4350 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek, but only just.  I really do think that DG is going to pull some kind of lame stunt like this with Fereldan to further smear mages if given half the chance.

-Polaris

I would hope that subtelty and nuance will be re-embraced after the failure of their new idea.

But I think it's part of a larger issue. The entire style feels wrong. It's trying to be more action oriented, which I assume is why abominations pop up from the ground as if they are summoned creatures (to give us thigns to kill) which is against everything in the lore. Or that's why mages can turn to abominations in a second, while it's usually a longer process unless accelerated by other abominations (like what Uldred does and even then it's not one second). Demon possessions are supposed to be about temptations and succumbing to them. That doesn't happen in a sec.

If they keep up the idea that players have to keep slaughtering waves of enemies and can't have quests that do not involve killing, then I think mages will continue being hostiles who summon several other enemies for you to slaughter. As for the explanation? Well they are insane.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mai 2011 - 06:01 .

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Fukairi wrote...

Or maybe we get to see Wynne/other nice mages as adversaries in DA3 since they are pure eeeevvvvill.
I refuse to accept my Warden was part of any  eeevvvil propaganda, he was not a mage after all!

Of course not.  What you didn't know is that your warden, King Alistair and all those nice people in Fereldan were all mind-controlled by bloodmagic the whole time, and you just didn't know it...and only Lelianna managed to break free.

Yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek, but only just.  I really do think that DG is going to pull some kind of lame stunt like this with Fereldan to further smear mages if given half the chance.

-Polaris

LOL.  I suggest you write your own storys and or game module in which all mages live in peace for 100 years after destorying the whole chantry and all of the templars.

Berating the actual writer and creator of the setting because it doesn't match up with your wants is ridiculous.  Especially when months if not years before the original game came out it was put 100% up front that magic was not embraced and happily tossed around but instead was viewed with much suspicion, fear and the general thought that it needed to be tightly controlled.

Yeah, Dave Gaider is out to get you. 

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fukairi wrote...

Or maybe we get to see Wynne/other nice mages as adversaries in DA3 since they are pure eeeevvvvill.
I refuse to accept my Warden was part of any  eeevvvil propaganda, he was not a mage after all!

Of course not.  What you didn't know is that your warden, King Alistair and all those nice people in Fereldan were all mind-controlled by bloodmagic the whole time, and you just didn't know it...and only Lelianna managed to break free.

Yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek, but only just.  I really do think that DG is going to pull some kind of lame stunt like this with Fereldan to further smear mages if given half the chance.

-Polaris

LOL.  I suggest you write your own storys and or game module in which all mages live in peace for 100 years after destorying the whole chantry and all of the templars.

Berating the actual writer and creator of the setting because it doesn't match up with your wants is ridiculous.  Especially when months if not years before the original game came out it was put 100% up front that magic was not embraced and happily tossed around but instead was viewed with much suspicion, fear and the general thought that it needed to be tightly controlled.

Yeah, Dave Gaider is out to get you. 

Actually in a way I think he is.  DG has shown a remarkable lack of honesty and consistancy even within his own world and own lore and I don't think it reflects well on him as an author or as a member of the Dev team.  No one is saying that magic should be thrown about 'willy nilly', but some care, balance, consistancy, and HONESTY might be appreciated.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Silfren]

I think looking for ulterior motives behind DG's depiction of mages is a little...well, absurd is the most polite way I can put it and still be accurate.

I'm fairly certain it's been stated somewhere that the intention was to cause a more even split between those who sided with mages and others with templars, because a more balanced split encourages re-play value.

At the end of the day, the point of any video game is to rack in money for its producers. That intention has to, and will, inform various aspects of gameplay to some degree or other: whatever will encourage more players to spend more money.

I see no reason to look for deep, dark reasons behind any decision, especially not in terms of lore presentation, as if DG or any of the other writers are engaging in a subterfuge campaign to muck with their audiences' morality. Occam's Razor applies here as with anywhere else, and money is the bottom line.

[IanPolaris]

Mages aren't innocent because they are mages.

-DG

Enough said.

-Polaris

Edit:  I do think that DG is villianizing mages for financial reasons but that doesn't take away one bit from my criticisms of him.  I also worry when writers start to believe out of character the questinable morality that might be appropriate in character hence the quote above.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 16 mai 2011 - 06:31 .

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mages aren't innocent because they are mages.

-DG

Enough said.

-Polaris

I gather that you're interpreting to mean that being a mage invalidates someone from being innocent.  That's fair, but outside of its context, my immediate interpretation was "being a mage doesn't make someone innocent by default."  And that interpretation is just as fair as yours.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
I'm fairly certain it's been stated somewhere that the intention was to cause a more even split between those who sided with mages and others with templars, because a more balanced split encourages re-play value.

A good intention. Laughable execution.

I was never and still am not a fan of the villification of the Chantry and of Templars and Maker knows how many times I've argued with Lob vis a vis this, that many would have probably said I was pro-Chantry. So I always wanted the other side to be potrayed better and to add more nuance.

That was not the case in DA2. It was doing the complete opposite, and overkilling even. Thinking that making most mages lunatic idiots was going to add more nuance is just a very cheap and below mediocre trick. One that for me was very counter-productive.  

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'm fairly certain it's been stated somewhere that the intention was to cause a more even split between those who sided with mages and others with templars, because a more balanced split encourages re-play value.

A good intention. Laughable execution.

I was never and still am not a fan of the villification of the Chantry and of Templars and Maker knows how many times I've argued with Lob vis a vis this, that many would have probably said I was pro-Chantry. So I always wanted the other side to be potrayed better and to add more nuance.

That was not the case in DA2. It was doing the complete opposite, and overkilling even. Thinking that making most mages lunatic idiots was going to add more nuance is just a very cheap and below mediocre trick. One that for me was very counter-productive.  

Oh, I'm not disputing that the execution was handled very, very badly.  I just find it completely laughable to look for darker reasons than an attempt to maximize cash flow.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'm fairly certain it's been stated somewhere that the intention was to cause a more even split between those who sided with mages and others with templars, because a more balanced split encourages re-play value.

A good intention. Laughable execution.

I was never and still am not a fan of the villification of the Chantry and of Templars and Maker knows how many times I've argued with Lob vis a vis this, that many would have probably said I was pro-Chantry. So I always wanted the other side to be potrayed better and to add more nuance.

That was not the case in DA2. It was doing the complete opposite, and overkilling even. Thinking that making most mages lunatic idiots was going to add more nuance is just a very cheap and below mediocre trick. One that for me was very counter-productive.  

Oh, I'm not disputing that the execution was handled very, very badly.  I just find it completely laughable to look for darker reasons than an attempt to maximize cash flow.

I'm not.  I do think the reason was the maximize cash flow (a goal it failed at badly fwiw), but that doesn't invalidate what I've said or excuse what was done.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Mages aren't innocent because they are mages.

-DG

Enough said.

-Polaris

I gather that you're interpreting to mean that being a mage invalidates someone from being innocent.  That's fair, but outside of its context, my immediate interpretation was "being a mage doesn't make someone innocent by default."  And that interpretation is just as fair as yours.

I'll have to search the forums and bring it out in it's full glory.  Lob and others read it too and was just as appalled as I was.  Suffice it to say the context (as soon as I find it) is the first and not the second.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That was not the case in DA2. It was doing the complete opposite, and overkilling even. Thinking that making most mages lunatic idiots was going to add more nuance is just a very cheap and below mediocre trick. One that for me was very counter-productive.  

Agreed.  I suspect it merely served to harden pre-existing opinions for the most part and alienate a good part of the core audience you need to make the franchise commercially viable (which is frankly IMO stupid).

-Polaris

[TEWR]

even with most mages being lunatic idiots, people still sided with them by default right?

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

even with most mages being lunatic idiots, people still sided with them by default right?

That's the impression I've gotten.  Most people in DA2 still side with the mages even with the crazily skewed way they are presented which is why I make my admittedly tongue-in-cheek prediction about Fereldan.

I think that BW (if given the opportunity) and DG is going to go even MORE overboard to try to "balance" things out.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

even with most mages being lunatic idiots, people still sided with them by default right?

Because they also managed to make Meredith a lunatic idiot.

I am actually confused now at what they were aiming for exactly. To make both sides tragic victims of an unknown force of evil that drives people completely nuts, idiotic or passive to the point of making rocks feel more alive?

Why not make both factions tragic victims of human nature, as well as culprits in a context of mutual fear, ignorance and hatred? Without being incompetent lunatics? 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mai 2011 - 06:44 .

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'm fairly certain it's been stated somewhere that the intention was to cause a more even split between those who sided with mages and others with templars, because a more balanced split encourages re-play value.

A good intention. Laughable execution.

I was never and still am not a fan of the villification of the Chantry and of Templars and Maker knows how many times I've argued with Lob vis a vis this, that many would have probably said I was pro-Chantry. So I always wanted the other side to be potrayed better and to add more nuance.

That was not the case in DA2. It was doing the complete opposite, and overkilling even. Thinking that making most mages lunatic idiots was going to add more nuance is just a very cheap and below mediocre trick. One that for me was very counter-productive.  

Oh, I'm not disputing that the execution was handled very, very badly.  I just find it completely laughable to look for darker reasons than an attempt to maximize cash flow.

I'm not.  I do think the reason was the maximize cash flow (a goal it failed at badly fwiw), but that doesn't invalidate what I've said or excuse what was done.

-Polaris

Your opinion is as valid as any other, Polaris, as far as people's freedom to hold whatever opinion they wish, and I haven't tried to claim otherwise. But as opinions go, it doesn't strike me as having a strong basis for support, and I find it ridiculous.  I'm no more going to shy away from stating as much any more than I do from attacking the opinion that Elthina was a poor, misunderstood soul who could use her status as a senile old crone to justify not doing her job.

[TEWR]

Instead of showing the Circle beyond saving, they showed individual apostates and other mages who had no affiliation with the Circle being beyond saving.

Best Served Cold only showed that mages and Templars could work together, and made you sympathize even more.

So they failed big time in their goal.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

even with most mages being lunatic idiots, people still sided with them by default right?

That's the impression I've gotten.  Most people in DA2 still side with the mages even with the crazily skewed way they are presented which is why I make my admittedly tongue-in-cheek prediction about Fereldan.

I think that BW (if given the opportunity) and DG is going to go even MORE overboard to try to "balance" things out.

-Polaris

I strongly doubt this, because the impression I've gotten is that Bioware is very, very aware of all the mistakes they made and the rather colossal way they screwed up.  I hope, at least, that they'll take some of the lessons to heart.  It doesn't make sense to me that DG or anyone at Bioware would try to make a failed tactic work by trying it again, only harder.  It remains to be seen whether I'm being overly optimistic, but I think DG is capable of adding two and two together and making it to four.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

Your opinion is as valid as any other, Polaris, as far as people's freedom to hold whatever opinion they wish, and I haven't tried to claim otherwise. But as opinions go, it doesn't strike me as having a strong basis for support, and I find it ridiculous.  I'm no more going to shy away from stating as much any more than I do from attacking the opinion that Elthina was a poor, misunderstood soul who could use her status as a senile old crone to justify not doing her job.

*sigh*  We aren't going to agree so please don't open this up again.  Suffice it to say, I think you are being a bit too generous to the writers here.  DG has gone on the record saying that mages aren't innocent because they are mages.  He has gone on the record that the only reason we back mages is because we live in cushy westernized nations that can't appreciate real moral choice (and yes he's said these things!)  DG did openly lament that poeple picked mages by default in DAO and even grudgingly admitted that they went OTT with skewing how mages are presented in DA2.  Combine that with the deliberate hiding of the Enigma of Kirkwall entries (which shows the Kirkwall is NOT a typical case), the metamorphasis of Lelianna and other clues, and I think I am on fairly firm grounds with my opinions here.

I DO think that DG is goiing to go even more anti-mage in the next installment if given the chance.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

I strongly doubt this, because the impression I've gotten is that Bioware is very, very aware of all the mistakes they made and the rather colossal way they screwed up.  I hope, at least, that they'll take some of the lessons to heart.  It doesn't make sense to me that DG or anyone at Bioware would try to make a failed tactic work by trying it again, only harder.  It remains to be seen whether I'm being overly optimistic, but I think DG is capable of adding two and two together and making it to four.

I don't because I've read the articles and posts not only by DG but Mike Laidlaw.  Both strike me as very arrogant and egoistical, and as such, the only way they'll admit they are wrong is if JC himself came down from heaven, walked across the water and told them so.  Don't take my word, read their prior articles and posts for yourself and judge for yourself.  EA or their BW bosses may step in, but I don't think either realize that their "vision" was in anyway wrong or mistaken....and if EA has to step in, that's the end of the DA franchise I am afraid to say.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Best Served Cold only showed that mages and Templars could work together, and made you sympathize even more.

Actually, this showed that all sides are extremily idiotic.

The Templars were fools, for not noticing the obvious obsession Grace has with Hawke, her mental and emotional instability and the fact that they didn't even have the feintest clue that she was a maleficar abomination.

Mages for following the idiot Grace for some reason, when I wouldn't trust her to lead me to her own house.

And Grace for being insanely obsessed with Hawke, despite potentially helping him kill her pathetic excuse of a lover, murdering the only people who think she isn't a monster for no reason in the process.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

even with most mages being lunatic idiots, people still sided with them by default right?

Because they also managed to make Meredith a lunatic idiot.

I am actually confused now at what they were aiming for exactly. To make both sides tragic victims of an unknown force of evil that drives people completely nuts, idiotic or passive to the point of making rocks feel more alive?

Why not make both factions tragic victims of human nature, as well as culprits in a context of mutual fear, ignorance and hatred? Without being incompetent lunatics? 

Bottom line, Bioware was too rushed to give the game the polish it needed--seems to be the general consensus from the fanbase, at any rate.  I think that's most obvious in ludicrous details like mage!Hawke not being recognized as such in a city with such extreme anti-mage templars.  

I can appreciate a company like EA pressuring Bioware to put out a product ASAP, but why EA couldn't figure out that the resultant product wouldn't suffer so badly from a quality standpoint that the fans wouldn't be able to dismiss it on the tails of their love of Origins....

[TEWR]

the only way they'll admit they are wrong is if JC himself came down from heaven, walked across the water and told them so.

my initials are JC so for a brief minute I thought you were talking about me.

Acutally, this showed that all sides are extremily idiotic.

The Templars were fools, for not noticing the obvious obsession Grace has with Hawke, her mental and emotional instability and the fact that they didn't even have the feintest clue that she was a maleficar abomination.

Mages for following the idiot Grace for some reason, when I wouldn't trust her to lead me to her own house.

And Grace for being insanely obsessed with Hawke, despite potentially helping him kill her pathetic excuse of a lover, murdering the only people who think she isn't a monster for no reason in the process.

There's no way to know Grace made her feelings against Hawke known to them. She could've easily bottled them up until we found her.

Honestly, did you really think she was trouble when you saved her? I'm assuming of course that you did save her.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Honestly, did you really think she was trouble when you saved her? I'm assuming of course that you did save her.

I thought she was trouble when she obviously hated it every time Hawke came to the Gallows and blamed him for her incompetence. I highly doubt she managed to bottle up her feelings without anyone noticing, she was not subtle at all.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

the only way they'll admit they are wrong is if JC himself came down from heaven, walked across the water and told them so.

my initials are JC so for a brief minute I thought you were talking about me.

Do you have certain delusions we should be aware of? 

-Polaris