Ricvenart wrote...
You miss the point, in DA:o she was just an old woman to most, flying low under the radar. Trying to aviod her death (again) or maybe just aware of whats to come and resting/preparing. She appears like that to suit the story, they done the costume to the mood its the whole point. And when first playing though you have no idea of what kind of power this woman has, no idea she can be anything even a dragon, they start to build to lore "witch of the wilds" but its rumor and conjecture you don't know what she is, maybe all she is, is just what she claimed to be "an old woman that talks to much" (that just happens to be an apostate with some minor tricks).
Then comes DAII, you first see her and she is a dragon, the old ragged cloths and dirty skins doesnt really cut it anymore, we know she is something of immense power that is possible ancient. The horns are there to reflect the dragon she turns from as is the purple clothes to reflect the scale color, appearing a bit younger, bit of a seductress witch look to her (maybe to reflect she is old, but powerful enough to look younger if she feels like it and that she may well be immortal so ageless) The costumes dark, witch like (as youve already shown it reflects a trend of what we think witches should look like, it wasnt the first or DA:o or PR or ultimacia its as old as costume itself, although more skin is being shown then it would have been).
All in all its actually a brilliant use of costume design to represent the story. Clear have done some research and put though into it.
This is a much more reasoned and decent response, though still slightly off topic at times, but getting there.
Firstly, I do get it, it's just that references to the story don't justify the change in design unless you can argue how they bring something to the game from a broader wholistic game experience. You are at least drawing that connection, which is a fantastic start, and hence your post is more respectable than a lot of other posters.
For me it really comes down to what Bioware was trying to achieve with this change in direction. People who are simply bringing up that she is a shapeshifter, or that somewhere early in the story she was alluded to having a lot of powers are missing the point. It's about what Bioware were trying to achieve. Was it to enhance the story or was it to make her more marketable, or did they just want to draw up some massive boobs because they were horny?
My guess is that it's a lot of factors, but a big part was marketing and the new change in direction as part of the redesign of the Dragon Age franchise. Yes, in DA 2 she is introduced straight away as a dragon, we know immediately of her powers and thus any subtle approach like the first game wouldn't quite work if she was to morph back to an old haggard woman. The issue is then, why did Bioware decide to introduce her like this? Couldn't a more subtle and cleverly crafted return suffice? We can see that they were trying to make a big impact, or statement with her character, but while it seemed to work for you and for some others, for other people it was a bit of an attention grab, and because it was so over the top it came off as a little laughable. Referring to the story doesn't justify it, Bioware wrote that story, and used this as a part of telling that story.
It's a bit like the death at the start of the game. It lakes the subtlety and nuances of cleverly crafted storytelling. It all happens straight away without time to develop a deeper understanding and curiousity surrounding the characters. At the start of the game we know straight away what Flemeth is like, and while her character is given away at the end of DA O, there is still a lot of mystery about Flemeth in that game. Here that sense is lost as she looks quite comical and childish and everything about her is so in your face. While it may be argued that this new look is 'expanding' upon her character from the first game, I perceive it as limiting. She can now never be taken seriously as a mysterious villain again and she cannot revert back to a more subdued, subtle and mysterious character with hidden powers. Nothing is hidden anymore, and hence nothing is left to learn about her.
Think of it like this, in 'growed up' movies a vilain often lives on the brink of society. Almost normal, but something about the way they walk, talk and the look in their eyes suggests that's there's something 'off' about them, but we just can't quite pin it down. We are intrigued, we want to know more. Usually, there's a madness about them, but there's a hint of normality in their madness giving their character a lot of credibility. Then as the story progresses we can see just how evil and calculated they are. This is Flemeth in DA O.
In children's movies, villains are obvious. There is no subtlety because children don't have the attention span or curiousity to learn and discover more about the villain and their psyche. The villains are usually maniacal, living in volcanic lairs or space ships. They laugh hysterically at their evil deeds and surround themselves with henchman. Yes, it's obvious, and yes the impact is more immediate, but is it really as gratifying when the character appears this one-dimensional? This is why I grew out of children's movies when I stopped being, well, a child.
Modifié par Ronin2006, 23 mars 2011 - 06:28 .
Retour en haut
