4350 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So, what's new in here? I see we're on the "David Gaider hates mages and wants everyone else to hate them too!!!" kick, huh?

Cool. I wonder why there was even a choice to side with the mages in DA2, then . . .

I actually honestly wonder at times myself.

-Polaris

Nice play, matching sarcasm with sarcasm.

I know we disagree on so many things, and yes, this is one more. 

You don't like how mages are portrayed.  Which is fine.  But why go all conspiracy theory on this?

[Xilizhra]

It's not really a conspiracy, more a failed author's saving throw because they realized they didn't make a conflict gray enough for their taste.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

You don't like how mages are portrayed.  Which is fine.  But why go all conspiracy theory on this?

Because at face value (and given that we KNOW the devs deliberately skewed how mages were seen by Hawke esp in Acts 2 and 3....by BW's own admission no less), the 'conspiracy theory' seems at least on the surface to fit the facts.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am more of the opinion hat it's post-game rationalization more than a pre-planned scheme. But I don't really care to speculate about this. What matters is that the portrayal was bad (not the only thing that was bad) and that the conflict deserves a more nuanced and complex interpretation.

A more nuanced and complex interpretation. 

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am more of the opinion hat it's post-game rationalization more than a pre-planned scheme. But I don't really care to speculate about this. What matters is that the portrayal was bad (not the only thing that was bad) and that the conflict deserves a more nuanced and complex interpretation.

A more nuanced and complex interpretation. 

When the sanest and most reasonable pro-mage revolutionist is Anders, I think it's reasonable to smell a rat.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Ian.
I thought the issue was grey already, what was needed was a bit more Templar perspective (Gregoir, while a good KC, sometimes sounds radical himself. Like when he praises the Qunari treatment of mages. But it could be stress and fatigue at work). And as the conflict escalates, have a wider divide between extremists and moderates on each side. Da2 had that somewhat with Templars. Not with mages.

But if they think that having people be 50/50 on an issue makes it grey, then meeh. That rarely happens. And should be quite irrelevant.

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am more of the opinion hat it's post-game rationalization more than a pre-planned scheme. But I don't really care to speculate about this. What matters is that the portrayal was bad (not the only thing that was bad) and that the conflict deserves a more nuanced and complex interpretation.

A more nuanced and complex interpretation. 

When the sanest and most reasonable pro-mage revolutionist is Anders, I think it's reasonable to smell a rat.

-Polaris

Sorry, i sneezed and a thesaurus flew out. 

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Ian.
I thought the issue was grey already, what was needed was a bit more Templar perspective (Gregoir, while a good KC, sometimes sounds radical himself. Like when he praises the Qunari treatment of mages. But it could be stress and fatigue at work). And as the conflict escalates, have a wider divide between extremists and moderates on each side. Da2 had that somewhat with Templars. Not with mages.

But if they think that having people be 50/50 on an issue makes it grey, then meeh. That rarely happens. And should be quite irrelevant.

I think I mentioned earlier that Greagoir shows no signs of being a moderate. He listens to Irving, and that's about it; Irving himself is fairly willing to knuckle under to the templars.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I speak French and I thought "nuance" had an adjective.

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

You don't like how mages are portrayed.  Which is fine.  But why go all conspiracy theory on this?

Because at face value (and given that we KNOW the devs deliberately skewed how mages were seen by Hawke esp in Acts 2 and 3....by BW's own admission no less), the 'conspiracy theory' seems at least on the surface to fit the facts.

-Polaris

But what is the conspiracy, exactly?  That they want everyone to hate mages?  Why would they want that?  And, to ask my rhetorical, sarcastic question in a more serious vein, why give an option to side with the mages, then?  Especially when that ending makes more sense in the context of the mage revolution?

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not really a conspiracy, more a failed author's saving throw because they realized they didn't make a conflict gray enough for their taste.

See, this I can get behind.  For whatever reason - and I don't care what the reason is, or who's fault it is - DA2 didn't go over well with many fans.  BW is on damage control, clearly.  On this specific issue - mages - it sure does NOT come across as grey - it absolutely comes across as black and white - that's part of the reason I argue so vehemently sometimes against pro-mage people.  The evidence in-game is overwhelming that mages are dangerous people who NEED to be controlled.

So, yes, I can see DG's statement as a kind of damage control thing.  But as a pre-planned conspiracy to make us hate mages?  I really don't think that was what they were going for.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Xlizhra
His sadness at mage deaths, his overjoyement at Irving being alive, and his refusal to annull live mages (unless persuaded, but if left to him, he decides against it). I think, when compared to Meredith, that Gregoir is relatively moderate.

And the site is acting up on me and it's annoying.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Ian.
I thought the issue was grey already, what was needed was a bit more Templar perspective (Gregoir, while a good KC, sometimes sounds radical himself. Like when he praises the Qunari treatment of mages. But it could be stress and fatigue at work). And as the conflict escalates, have a wider divide between extremists and moderates on each side. Da2 had that somewhat with Templars. Not with mages.

But if they think that having people be 50/50 on an issue makes it grey, then meeh. That rarely happens. And should be quite irrelevant.

KoP, I don't agree with regard to the circle system as a main (but we've discussed that before), but in the particular case of Fereldan, I think the issue WAS Grey because there you had an honest-to-maker genuine emergency with abominations that really did want to raze the countryside about to get out, and with templars that really were "on stims holding the lines" as a desperate last ditch to keep that from happening, and it really DID happen because a mage (however noble his reasons) really did go too far (Uldred).

None of that is true in DA2, but while you actually see at least one 'reasonable' Templar (Thrask and perhaps Keenan) and at least one more that you are supposed to think is reasonable but you know isn't (Cullen)  and then see that the most rational mage revolutionists is ANDERS (who I think we both agree is a fruitcake), and everyone else is willing to cut their wrists and dance naked for demons at the drop of a hat, I smell a rat.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I speak French and I thought "nuance" had an adjective.

It tends to mean subtle, no matter, Polaris bounced on through anyway. 

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And the site is acting up on me and it's annoying.

You too?  Nice to know it wasn't just me.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

So, yes, I can see DG's statement as a kind of damage control thing.  But as a pre-planned conspiracy to make us hate mages?  I really don't think that was what they were going for.

I DO know the Devs complained (before DA2 was published) that people picked mages in DAO almost by default and complained about it...so I DO think (at least in part) getting us to hate mages was at least part of the idea (or at least get us to view them less as the underdog).

-Polaris

[TEWR]

It's been acting up for me all week.


And the templar you're thinking of Ian is Keran, not Keenan. Keenan was a Grey Warden in Awakening.

[Xilizhra]

On this specific issue - mages - it sure does NOT come across as grey - it absolutely comes across as black and white - that's part of the reason I argue so vehemently sometimes against pro-mage people. The evidence in-game is overwhelming that mages are dangerous people who NEED to be controlled.

You interpret it as such, as any rate. In our view, misguidedly.

@ Xlizhra
His sadness at mage deaths, his overjoyement at Irving being alive, and his refusal to annull live mages (unless persuaded, but if left to him, he decides against it). I think, when compared to Meredith, that Gregoir is relatively moderate.

Compared to Meredith, that freaking out Arvaraad is moderate about the Qun. That's of no help whatsoever.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

It's been acting up for me all week.


And the templar you're thinking of Ian is Keran, not Keenan. Keenan was a Grey Warden in Awakening.

Ooops.  You're right.  Sorry.  Make the appropriate substitutions in all my posts (too lazy right now).

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So, yes, I can see DG's statement as a kind of damage control thing.  But as a pre-planned conspiracy to make us hate mages?  I really don't think that was what they were going for.

I DO know the Devs complained (before DA2 was published) that people picked mages in DAO almost by default and complained about it...so I DO think (at least in part) getting us to hate mages was at least part of the idea (or at least get us to view them less as the underdog).

-Polaris

Maybe the problem is how they define and/or view things.

In DAO, I never saw it as siding with mages or siding with templars.  I saw it as taking a chance to save people or not.  I mean, no matter what you do, you have to enter the Tower to do it, be it try to save people, or kill them all.  Makes sense to try to save people, since you have to go in there anyway.

So if that was their reasoning - and yes, I read what they said also - it's flawed.

But then, DA2 did so many things that were over the top the opposite of what they tried in DAO.  However, in this case, I think it was more an attempt show us the other side of mages - the dangerous side.  We really didn't see that in DAO much - mainly or only in the Broken Circle quest.  So they gave us dangerous mages, not the fluffly little kittens (to steal DG's analogy) that we saw in DAO. 

It was an attempt at balance that went too far, IMO, not an attempt to make us hate mages.

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Is it not mindnumbingly arrogant that you think that people can't make their own real 'moral' choices?

I thought you bowed out of this?

TJPags wrote...

You don't like how mages are portrayed.  Which is fine.  But why go all conspiracy theory on this?

Pointing out the blindingly obvious does not qualify as a conspiracy theory.

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not really a conspiracy, more a failed author's saving throw because they realized they didn't make a conflict gray enough for their taste.

"You failed your own goal!" - The Arishok, who later fails his own goal.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Xlizhra
His sadness at mage deaths, his overjoyement at Irving being alive, and his refusal to annull live mages (unless persuaded, but if left to him, he decides against it). I think, when compared to Meredith, that Gregoir is relatively moderate.

Compared to Osama bin Meredith, Alrik is a moderate. And a nice guy.

IanPolaris wrote...

I DO know the Devs complained (before DA2 was published) that people picked mages in DAO almost by default and complained about it...so I DO think (at least in part) getting us to hate mages was at least part of the idea (or at least get us to view them less as the underdog).

Makes you anxious to see Dragon Age III: This Is Why You Should Golem Everyone, a Fox News level fair and balanced portrayal of how the dwarven civilization will collapse because people didn't want a stone slave making machine.

[Xilizhra]

Compared to Osama bin Meredith, Alrik is a moderate. And a nice guy.

Actually, that's going a bit far. Meredith starts out bonkers because of the incident with her sister, then becomes moreso from her sword. Alrik was, so far as we know, just plain evil.

[TEWR]

"You failed your own goal!" - The Arishok, who later fails his own goal.

when's he say that?

Compared to Osama bin Meredith, Alrik is a moderate. And a nice guy.

Alrik was born a sadistic b****** since that's something genetic. Meredith became who she was due to an unfortunate series of events. So Alrik is worse.

[Rifneno]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

"You failed your own goal!" - The Arishok, who later fails his own goal.

when's he say that?

To Javaris, at the end of Blackpowder Promise.

[TEWR]

huh, I never heard that. What do you have to say to get the Arishok to say that?

[Rifneno]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

huh, I never heard that. What do you have to say to get the Arishok to say that?

I forget exactly, I almost always pick the same options.  I think that one is upon telling Javaris to straighten it out himself instead of appealing to the Arishok yourself.  I prefer to spend as little time conversing with mutant supercommunists as possible.