55380 réponses à ce sujet

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

The ego/ID/superego model is popular, but it's just a model invented by some guy many years ago, and not taken seriously by any psychologist nowadays. It's also just a way of looking at things, at categorising them. I don't see how the ability to fit Anders into that model makes him more complex or less confusing. If anything, I don't think the ability to be fit into neat boxes or labels speaks that well of a character.

Then why aren't you in his thread, doing what I'm doing now?  Maybe you'll run across a better interpretation?  That's just the first thing that came to mind for me.

I don't consider him a badly written character, quite the opposite. I just don't think such psychological models are the means to judge by.

Yes they are and sure they do.  They do, of course, defy simple labels.  But people are situationally very consistent.  Or so my limited education on the subject has led me to believe.

The situation part is key.  Like how Anders can be selfless when it comes to cats and mages, but is pleased when you sell Fenris into slavery, or blow up a building and start a war to satisfy his conscience.

I'd go back, but I cannot recall references to any actual instances, as in "Fenris did this and this and it doesn't make sense!" Only general qualities, and criticism of that has, in some cases, been refuted to the critics' satisfaction, if I'm not mistaken.

Where has Fenris been situationally inconsistent?

[UrsulaCousland]

Addai67 wrote...

DA2 characters just aren't that developed as a whole IMO.

Unfortunately. For at least a few of them, there's a lot of untapped potential.  DAO/As companions do feel much more fleshed out, and there is one of several places where DA:O/A comes out ahead.

Still, there's plenty to like there, and obviously enough to care enough about that we're going pages and pages discussing it (mostly reasonably, too! +10 Friendship!).

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not sure that he has been. I'm only sure that there seems to be far more interpretations as to who he is - let alone what he's doing in Dragon Age 2 - than there are for other characters.

The tangent into which character makes more psychological sense is interesting, but I'm not really well prepared to discuss it.

UrsulaCousland wrote...

Unfortunately. For at least a few of them, there's a lot of untapped potential.  DAO/As companions do feel much more fleshed out, and there is one of several places where DA:O/A comes out ahead/

If you had limited your evaluation of DAO companions' superior depth and/or complexity to say Morrigan or Alistair, I wouldn't have gotten quite the laugh out of this statement as I did.  So thanks for that.

The other characters, while interesting in the sense that they provide exposition... mostly just provided exposition + archetype.

Wait, you put DA:A in there too?! *boggled*

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 01:04 .

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd suggest going back to when I first brought this up, and keep track of how many different responses I either criticize, accept and try to defend from additional criticism, or indeed how many sidetracks created by the discussion result in tangents debating the nature of Fenris' character to begin with.  Because the general feeling of whiplash I got from that whole discussion is the one I'm basing this theory on now.

I disagree with the premise that the ability to spark a debate that goes off on hard-to-keep-track-of tangents is any proof that the character themselves is confusing.

No, seriously. Does anyone here read Order of the Stick? Literally hundreds of pages have been discussed to death about some of THOSE characters and their ambiguity. And yet few if any would ever argue that the characters are anything but extremely complex and well-defined.

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Heh, it's amusing to see you use that terminology because my Hawke - a character devoted to peace and stability - viewed Fenris and Anders as the extremist zealots in the party that gave him the most headaches. Merrill's particular brand of crazy seemed far more self limiting.

See, I find this especially interesting, because my first middle-of-the-road sarcastic Hawke may have found Fenris' beliefs to be a little more extreme than she liked, but Merrill's insanity led to her having to massacre an entire innocent Dalish clan.  She never had that problem with Fenris at all.  Yeah, a few slavers died, but it wasn't any great loss.

Modifié par lizzbee, 22 avril 2011 - 01:03 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

To Fenris' credit his romance with manhawke provides the best d*** joke in all of existence.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Heh, it's amusing to see you use that terminology because my Hawke - a character devoted to peace and stability - viewed Fenris and Anders as the extremist zealots in the party that gave him the most headaches. Merrill's particular brand of crazy seemed far more self limiting.

The distinction between them is that Anders goes as far as perform acts of terrorism and kill innocents for his beliefs, while Fenris does not. Fenris is biased and has a negative opinion of mages, but he never actually does anything that would make him deserve the label of extremist in the same breath as Anders, while even "self-limiting" Merrill, as mentioned above, knowingly goes against the warnings of centuries' worth of people far wiser than her, based on the delusion that she would be able to control the damage caused.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 01:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

I disagree with the premise that the ability to spark a debate that goes off on hard-to-keep-track-of tangents is any proof that the character themselves is confusing

Okay.  

Hekateras wrote...

The distinction between them is that Anders goes as far as perform acts of terrorism and kill innocents for his beliefs, while Fenris does not.

Hawke doesn't know that, either that Anders would go that far or that Fenris wouldn't.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 01:10 .

[lizzbee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

The distinction between them is that
Anders goes as far as perform acts of terrorism and kill innocents for
his beliefs, while Fenris does not. Fenris is biased and has a negative
opinion of mages, but he never actually does anything that would make
him deserve the label of extremist in the same breath as Anders.

Hawke doesn't know that. 

Hawke should after an act or two.  If Hawke doesn't, then Hawke has some serious blinders on.

[UrsulaCousland]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not sure that he has been. I'm only sure that there seems to be far more interpretations as to who he is - let alone what he's doing in Dragon Age 2 - than there are for other characters.

The tangent into which character makes more psychological sense is interesting, but I'm not really well prepared to discuss it.

UrsulaCousland wrote...

Unfortunately. For at least a few of them, there's a lot of untapped potential.  DAO/As companions do feel much more fleshed out, and there is one of several places where DA:O/A comes out ahead/

If you had limited your evaluation of DAO companions' superior depth and/or complexity to say Morrigan or Alistair, I wouldn't have gotten quite the laugh out of this statement as I did.  So thanks for that.

The other characters, while interesting in the sense that they provide exposition... mostly just provided exposition + archetype.

 
Perhaps.  I do agree that those two are by far the best-developed, but they're plot-centric. They'd better be!  Maybe I am basing this more on how much I felt each character contributed to the 'environment' in which I suspended my disbelief - but that's an internalization and not global to the game itself. It's just how my brain works when I'm engaged in the story.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Wait, you put DA:A in there too?! *boggled*

Call me crazy - I *liked* Nathaniel (especially since I was prepared to hate him), because he does seem to provide a connection to Amaranthine and a reason to care about it, if you need one. I also liked the further development of Oghren - I actually vaguely liked him after DA:A.  Yeah, Velanna, Sigrun, and Justice are pretty starved for development IMO.(But this isn't the thread to debate that so I won't risk sidetracking  us further. :innocent: )

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Hawke doesn't know that. 

Then it's fortunate Hawke isn't the one doing the discussing here. 

As I said earlier, Anders being more extremist means that his character type is more familiar to us, and thus easier to identify and understand - typically more books have been written about oddballs and extremists of some kind than about normal Joes.

Fenris is far from a normal Joe, sure, and maybe that's the problem. At first glance, he seems like Anders, only opposite views - especially if the player is already looking to identify the obvious "foil" to Anders. So the player might readily shove him into the "extremist anti-mage here!" box based on first impressions and superficial qualities, and then naturally be confused when he fails to act in accordance with that archetype.

I suppose that's some potential confusion that might appear initially and then stick with you throughout the game, tainting your impression of him. I hardly think it's a fault of the character, though.

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 01:16 .

[Atrilial]

lizzbee wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Complex and confusing aren't the same thing. I'm the kind of person that spends months fretting over and writing long pathetic essays about video games and I still can't figure Fenris out. I'd like to, but he's not very... established.

You have a character like Anders who is very contradictory and messy and tangled up, but most of the core parts of his character are concrete and his internal contradictions are central to his person and self-acknowledged throughout the narrative of his character arc. You need hedge clippers to wade through that mire, but if you spend the time, he at least makes sense within his own context. With Fenris, he's just sort of... I don't know. He's a little of a lot of things but not much of anything.

Anders isn't that messy from a pure character standpoint.  You've got two people within Anders-- a straight-up idealist, and a more fun-loving happy-go-lucky type.  As the game progresses, it's pretty easy to chart where his personality is going as he steadily becomes more radical and his old self is subsumed by the new.  I didn't need too many hedge-clippers to see he was falling apart, especially when he advertized his conflicts to me in each conversation.  He's pretty straightforward to me, TBH, though the "Goddamnit!" moment still got me my first playthrough.  Anders is also an extravert-- and a loud one at that.  Doesn't make me like him any less, but he's definitely not that complex.

Fenris is the opposite.  He's inward-focused, and is trying to build his own identity after having it erased.  He slowly opens up as he starts to trust Hawke, but it takes time to establish that trust.  Introverts take a long time to truly get to know, from what I've heard from non-introverts.  Can't really say for sure myself, considering I am one.  I see him as a character who is slowly working his way up Maslow's Heirarchy, working from base survival to more high-level needs like companionship, love and self-esteem.  These things take time, trust, and changing circumstances, especially for more inward-oriented people.  They also require at least a little bit of hope

^ This

I myself am an extravert to the core.  My husband and best friend are introverts.  I frequently find myself completely baffled as to why the say or do certain things.  Because of this huge difference in our approaches to dealing with things, I find myself frequently unable to grasp where they are coming from.  The biggest example of this I can think of is that I cannot for the life of me understand why my husband needs "alone time" away from me and anyone else.  It doesn't make sense to me.  I think in that same reguard, if you are not introverted, or inclined to internalize things as Fenris is, his character might be really difficult to grasp.

Sorry that I keep using my husband as an example.  Fenris just reminds me so much of him, and I find I designed my Hawke's reactions to him around my own to my husband.

Somehow, I keep feeling like I'm not coming off very clearly.  Maybe because I've been out of the intellectual debate and analysis arena for too long.

[upsettingshorts]

All Hawkes "have blinders on," that's part of the roleplaying isn't it? Who wants to play an omniscient omnipotent protagonist? Okay I suppose some people do.

To this particular character, Fenris was a dangerous living weapon who hated mages, and Anders was a dangerous abomination who hated Templars. In Kirkwall, leaving either of those two alone seemed like an incredibly bad idea to him. Merrill, by contrast seemed to be doing something dumb and dangerous, but he didn't know enough about the Eluvian to say how dangerous it was, and Merrill/the Keeper never told him enough about what actually happened before they met for him to make an informed decision about how messed up that whole scenario ended up being.

Fenris and Anders did Hawke the courtesy of wearing their existence as liabilities - to this particular Hawke - on their sleeve.

Granted, I'm not entirely sure how ontopic a discussion of my Hawke is.

Hekateras wrote...

The player readily shoves him into the "extremist anti-mage here!" box based on first impressions and superficial qualities, and is then naturally confused when he fails to act in accordance with that archetype.

I was more than willing to uncheck that box if I felt he ever earned it. But you know where I'd be going with that.

[mellifera]

Pseudocognition wrote...

To Fenris' credit his romance with manhawke provides the best d*** joke in all of existence.

This is enough to make him worth the confusion.

[Hekateras]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hekateras wrote...

The player readily shoves him into the "extremist anti-mage here!" box based on first impressions and superficial qualities, and is then naturally confused when he fails to act in accordance with that archetype.

I was more than willing to uncheck that box if I felt he ever earned it. But you know where I'd be going with that.

Well, you're the one who argued that Fenris doesn't match Anders's drive and passion to be an effective foil for him. If Fenris were acting in accordance to the same archetype as Anders, that would not be the case, would it? Fenris's distinct lack of blowing up Chantries or squeeing over party members sold into slavery is what makes it impossible to put him and Anders in the same category. Thus - subverted archetype - potential confusion.

[Laurelinde]

Wow, still have decided this topic has been beaten to death, eh? 

fighterchicks wrote...

I think that he appeals to a lot of people because he's pretty.  People are willing to overlook a lot of things, silly or otherwise, just because a character is good looking.  It might be more of a people see what they want to see than he's written a bit ambiguous/open to interpretation.

Well, for whatever anecdotal evidence is worth (which isn't a lot), I didn't really think he was 'pretty' at first.  I didn't pore over the pre-release information or have any idea who, if anyone, I would romance in DA2.  Going into DA:O I had expected myself to like Zevran best and ended up getting blindsided by Alistair.  Some of the descriptions actually made me feel muddled about the companions - from Aveline's blurb I genuinely had no idea if I would love her, hate her, or be disinterested. (I love her, in the end.)  Fenris I though, well, ok, he looks kinda...weird, and his outfit is...weird, I'll see what he's like in game.  Anders I hoped would be more or less like he was in Awakenings, though perhaps a bit more purposeful (be careful what you wish for...)

When I started playing, I still didn't know what to make of Fenris. he drove me nuts at first because he was so damn prickly, and disagreed with some of my positions, sometimes politely, sometimes less so.  But as the game progressed and Anders became increasingly creepy to me, Fenris grew on me.  Sure, sometimes he's a pain in the ass, but I guess I can see where he's coming from. 

So sure, at my current stage of 'played the game, not likely to replay it, enjoyed the romance albeit less so than Alistair's', I'm not going to say he's hard on the eyes or anything, particularly when he makes puppy-eyes face.  But I'm not going to say that's all there is to him, or deny he has any flaws (from an in-character perspective or an out-of-character one).  For that matter, Anders is also quite good-looking, but that doesn't stop me wanting to shake him a little (ok maybe a lot) or slap him upside that handsome head of his.

So I think it is both reductive and dismissive (and a little presumptuous and condescending, to be honest) to say that the people are posting anything positive in this thread are only doing so "because he's pretty."

I don't know.  I don't mind discussion of any of the characters but I do feel like the thread is just talking in circles now.  Some people like Fenris, some don't - is there any likelihood of reaching any kind of a consensus, or changing anybody's mind, or are people just looking for an argument, basically?  Short of any more information coming out from Bioware either through comments or game content I don't see that anything's going to be resolved here or that keeping on this circular discussion will be productive.  And some of the comments over the last few days have been either subtly or overtly hostile, which is sad to see.  But I'm not trying to shut the thread down for anybody else, so if you guys wanna keep giving each other verbal side-eye, carry on.  I was mainly still hanging out here for the art and the banter but I guess I'll bow out now that's it's pretty much just speculative antagonism.  So one less fangirl here now, I guess that counts as a win.

Cya for DA3 folks.

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed he doesn't match it for a broadly specific reason, and it's the one you brought up. He doesn't end up backing up his own vitriol with action. Which is actually, in an OOC sense (as in me, not my Hawke who had little reason to get to know him) understandable.

Recall that I would have liked it if Fenris had a significant role in the story, my best theory as to what it was was as a foil to Anders, and if so I'd have liked more activity from Fenris. Because on that particular issue I wanted a reason for Fenris to be in Dragon Age 2, not because doing so would make his character more logical.

My confusion ultimately stems from "what's the point of Fenris?" The "people don't seem to even agree on who Fenris is in the first place" thing is a newer, less grounded observation I'm not sure has legs.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 01:25 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

I've been trying to formulate a theory as to why we have such inherent gaps within interpretations of Fenris's character and suddenly I realized that I think this is the very nature of interdermincy that is at the core of modern literature especially when it comes to the interpretation of text. 

This dialgoue is an excercise in Reader-Response Theory which pretty much maintains a text is not a text until a reader reads such text.  The reader brings the meaning, and not only do the readers bring insight, readers bring their own experiences into the text and these readers color the text with their own experiences.  I.A. Richards called it appetencies, and these little things affect how we read and place our own personal experience into our intepretation. As an ethnic minority, I knowingly bring that experience as a means to empathize with Fenris.  The parallels are there, and that is not to say that all ethnic minorties would feel this way, but it's a bias that I am certain to have when thinking about how I can feel for the injustice for what has been done to Fenris (i.e. slavery and its effect).

To take this argument to the next level, I'm going to quote Wolfgang Iser and his argument on gaps and blanks (and I can't believe I found this on the internet, I thought for sure I'd have to dig out my old text book!!).  This is just a paraphrase of his actual argument and it's taken from here.

But––

Iser believes that the author intentionally leaves out certain parts of the text so the reader can use his imagination and make connection and fill those gaps. So his work can progress to a more significant and meaningful level. He adds that one text is capable of many different interpretations because each
individual will fill those gaps in his own way. He believes that the good artist should leave out certain colors for us to fill in and bring our own life into creation.

Typically, another reader response theorist named Stanley Fish (controversial and a bit of jerk, but still brilliant) wrote a famous piece of critical theory called, Is There a Text in This class.  He maintained that readers form "interpretive communites" in the ways that they interpet the text.  It would stand to reason that we could certainly divide the notion of an interpretive community into fan groups.  It is why some favor Merrill or Aveline or Anders or Varric or Isabela.  I'm sure both Iser and Fish would disagree with my implementation of the theories here, but I find them inherently invaluable.

I don't think it is a bad that Fenris is ambiguous.  Although  thread regulars don't all have the same interpretation of a character, I would argue that we tend to fall into a few main groups and that actually holds up well with previous studies that maintain that in a given class you might find eight or so shared interpretations of a text. 

***Just to clarify on my comment on ethnic minorities because I don't want to this to be misconstrued, but I'm not saying only ethnic minorities can empathize with Fenris.  I just know myself and I know that is why I empathize so easily.

**EDIT: Changed impunity....to experience...don't know what I was thinking. T_T

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 avril 2011 - 01:33 .

[Evindell]

Village Idiot wrote...

I've been trying to formulate a theory as to why we have such inherent gaps within interpretations of Fenris's character and suddenly I realized that I think this is the very nature of interdermincy that is at the core of modern literature especially when it comes to the interpretation of text. 

This dialgoue is an excercise in Reader-Response Theory which pretty much maintains a text is not a text until a reader reads such text.  The reader brings the meaning, and not only do the readers bring insight, readers bring their own experiences into the text and these readers color the text with their own experiences.  I.A. Richards called it appetencies, and these little things affect how we read and place our own personal impunity on our intepretation. As an ethnic minority, I knowingly bring that experience as a means to empathize with Fenris.  The parallels are there, and that is not to say that all ethnic minorties would feel this way, but it's a bias that I am certain to have when thinking about how I can feel for the injustice for what has been done to Fenris (i.e. slavery and its effect).

To take this argument to the next level, I'm going to quote Wolfgang Iser and his argument on gaps and blanks (and I can't believe I found this on the internet, I thought for sure I'd have to dig out my old text book!!).  This is just a paraphrase of his actual argument and it's taken from here.

But––

Iser believes that the author intentionally leaves out certain parts of the text so the reader can use his imagination and make connection and fill those gaps. So his work can progress to a more significant and meaningful level. He adds that one text is capable of many different interpretations because each
individual will fill those gaps in his own way. He believes that the good artist should leave out certain colors for us to fill in and bring our own life into creation.

Typically, another reader response theorist named Stanley Fish (controversial and a bit of jerk, but still brilliant) wrote a famous piece of critical theory called, Is There a Text in This class.  He maintained that readers form "interpretive communites" in the ways that they interpet the text.  It would stand to reason that we could certainly divide the notion of an interpretive community into fan groups.  It is why some favor Merrill or Aveline or Anders or Varric or Isabela.  I'm sure both Iser and Fish would disagree with my implementation of the theories here, but I find them inherently invaluable.

I don't think it is a bad that Fenris is ambiguous.  Although  thread regulars don't all have the same interpretation of a character, I would argue that we tend to fall into a few main groups and that actually holds up well with previous studies that maintain that in a given class you might find eight or so shared interpretations of a text. 

***Just to clarify on my comment on ethnic minorities because I don't want to this to be misconstrued, but I'm not saying only ethnic minorities can empathize with Fenris.  I just know myself and I know that is why I empathize so easily.

<3 Will you be my best friend?

Edit: And by that I mean: This is what I've been trying to find the words to say since yesterday. I'm so glad someone found a way.

Modifié par Evindell, 22 avril 2011 - 01:29 .

[Hekateras]

Sometimes lack of action is just as significant as action. Just saying. XD

Laurelinde has the right idea, though. There are different ways to look at Fenris's role or lack thereof in the story and even more ways to feel about them. (E.g. some people have said that they LIKE his lack of vitriolic action because he's one of the few people not to pressure Hawke like that, but you among others feel that it makes him pointless.)

Either way, this has been a very enlightening discussion, and hopefully it won't make my dreams too weird tonight. XD

EDIT: Whoa there, Village Idiot. Way to make my own walls of text feel inadequate. (By which I mean - that was awesome!)

Modifié par Hekateras, 22 avril 2011 - 01:33 .

[Atrilial]

Village Idiot wrote...

I've been trying to formulate a theory as to why we have such inherent gaps within interpretations of Fenris's character and suddenly I realized that I think this is the very nature of interdermincy that is at the core of modern literature especially when it comes to the interpretation of text. 

This dialgoue is an excercise in Reader-Response Theory which pretty much maintains a text is not a text until a reader reads such text.  The reader brings the meaning, and not only do the readers bring insight, readers bring their own experiences into the text and these readers color the text with their own experiences.  I.A. Richards called it appetencies, and these little things affect how we read and place our own personal impunity on our intepretation. As an ethnic minority, I knowingly bring that experience as a means to empathize with Fenris.  The parallels are there, and that is not to say that all ethnic minorties would feel this way, but it's a bias that I am certain to have when thinking about how I can feel for the injustice for what has been done to Fenris (i.e. slavery and its effect).

To take this argument to the next level, I'm going to quote Wolfgang Iser and his argument on gaps and blanks (and I can't believe I found this on the internet, I thought for sure I'd have to dig out my old text book!!).  This is just a paraphrase of his actual argument and it's taken from here.

But––

Iser believes that the author intentionally leaves out certain parts of the text so the reader can use his imagination and make connection and fill those gaps. So his work can progress to a more significant and meaningful level. He adds that one text is capable of many different interpretations because each
individual will fill those gaps in his own way. He believes that the good artist should leave out certain colors for us to fill in and bring our own life into creation.

Typically, another reader response theorist named Stanley Fish (controversial and a bit of jerk, but still brilliant) wrote a famous piece of critical theory called, Is There a Text in This class.  He maintained that readers form "interpretive communites" in the ways that they interpet the text.  It would stand to reason that we could certainly divide the notion of an interpretive community into fan groups.  It is why some favor Merrill or Aveline or Anders or Varric or Isabela.  I'm sure both Iser and Fish would disagree with my implementation of the theories here, but I find them inherently invaluable.

I don't think it is a bad that Fenris is ambiguous.  Although  thread regulars don't all have the same interpretation of a character, I would argue that we tend to fall into a few main groups and that actually holds up well with previous studies that maintain that in a given class you might find eight or so shared interpretations of a text. 

***Just to clarify on my comment on ethnic minorities because I don't want to this to be misconstrued, but I'm not saying only ethnic minorities can empathize with Fenris.  I just know myself and I know that is why I empathize so easily.

Beautiful post.  Agreed.  And I miss going to school.    I need to pick up some classes again.

[upsettingshorts]

Hekateras wrote...

Laurelinde has the right idea, though. There are different ways to look at Fenris's role or lack thereof in the story and even more ways to feel about them. (E.g. some people have said that they LIKE his lack of vitriolic action because he's one of the few people not to pressure Hawke like that, but you among others feel that it makes him pointless.)

I feel like I made a similar post 20 or so pages ago, but I know.  I don't expect to convert anyone, I was hoping to get some answers, and I have gotten some.  

The reason it's disappointing to me is that I wanted, hoped for, and indeed reasonably expected a greater purpose within the story for all the characters, including Fenris - and I don't see that how he got one.

If people are cool with the lack of one, or appreciate his distance from the rest of the story as its own kind of feature - that's fine.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 avril 2011 - 01:35 .

[Atrilial]

I think maybe some of the beauty of Fenris is that his is whatever you make of him. There is enough there for a base, but enough unspoken for vast interpretation. If you want him to be more, he is. If you are uninterested in him, he will never be much.

Whether that's good or bad...I dunno. I certainly enjoy it, but perhaps that is the writer in me.  I feel like there is alot to work with, imagine up, etc...

Modifié par Atrilial, 22 avril 2011 - 01:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

Atrilial wrote...

I certainly enjoy it, but perhaps that is the writer in me.  I feel like there is alot to work with, imagine up, etc...

I imagine it has more to do with expectations.

If I didn't expect certain things out of Fenris, I would be approaching his character on different terms.

[Atrilial]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Atrilial wrote...

I certainly enjoy it, but perhaps that is the writer in me.  I feel like there is alot to work with, imagine up, etc...

I imagine it has more to do with expectations.

If I didn't expect certain things out of Fenris, I would be approaching his character on different terms.

That could be.  I had very low expectations of Fenris, so I was pleasantly surprised.  Fable 3 was certainly the opposite for me.  I bought into all Peter Molyneux's hype, so even though I enjoyed playing the game, I felt let down by it in many regards.  Expectations...this is why I should avoid the media before a game.  But I love spoilers...though I always regret it later.    Lol.