72 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Sergeant Pepper wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

I felt that there were not enough "good" mages in the game. I believe it was Gaider who posted a reply in a similar thread, saying that they more-or-less ran out of time. He said something to the effect of, "If I had to do it over again, I would have made it clear that not all mages in Kirkwall are blood mages."

Well that makes me really feel bad for the DA team. Alot of things could probably have been better if they had an appropriate amount of time to make this game. And it must suck to look back and see alot of missed oportunities. Or things that could or should have been done different or better.

To be fair to Bioware, this pretty much applies to most games by most developers - There's always things they feel they could have done differently or features/content they'd have like to have.

Even if DA2 had been another 2 years in development there's still be things the Bioware team wished they'd had time to do differently or add.

Nothing is ever perfect, but I guess you can get close.

[Emperor Iaius I]

The good mages are the ones who weren't sitting under the templar thumb, being driven mad by their tyranny. Examples: Danarius, Hadriana, Merrill, Taronhe, etc.

[mesmerizedish]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

The good mages are the ones who weren't sitting under the templar thumb, being driven mad by their tyranny. Examples: Danarius, Hadriana, Merrill, Taronhe, etc.

I think you're using the word "good" a little loosely.

[TJPags]

Clonedzero wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

probably because the majority of good mages are in hiding and trying not to be discovered. you know keeping a low profile by NOT CASTING SPELLS.
or they're busy being oppressed in the massive prison tower.

just a guess though.

You mean like the ones fighting with you when you side with the mages?  The ones that turn into abominations, and summon all those shades, and bring those corpses to life?   Those good mages?

a good chunk of them didn't do any of that when i sided with the mages, a couple of them did sure, but most didn't

Seemed there were more abominations roaming the halls then there were mages in person form, to me.

I admit I wasn't really counting things that didn't attack me, so I may have missed some hidden mages.

[Xewaka]

If anything, it's damage control for the unexpected good light in which mages are painted in Origins. The Mage situation is supposed to be morally grey, not as white and black as it came off in Origins.

[Emperor Iaius I]

I must be playing a different game, because I thought the situation made the Templars seem even MORE indefensible. Those brands they put on the head of Tranquil? Psychotic! Pure, ravening lunatics, those Chantry zealots!

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

The good mages are the ones who weren't sitting under the templar thumb, being driven mad by their tyranny. Examples: Danarius, Hadriana, Merrill, Taronhe, etc.

I think you're using the word "good" a little loosely.

 
Yeah, you have a point. Taronhe was going a bit too far. She had good intentions, but she did become an abomination. Strike her from the list.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 22 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[mesmerizedish]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

The good mages are the ones who weren't sitting under the templar thumb, being driven mad by their tyranny. Examples: Danarius, Hadriana, Merrill, Taronhe, etc.

I think you're using the word "good" a little loosely.

 
Yeah, you have a point. Taronhe was going a bit too far. She had good intentions, but she did become an abomination. Strike her from the list.

Ha. I'm not even going the "Ewww, slavery is universally evil" route here... I think Danarius and Hadriana both exhibited a very not-good degree of cruelty, regardless of whether or not Fenris can be called his property without... um... is there a thing like Godwin but with slavery?

[EDIT] And did Taronhe become and abomination? I thought I let her live, and she gave herself to the Circle. Or was that her blood mage helper?

And if it was her blood mage helper, then put her on the "not-really-all-that-bad" list. I don't think we see any actually "good" mages except for Bethany and (maybe) Merrill.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 22 mars 2011 - 12:08 .

[Dark Specie]

Xewaka wrote...

If anything, it's damage control for the unexpected good light in which mages are painted in Origins. The Mage situation is supposed to be morally grey, not as white and black as it came off in Origins.

This. Dragon Age Origins has plenty of "Good" and disclipined mages - Irving, Wynne, Niall... and so forth. Sure, you encounter some that are possibly "bad eggs", but many of those are apostates or maleficar to begin with and thus already on the shady side of things, so...

[Xewaka]

Dark Specie wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
If anything, it's damage control for the unexpected good light in which mages are painted in Origins. The Mage situation is supposed to be morally grey, not as white and black as it came off in Origins.

This. Dragon Age Origins has plenty of "Good" and disclipined mages - Irving, Wynne, Niall... and so forth. Sure, you encounter some that are possibly "bad eggs", but many of those are apostates or maleficar to begin with and thus already on the shady side of things, so...

Curiously enough, the examples you list are all magi that accept the neccesity of the Circle and work to make the best out of it. Guess what? They do it. Possibly because Greagoir is also a reasonable individual who knows when to press and when to give with Irving in regards of running the Circle.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 mars 2011 - 12:16 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

ishmael: Well, I was judging good by not psychotically corrupt as opposed to morally good. It's clear that Hadriana is a spiteful, vengeful person with little but self-preservation and laudation in mind. Danarius is a higher level of person--he's perfectly gracious and reasonable, but he's a product of his environment: cruel, ruthlessly competetive, amoral, etc. He's better than his apprentice, though.

As for Taronhe, I'm not sure. I'm not going to say I remember with any certainty--all I do remember is that her face looked rather frightening.

[TJPags]

Dark Specie wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

If anything, it's damage control for the unexpected good light in which mages are painted in Origins. The Mage situation is supposed to be morally grey, not as white and black as it came off in Origins.

This. Dragon Age Origins has plenty of "Good" and disclipined mages - Irving, Wynne, Niall... and so forth. Sure, you encounter some that are possibly "bad eggs", but many of those are apostates or maleficar to begin with and thus already on the shady side of things, so...

Wait - are you trying to say that the number of "bad" mages is closer to 50-50 or something?

I mean, in DAO - as you pointed out - most mages are "good", with a few bad apples.

In DA2, it's the other way around (I really do think there are 3 non-blood mage/abominations in the entire game).

So are you saying it's closer to 50-50?  Because this kind of percentage makes me even MORE insistent that there be Circles and Templars, etc.

[mesmerizedish]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

ishmael: Well, I was judging good by not psychotically corrupt as opposed to morally good. It's clear that Hadriana is a spiteful, vengeful person with little but self-preservation and laudation in mind. Danarius is a higher level of person--he's perfectly gracious and reasonable, but he's a product of his environment: cruel, ruthlessly competetive, amoral, etc. He's better than his apprentice, though.

As for Taronhe, I'm not sure. I'm not going to say I remember with any certainty--all I do remember is that her face looked rather frightening.

Then you are using "good" more loosely than I would

Yes, those mages are somewhat lacking in the "psychotic murderer" department. Unlike Quentin. There's some pyscho-action.

[Khayness]

Xewaka wrote...

Curiously enough, the examples you list are all magi that accept the neccesity of the Circle and work to make the best out of it. Guess what? They do it. Possibly because Greagoir is also a reasonable individual who knows when to press and when to give with Irving in regards of running the Circle.

Well, the cast of DA2 had forsaken reason for the sake of plot continuity.

[Xewaka]

TJPags wrote...
Wait - are you trying to say that the number of "bad" mages is closer to 50-50 or something?
I mean, in DAO - as you pointed out - most mages are "good", with a few bad apples.
In DA2, it's the other way around (I really do think there are 3 non-blood mage/abominations in the entire game).
So are you saying it's closer to 50-50?  Because this kind of percentage makes me even MORE insistent that there be Circles and Templars, etc.

Most likely that the situation in Ferelden Circle is much better than the situation in Kirkwall Circle. Consider that Greagoir and Irving were friendly rivals who cared for each other and contributed to build some prosperity in the Circle, whereas Meredith and Orsino are at each other's throat, and their conflict permeates to the whole Circle structure, causing a much worse situation.
Basically, if both parties work togheter, the Circle prospers and there's little conflict. If both parts are at odds, it degenerates into conflict.
That's why Ferelden Magi were mostly good and Kirkwall magi are a bunch of maleficar. Because the first group is well treated by his caretakers, while the second group is mishandled by their overseers.

Khayness wrote...
Well, the cast of DA2 had forsaken reason for the sake of plot continuity.

While not mandatory, conflict is usually the best way to move a narrative foward.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[Dark Specie]

Xewaka wrote...
Curiously enough, the examples you list are all magi that accept the neccesity of the Circle and work to make the best out of it. Guess what? They do it. Possibly because Greagoir is also a reasonable individual who knows when to press and when to give with Irving in regards of running the Circle.

Well, yeah. The greatest reason that Kirkwall's circle failed was that Meredith only took a harsher and harsher line as time went by, the idol-sword fueling her paranoia. Greagoir, on the other hand, was fairly lenient and he and Irving, while being implied to have a sort of rival-like relationship, had a good understanding going on that kept things smooth enough. Of course, still not quite smooth enough to appease the Libertarians, but you can't please everyone, I guess...

[Khayness]

Xewaka wrote...

While not mandatory, conflict is usually the best way to move a narrative foward.

It could have been done better. Dunno how, I just want attachment and immersion.

Edit: I know that The Witcher gets a bad rep here, but the sides there have valid points, and they dance the fine line between freedom fighters/terrorists, people who wish to have order/racist bastards very well. And it has a Neutral path aswell which adds to the PC's character development.

Seriously, they have presented both sides so intentionally flawed and unredeemable, that in the end I was just "Screw you all, I'm only here for my sister."

But Act 3 was rushed, there was what, 2 main questlines before the big bang? It could have used some time.

Modifié par Khayness, 22 mars 2011 - 12:48 .

[mesmerizedish]

Khayness wrote...

Seriously, they have presented both sides so intentionally flawed and unredeemable, that in the end I was just "Screw you all, I'm just here for my sister."

That's how I felt throughout the entire game. I thought it was a good thing

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 22 mars 2011 - 12:36 .

[Khayness]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

That's how I felt throughout the entire game. I thought it was a good thing

Yeah, I have really enjoyed the family side of the game. The whole thing reminded me of pnp path of life story setting, playing with the same team for years.

Shame your family doesn't get much screen time past Act 1.

[LadyJaneGrey]

What I took away from the game was that all the "good" mages, templars, and every-day citizens are all screwed because of a few extremists.    I agree that we needed to actually interact with more non-cutting mages before the final confrontation.

[expanding panic]

I agree with this. The Majority of the mages you come across are blood mages and or try to kill you. But thinking back to DAO, I think you came across more Bad mages in then good ones. Except you had Wynn. But back to your question, I just keep telling myself that the real majority of the mages are like Bethany. Its like the saying goes tick off 1 person and hundreds know, do something good for one person and only 10 people know,

I sided with the mages on my one and only play through but after I beat it and heard what Varric said about what happened with the circles i'm wondering if I will in time have made an Imperium out of the whole world.

[Clonedzero]

TJPags wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

probably because the majority of good mages are in hiding and trying not to be discovered. you know keeping a low profile by NOT CASTING SPELLS.
or they're busy being oppressed in the massive prison tower.

just a guess though.

You mean like the ones fighting with you when you side with the mages?  The ones that turn into abominations, and summon all those shades, and bring those corpses to life?   Those good mages?

a good chunk of them didn't do any of that when i sided with the mages, a couple of them did sure, but most didn't

Seemed there were more abominations roaming the halls then there were mages in person form, to me.

I admit I wasn't really counting things that didn't attack me, so I may have missed some hidden mages.

well theres alot of times where abominations sorta just appear from the ground like shades. so i dont think every abomination you see is a pocessed mage

didn't that one blood mage say she was throwing demons into corpses and random dudes as well? so im guessing most of the abominations are that type.

[Sabariel]

There was an overwhelming number of jackasses on both sides IMO.

Modifié par Sabariel, 22 mars 2011 - 01:03 .

[Xewaka]

I.AM.DUNCAN wrote...
 Templars are pretty s**ty too. You just have to pick the less s**ty of the two, which in my opinion, is the mages, since they have innocent people in their faction.

*Quietly points at Thrask, Cullen, Emeric, Greagoir, Wesley, and several other unnamed and unmourned heroes*

[TexasToast712]

GuyWhoLovesCakes wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

GuyWhoLovesCakes wrote...
Anders keeps whining about how mages are opressed and stuff the fact that he's the only healer pisses me off can't really replace him.

If that is your reason to spare his life then you must suck at this game, but back on topic shall we.

GO TEMPLARS! 
WOOT!

Try playing your first time on nightmare you dick.

Well thats your own damn fault for trying the hardest setting on a video game you have never played before.

P. S. You still suck if you cant play Nightmare without a Healer.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 22 mars 2011 - 01:09 .