183 réponses à ce sujet

[Kenshen]

Anders shouldn't have done what he did however I don't think the Grand Cleric could have stopped what happens in the end. It was a no win choice the battle was going to happen. Even though I debated mages with Fenris through out the game in the end I believe he is right.

Really the only thing I was let down was how may Hawke didn't show more concern for Bethany. After losing mother I would have sold that house and everything else to bribe for her release then sailed the hell out of that city on Isabella's ship.

[Jaredor]

I definately felt cheated after going through room after room of blood mages and demons, it seemed like there were only 4 or 5 good mages in the whole city.

I thought first enchanter was one of them but then he pulls what I thought was the biggest WTH moment of the game, and what was with turning into a harvestor? Out of all the things he could do turning into a giant fat blob that uses almost no magic was the best choice?

I also wanted to kill Anders but I had to keep him for my party as he was my only healer/buffer lol.

[Rhaeem]

You all made me depressed. Not because off the spoilers, but it just seems bad writing, from what I heard. Like they wanted so bad to make a sinister ending, that they had to exagerate a lot for it to happen.

Can I go back and side with the Arishok?

[fantasypisces]

Autumn Crowe wrote...

Yeah, like I said, if I hadn't romanced him, and been in a romance for however long the story was going till then (what six, seven years?) then I would have murder-knifed him for the reason that the entire game i defended mages, then one of them goes and does something so heinous that Kirkwall will be burried in a holy war (exalted march). From an RP perspective, my m!hawke was just so in love with the poor sob that I couldn't knife him.

I'm debating about going back through and breaking up with him, I really can't decide, trying to figure out what I would do in real life, which is exceptionally freaking hard.

I romanced Anders and my f!HawkeMage broke up with him at the end.  She was a big advocate for Mages' Rights and then he comes along and does something that could make the treatment of Mages worse in a time when resolve between the Templars and the Mages (at least everyone but Meredith), seemed like it might happen.  Instead of using Kirkwall as an example to show that it could be done and the mages didn't have to be treated like crap, he blew up the Chantry and then all the Templars backed out of their alliance with the mages and then the mages went insane. 

So my f!Hawke was a little upset with him for blowing the opportunity to have a more peaceful rights movement. >>

Thought about it more, reloaded a save and broke up with him.  If we keep hawke (which I'm 99% sure we won't now because of that stupid epilogue comment by cassandra/leliana), then I don't think he could romance again, he will be too beat up.

Justified it to myself because he used me, his lover, to distract the grand cleric claiming it was so he could expell justice from himself. Only to find out it was much more sinister. Then admitting that I could never be the most important thing in his life. I did it because Bethany and Anders WERE the most important things in my life, so at the end, he just wasn't the person I came to know anymore.

It was something that reinforced my earlier statement that siding with the mages makes you feel a tad cheated.

Modifié par fantasypisces, 11 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

Rhaeem wrote...

You all made me depressed. Not because off the spoilers, but it just seems bad writing, from what I heard. Like they wanted so bad to make a sinister ending, that they had to exagerate a lot for it to happen.

No no, this is good writing as it maintains consistency in the narrative, to suddenly make the side the Champion takes turn out to be that of rightness and goodness would be cheating and that would be bad writing.  But it is an example - in some sense - of a but-thou-must - which is pretty common in cRPGs.

Rhaeem wrote...

Can I go back and side with the Arishok?

That's be cool.

[bztang]

Stupid Anders...only spared him because party is built around him :S and also because he was so awesome in DA:A. I doing my 2nd playthrough as an uncaring mage, and will try to side with templars

[jheise4321]

This is the exact thought I had. When I saw the First Enchanter slit himself and turn into Pacthwerk I was thinking "I defend you idiots for 33 hours and you all pull this s***?"

[upsettingshorts]

It's not as if the mages of Kirkwall had been upstanding citizens up to that point... unless you (or your character, as the case may be) had blinders on.

[JoshMeinzer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not as if the mages of Kirkwall had been upstanding citizens up to that point... unless you (or your character, as the case may be) had blinders on.

In the end, for me at least, it was the lesser of two evils. What Anders did was extreme, and there were a load of unfriendly mages out there, but Meredith's response was too extreme. There was no "good guy" decision, which I assume was the point,

[upsettingshorts]

Yep, that's the point.  I think in this story the only clear "good guy" path would be to prevent the conflict.  But we can't. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 mars 2011 - 05:43 .

[alizrak]

Actually, thanks to this thread I'm in time to start siding with the Templars. Sure, my Hawke is a mage too but she hates blood magic really bad. She sees a blood mage, they get killed on spot. If she has to kill the entire circle, so be it. My Warden had to learn that the hard way with Jowan. Never again.

I hoped to prove them wrong this time, but I'll save myself the trouble then. 

Modifié par alizrak, 11 mars 2011 - 05:53 .

[David Gaider]

Just a comment about the mages-- it's said several times, by various people, that mages resort to the forbidden when they're up against a wall because they can. The templars use this as justification for their censure, but would the mages do that if they weren't up against a wall to begin with? Some might, others might not. Would Orsino have? Was he corrupt all along or simply preparing for an inevitable confrontation? Would the fact that only "some" be corrupt be enough justification not to censure them, since one cannot separate the bad from the good? It's a cyclical argument, with Anders taking the Gordian Knot solution which may or may turn out to be a solution at all.

Is either side really righteous? One could claim the mages, perhaps, but at the very end they are outnumbered and desperate and driven by that fear into becoming abominations and worse. One could also claim the templars, but were they simply following Meredith's orders? Is that ever an excuse? Obviously despite her growing insanity there was some kernel of truth to her suspicions.

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

Whether you liked that or not, I guess I'll leave it for you to decide.

Modifié par David Gaider, 11 mars 2011 - 05:53 .

[ziloe]

shnellegaming wrote...

I don't mind the two endings. Bioware is trying to create two scenarios that are both wrong and you have to choose between them.

Two endings.... I thought there were supposed to be twelve. =/

[fantasypisces]

David Gaider wrote...

Just a comment about the mages-- it's said several times, by various people, that mages resort to the forbidden when they're up against a wall because they can. The templars use this as justification for their censure, but would the mages do that if they weren't up against a wall to begin with? Some might, others might not. Would Orsino have? Was he corrupt all along or simply preparing for an inevitable confrontation? Would the fact that only "some" be corrupt be enough justification not to censure them, since one cannot separate the bad from the good? It's a cyclical argument, with Anders taking the Gordian Knot solution which may or may turn out to be a solution at all.

Is either side really righteous? One could claim the mages, perhaps, but at the very end they are outnumbered and desperate and driven by that fear into becoming abominations and worse. One could also claim the templars, but were they simply following Meredith's orders? Is that ever an excuse?

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

Whether you liked that or not, I guess I'll leave it for you to decide.

Omg, I got Mr. Gaider to post in one of my threads! /squeel!

Anyway, yeah I get what you are saying, and I never meant it to seem like "f this I should have gone with the templars". Both sides have their problems, and that is evident, no side will give you a happy ending. But I'm not complaining about not having a happy ending, I'm just complaining about how every mage I encountered in that final battle was either: an abomination, a blood mage, a radical verging on terrorist (Anders). Bethany was, well, the only one. 

So that's the main complaint, you hold the morale stance throughout the entire game of "don't persecute the many based upon the actions of a few" then when you get to the final battle the many are now the abominations/blood mages.

Really, all that might have been nice to see is that in the occasional room there are non-corrupted mages helping you fight. You hear many got away safely in the epilogue, and I would presume those to be the ones I was fighting for, but the appearance of the game does not show that.

By the way Mr. Gaider, can I ask who wrote Anders? I want to shake their hand (through a polite message I guess) about how the writing for him is well done. In the beginning he is a mage that is easy to love. Act 2 you start to feel bad for him, wanting to help him, and then in act 3 he has the easy potential to break your heart.  At first I thought it was really random for him to do what he did, but when you look back you can see the signs. His development was nicely paced for a story that spans many years, as opposed to some characters that don't quite change as much.

Modifié par fantasypisces, 11 mars 2011 - 06:00 .

[JoshMeinzer]

David Gaider wrote...

Just a comment about the mages-- it's said several times, by various people, that mages resort to the forbidden when they're up against a wall because they can. The templars use this as justification for their censure, but would the mages do that if they weren't up against a wall to begin with? Some might, others might not. Would Orsino have? Was he corrupt all along or simply preparing for an inevitable confrontation? Would the fact that only "some" be corrupt be enough justification not to censure them, since one cannot separate the bad from the good? It's a cyclical argument, with Anders taking the Gordian Knot solution which may or may turn out to be a solution at all.

Is either side really righteous? One could claim the mages, perhaps, but at the very end they are outnumbered and desperate and driven by that fear into becoming abominations and worse. One could also claim the templars, but were they simply following Meredith's orders? Is that ever an excuse? Obviously despite her growing insanity there was some kernel of truth to her suspicions.

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

Whether you liked that or not, I guess I'll leave it for you to decide.

I agree with most of this, and for the most part, was very sucked in by the story.  Anders act was jarring, but still kept me IN that story, because I could resolve it as a final desperate act in his vengeance addled mind. It was a shocking, horrible, and amazing moment.

Orsino's act was jarring in a way that pulled me out of the story, and so close to the end. He was rational and passionate to the end, and in a span of 3-4 dialogue lines succumbed to blood magic.

To me, it weakened MY character.  I'd killed a high dragon, defeated the Arishok in one on on combat, conquered the Deep Roads. What else did this guy need to see on my resume? I think I had a good chance against Meredith and a bunch of Templars I'd already been slaughtering wholesale for the past hour. I could accept the change if there were more hints in the build up, more reveals of a subtle desperation in Orsino as time went on. But until that final moment, he seemed noble and rational.  That, to me, was the only major flaw in the storytelling.  The fact that it was so near the end is why it will stick in people's minds.

Modifié par JoshMeinzer, 11 mars 2011 - 06:16 .

[fantasypisces]

JoshMeinzer wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Just a comment about the mages-- it's said several times, by various people, that mages resort to the forbidden when they're up against a wall because they can. The templars use this as justification for their censure, but would the mages do that if they weren't up against a wall to begin with? Some might, others might not. Would Orsino have? Was he corrupt all along or simply preparing for an inevitable confrontation? Would the fact that only "some" be corrupt be enough justification not to censure them, since one cannot separate the bad from the good? It's a cyclical argument, with Anders taking the Gordian Knot solution which may or may turn out to be a solution at all.

Is either side really righteous? One could claim the mages, perhaps, but at the very end they are outnumbered and desperate and driven by that fear into becoming abominations and worse. One could also claim the templars, but were they simply following Meredith's orders? Is that ever an excuse? Obviously despite her growing insanity there was some kernel of truth to her suspicions.

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

Whether you liked that or not, I guess I'll leave it for you to decide.

I agree with most of this, and for the most part, was very sucked in by the story.  Anders act was jarring, but still kept me IN that story, because I could resolve it as a final desperate act in his vengeance addled mind. Orsino's act was jarring in a way that pulled me out of the story, and so close to the end. He was rational and passionate to the end, and in a span of 3-4 dialogue lines succumbed to blood magic.

To me, it weakened MY character.  I'd killed a high dragon, defeated the Arishok in one on on combat, conquered the Deep Roads. What else did this guy need to see on my resume? I could accept the chaneg if there were more hints in the build up, more reveals of a subtle desperation in Orsino as time went on. But until that final moment, he seemed noble and rational.  That, to me, was the only major flaw in the storytelling.  The fact that it was so near the end is why it will stick in people's minds.

the final paragraph you wrote is also a good point :happy:
Really, the only ONLY hint that there might have been something wrong with him is during the quest where your mother dies, a note signed by "O". 

[highcastle]

The ending was definitely emotionally draining, but in a good way. I personally like tragedy, so the game hit the right note for me. But yes, Anders' move was definitely a shock. He reminded me so much of V from V for Vendetta, actually (probably because I just reread it for my British Lit class). You understand what he's doing and why, but you feel uncomfortable with the implications. As others have said, it's the classic revolutionary/terrorist divide. How you see it depends on your relationship to the conflict. Though even my Mage!Hawke who'd romanced Anders had a hard time justifying that one. In the end, I couldn't kill him, so I let him go. He rejoined the group at the Gallows, which was actually pretty satisfying. My Hawke's sticking with him in the hopes of exorcising him one day.

I also like Mr. Gaider's point about the blood mages and the templars. It's a chicken-or-egg scenario. You don't know which came first. At this point, both sides are breaking all the rules and it's tough to like either of them. But you have to take a stand. At least Orsino only seemed to go crazy after being cornered. Meredith had clearly been slipping much earlier. But it's still a very gray conflict no matter how you consider it.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

My Hawke felt he was on the righteous path - the peacekeeper and mediator, after all up until that point he thought he was walking the tightrope well, getting closer to a position of true influence if not authority - right until he saw the Chantry explode.  Simulatenously deflated and angered - the scene could only have been improved from my perspective (and only considering my version of the character) if Hawke slumped to his knees. 

My Hawke's misery in that moment was - as a player - a joy to behold.   The Templars kneeling before him at the end wasn't a scene of triumph, but of crushing disappointment for him.  He failed.  And that was great.  Thanks, DG.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 mars 2011 - 06:07 .

[Rabalaz]

(enough spoilers to make a good egg rotten... lol, euphemisms.)

(Note: the little bubbles with numbers, refer to something to the LEFT of them. <--- was for clarity, not for sounding like a jerk. P.S: I'm also a messy writer, after not sleeping for two days straight, trying to, then finishing DA2, and getting my mind blown over what happened.)

Well, Garrett Hawke(*1) is just simply, an apostate with a brother that ends up fighting for the templars,(*2) He/I lived trying to survive the day to day event of being poor(*3), doing the good thing for others, at his/my own expense. He/I had just heard dark rumors of blood mages active in the city, and the templars being over zealous.(*4) After He gains his family estate back, he/I goes off and still does the common sense good stuff, help some magi being persecuted, kill some blood mages, help Thrask unintentionally to jump-start the Magi-Templarii rebellion, try to keep the peace between the people of kirkwall and the Arishok. Watch his mother's killer reveal the most horrible thing even I (real me) was repulsed at the selfish abomination of the blood mages.(*5) And in the final act, got close to Merril, befriended everyone, helped the mages, destroyed blood mages. Basically, the same thing my hero of Fereldan did. When the final blow was struck, Anders destroying the chantry, He/I overall agreed with Anders, that the chantry, with their templars can't coexist with the mages, unless something threatened everything, like a invasion, or a blight. so, Didn't kill Anders, thinking he'll come useful in the future. Fought for the Mages, killed the first enchanter, then the knight-commander, his brother joins back, and they all march off into the sunset, where everyone but Merril left for reasons unknown.

(*1 I prefer being a guy, since I am a guy, and it's awkward, well, usually, for a guy to play female 'just to see what could have been')
(*2 what I get for being overprotective of little brother and mum.)
(*3 During Act One)
(*4 I thought it was going to be like the circle in Ferelden, except a bit more intertwined with the story. I thought the Qunari were the main threats of the game, boy was I wrong.)
(*5 Kudos for the writers of Bioware, that was some creepy creepy bizarre absolutely wacko writing... I mean I can imagine all sorts of weird scenarios for crazed blood mages ect. But that one act alone of the kirkwall killer nearly made me say, 'I'll kill off all of the kirkwall circle mages, since their so freaking out of control. even the ferelden mages seemed better off, even though they were still watched.)

[upsettingshorts]

highcastle wrote...

 As others have said, it's the classic revolutionary/terrorist divide.

I didn't mean to label it as a divide myself.  Terrorism is a tactic, a method of disproportionate warfare.  A revolutionary can use many tactics, including peaceful ones.  In the case of Anders, he is both, a revolutionary (he seeks to undermine and overturn the status quo) who uses terrorism to accomplish that goal.

So in that sense his supporters will focus on his role as a revolutionary, while his detractors will focus on his actions as a terrorist.  Objectively he is both.   The divide as you say is over the perception of him, not what he really is.  If it seems like I'm splitting hairs, it's because I kind of am, because I think the distinction is important.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[Herethos]

Perhaps the lyrium Idol(which was made into the sword if I followed the story correctly) had a much bigger sphere of influence, considering what a tiny shard did. If you think about it the first enchanter and the knight commander, circle of magi and templars were basicly living across the hall from each other. Seems only Hawke was immune or had the will to withstand the idol, while it twisted and perhaps reinforced or maybe even corrupted the feelings and desires of those around it.

Modifié par Herethos, 11 mars 2011 - 06:33 .

[David Gaider]

fantasypisces wrote...
So that's the main complaint, you hold the morale stance throughout the entire game of "don't persecute the many based upon the actions of a few" then when you get to the final battle the many are now the abominations/blood mages.

Really, all that might have been nice to see is that in the occasional room there are non-corrupted mages helping you fight. You hear many got away safely in the epilogue, and I would presume those to be the ones I was fighting for, but the appearance of the game does not show that.

That's fair. I think part of that was simply the demands of gameplay, ie. we could only put so many creatures on-screen at one time and those, more often than not, had to be the enemies you were facing. I would have liked to have seen more mages fleeing for their lives (ironically you do see this if you side with the templars, in the group that surrenders) but I guess we had to settle for those that were mentioned fleeing... and those you see being cut down who never turned into abominations at all.

By the way Mr. Gaider, can I ask who wrote Anders? I want to shake their hand (through a polite message I guess) about how the writing for him is well done. In the beginning he is a mage that is easy to love. Act 2 you start to feel bad for him, wanting to help him, and then in act 3 he has the easy potential to break your heart.  At first I thought it was really random for him to do what he did, but when you look back you can see the signs. His development was nicely paced for a story that spans many years, as opposed to some characters that don't quite change as much.

Jennifer wrote Anders, though I guess you could say we all had a hand in his character arc (especially with regards to how it played into the main plot). One of the story's themes is "freedom vs. security" (a little timely, I suppose, considering our own world's problems) and Anders was always meant to epitomize that side of it... both in terms of what is right about it and what can go very wrong.

Modifié par David Gaider, 11 mars 2011 - 06:37 .

[fantasypisces]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

highcastle wrote...

 As others have said, it's the classic revolutionary/terrorist divide.

I didn't mean to label it as a divide myself.  Terrorism is a tactic, a method of disproportionate warfare.  A revolutionary can use many tactics, including peaceful ones.  In the case of Anders, he is both, a revolutionary (he seeks to undermine and overturn the status quo) who uses terrorism to accomplish that goal.

So in that sense his supporters will focus on his role as a revolutionary, while his detractors will focus on his actions as a terrorist.  Objectively he is both.   The divide as you say is over the perception of him, not what he really is.  If it seems like I'm splitting hairs, it's because I kind of am, because I think the distinction is important.  

I personally think you are correct, which is why I keep struggling to decide what to do with him. I can't kill him I know that, but it's just deciding how my character views him, revolutionary or terrorist.

[pprrff]

It has been such a long time since I was surprised playing a game. I honestly believed halfway through the game that I had story figured out and the ending so predictable. But damn, then **** starts to fall apart left and right, and I was speechless at the way the story developed. Hats off to the story writers for coming up these unexpected but yet entire logical twist. I never should have pre-ordered this game tho, now that I am done I have to wait god knows how long to get DA III. Note to self: only buy a Bioware game right before the sequel is released.

In regard to the blood magic, I feel that its understandable from their point of view, Orisino pretty much stated that everyone is going to die, they are too few and outnumbered and they should never submit. Resorting to blood magic doesn't seem to be that big of a deal if you expect to be slained at anytime. What do you have to lose? People's sympathy? I don't think they were expecting to get that to begin with.

Modifié par pprrff, 11 mars 2011 - 06:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

In regards to freedom vs. security: In the end you are essentially made to choose between the extremes of endorsing terrorism or endorsing the police state. It's not a comfortable decision, but I don't think it came out of nowhere or anything. In that sense another theme of the game is escalation and proportionality.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 mars 2011 - 06:41 .