up like Fenris, but considering he had absolutely no memory of life before being a slave at all, and therefor no frame of reference for normality to begin with, I just find it hard to believe he starts out so reasonable. He'd not been free from Danarius more than a couple of years, had he? It just seems like so little time for someone who went through something that should by all accounts left him far more damaged than what he presented. Where did he learn to function so well? Isn't the only group of people he'd been before as a free man a group of rebel warriors? How does someone with no memory of anything other than slavery navigate social situations as well as he does?

Maybe at the end of the game, I could have seen Fenris becoming as well adjusted as he was at the very beginning of DA2. I mean, sure, I guess it's possible for him to be the way he is, but it's not very... interesting. Wasted potential, maybe. Like he already went through all of the difficult parts of his rehabilitation and we're just there, idly dealing with his way-too-understandable-and-harmless-to-really-fault-him-for-it neuroses while he infodumps.
 

Keep in mind, he spent months with the Fog Warriors, seeing a healthier way of life.  He'd also been on the run for three years before he met Hawke.  Some amount of healing and functionality had to happen for him to survive for so long.  Add seven more to that, and by Act 3, he'd been free for a decade, not counting those months with the Fog Warriors.  If he didn't at least heal somewhat by then, he really would be irrevocably broken.

[leggywillow]

ipgd wrote...

I could maybe buy a slave ending up like Fenris

Heh.  When I first read that...

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

ipgd wrote...

Like he already went through all of the difficult parts of his rehabilitation and we're just there, idly dealing with his way-too-understandable-and-harmless-to-really-fault-him-for-it neuroses while he infodumps.

Agreed.

He could get away with being a lot more unreasonable, actually. The rehabilitation seems like the interesting part, and would show the immediate raw effects of emerging from that life instead of the lingering bitterness.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 21 avril 2011 - 12:51 .

[Hekateras]

I'm not just talking about the difference between objective Codex entry and subjective, passionate opinion. I'm talking about how it affects the player or the roleplayed character of Hawke.

A Codex entry? You read it once, maybe twice, when you discover it. Then, nothing.

Fenris is THERE. He's basically a flashing neon sign saying "Victim of mage freedom here!". He offers details - often startling, horrifying details - in his cutscene interjections and party banter. He shows, through his own dysfunctional behaviour, what a society of subjugation by mages can do to a person. When you make a decision, he's there to warn you, maybe pull you back from the brink, maybe offer insight you hadn't considered.

The story NEEDS that. It really does. With Merrill, Bethany, Anders, Karl, Feynriel, Alrik's would-be victim and many other sad-eyed mages, the story NEEDS a counterpoint to that when you start feeling too soft - or at the very least, to help you define what "too soft" is for you. The story - and the party - would feel horribly unbalanced on the mage/Templar debate without him.

It helps that I had both Fenris and Anders in my party during most quests, even - especially, actually - the quests where I expected mage/Templar issues to come up. And I repeat - it would have felt wrong without Fenris. If nothing else, the burden of disagreeing with Anders would have fallen on Hawke and gotten very tiring very quickly, whereas if Fenris is there, he takes over that role.

And of course, it helps to have party members with relationships of their own rather than every conversation revolving around Hawke. It was a nice change, and made the party members feel more realistic.

Modifié par Hekateras, 21 avril 2011 - 12:54 .

[autumnyte]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What I think he lacks is a significant role in the story. 

I actually happen to agree with you about Fenris lacking a significant role in the central story. He's my favorite character in the game, but while I do find that his presence and insight enhances a number of the quests, there's no denying that he is the most "optional" of the characters from the perspective of the overall story. (With perhaps the exception of Sebastian?)

Where we disagree is that I don't see his lack of a significant role as a problem or a reason to be dissatisfied with the character. In fact, quite the opposite. But I appreciate the interesting conversation, because it's helped me to analyze aspects of my own reaction to Fenris that I'd never really fleshed out before. 

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, what?  DA2 happened.  I played through it a couple times.  Discussing his role within the game as it is isn't really the same thing as, "there might be more game released in which Fenris has a point."  There may be, there may not.  

I don't have a problem with the speculation either, just saying that pointing to potential unreleased content isn't really an answer.

My point is that the question is actually unanswerable within the full context of Dragon Age's story, which we haven't
seen in full yet.  You've rejected what his role appears to be in DA2-- a counterpoint and eyewitness to mage excess-- and, also, apparently dismiss his ultimate role in the series, which hasn't been completed yet.  What you're asking everyone here to justify is something that we can only guess at.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

@Hekateras: I don't think anyone here is arguing that the story doesn't absolutely require a companion with an anti-mage stance. The issue is how strongly or effectively that comes across.

Personally I found it a little too easy to be like "okay, whatever, Fenris..."

It's like he's holding up his hands apart at a distance saying Tevinter is THIS BAD and I just have to take his word for it because as an example of the effects of slavery on someone, his weird behavior is either entirely understandable, or just quirky and hard to tie directly to his past... for me.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 21 avril 2011 - 12:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

You're inventing qualifications that don't exist and I never put forward.

If I say "In Dragon Age 2 the character of Fenris lacks a significant role within the story."

That doesn't need to account for future game content. Nor does it try to.  So if the response is, "It might matter later" that might be true, it also doesn't change a thing about what I said.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 avril 2011 - 12:57 .

[yoshibb]

ipgd wrote...

I could maybe buy a slave ending up like Fenris, but considering he had absolutely no memory of life before being a slave at all, and therefor no frame of reference for normality to begin with, I just find it hard to believe he starts out so reasonable. He'd not been free from Danarius more than a couple of years, had he? It just seems like so little time for someone who went through something that should by all accounts left him far more damaged than what he presented. Where did he learn to function so well? Isn't the only group of people he'd been before as a free man a group of rebel warriors? How does someone with no memory of anything other than slavery navigate social situations as well as he does?

Maybe at the end of the game, I could have seen Fenris becoming as well adjusted as he was at the very beginning of DA2. I mean, sure, I guess it's possible for him to be the way he is, but it's not very... interesting. Wasted potential, maybe. Like he already went through all of the difficult parts of his rehabilitation and we're just there, idly dealing with his way-too-understandable-and-harmless-to-really-fault-him-for-it neuroses while he infodumps.

Didn't that make sense for someone who is an escaped slave though. Expressing his opinion than immediately feeling like he was going to be punished for it. Conflicted on how to act as someone who is free.

It would have been very interesting if he were apologizing because he was fearful of reproach, but it just came off more like he was genuinely sorry for lashing out and recognizes his anger towards Hawke was unwarranted. Like a normal person.

A year or two is a long time. Like I said, I think initially it would have been pretty bad. When he met the rebel warriors I suspect he was still pretty messed up, but by the time he met Hawke he was kind of in a mercenary mentality. He didn't really trust anyone, more using them because he needed their help and it was the most logical.

He doesn't even question Hawke to begin with either, which is kind of stupid. Hawke could have been a magister in disguise or just generally not a nice person willing to hand him over for a few coins. He gets smarter over the years and trusts Hawke more. I believe his relationship with Hawke is a big factor to why he functions so well towards the end.

I hate to compare him to my dog, but I don't have a better example. My dog was abused her whole 6 year life and to begin with she was a complete mess. She'd jump at someone just walking behind her. But now she functions perfectly normal. She has her little nervous ticks but nothing crazy. Because we adjust or we fall apart, that's all there is to it. 

[Hekateras]

Pseudocognition wrote...

@Hekateras: I don't think anyone here is arguing that the story doesn't absolutely require a companion with an anti-mage stance. The issue is how strongly or effectively that comes across.

Personally I found it a little too easy to be like "okay, whatever, Fenris..."

He's there to make the issue of mages being free more personal to the player. He doesn't need to go on active crusades against the in-party mages to be effective in that, in my opinion - I wasn't suggesting that.