55 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

The part that killed me was playing a mage. Yes I'm a mage yes I'm gonna side with the mages because I'm a damn mage yet everyone's so damn surprised that I joined with the mages the game rarely recognizes your class.

[Statulos]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I stopped caring. why?

Because it ends up being dominated by insanity and demons at the end, it dehumanized the entire conflict. Add to that no character development for the two people who show up when you start the game.

I very very rarely like to approach problems this way, but at the end I was tempted to be like "screw it, exterminatus on Kirkwall".

Plus the game does not give you incentives to rise up to the situation and do something. I was like, "fine, I´ll just gather my companions and leave, I don´t care about your crap; go and kill each other, morons".

[fusilero1]

I cared because it was ultimately a human decision, it might have had supernatural factors, but your enemy was other humans (who occasionally turned into demons) and not some implacable evil force in the Darkspawn.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Statulos wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I stopped caring. why?

Because it ends up being dominated by insanity and demons at the end, it dehumanized the entire conflict. Add to that no character development for the two people who show up when you start the game.

I very very rarely like to approach problems this way, but at the end I was tempted to be like "screw it, exterminatus on Kirkwall".

Plus the game does not give you incentives to rise up to the situation and do something. I was like, "fine, I´ll just gather my companions and leave, I don´t care about your crap; go and kill each other, morons".

Also, Hawke felt like a lazy ass who didn't do anything when he / she could have.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mars 2011 - 11:42 .

[Foolsfolly]

Statulos wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I stopped caring. why?

Because it ends up being dominated by insanity and demons at the end, it dehumanized the entire conflict. Add to that no character development for the two people who show up when you start the game.

I very very rarely like to approach problems this way, but at the end I was tempted to be like "screw it, exterminatus on Kirkwall".

Plus the game does not give you incentives to rise up to the situation and do something. I was like, "fine, I´ll just gather my companions and leave, I don´t care about your crap; go and kill each other, morons".

I wish there was a 'Side With Aveline' option and you help the guards safeguard the civilians while a Blood Mage Abomination and a Plot Point battled on the island Gallows.

[TJPags]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

I'm surprised how many people put their personal feelings into it. As a RPG, I could put myself into a character where I could side with and justify siding with both sides.  I've played both pro-mage and pro-templar, and could sympathize with both.

My problem was that, try as I might, I could not put myself into that character, nor could I identify with either the mages or the Templars.  I could barely summon feelings for my companions.

In the end, I sided with them because calling for the Rite of Annullment after a non-circle mage (sitting 5 feet away on an overturned crate) is the one who blew up the Chantry was just wrong, to me.

Had nothing to do with Bethany being a mage, or being in the Circle, or even really caring about the mages.  Was just how I feel about things.

When connection with the story is missing, what else was I to fall back on?

For myself:

Pro-mage playthrough, it was identifying the struggles of the oppressed against oppressors.  Pro-templar playthrough, it was trying to keep law and order when there is a sudden power vacuum from the death of the viscount, despite being unpopular.

That works.  It's likely rather close to what Bioware intended, on the mage end.  Either way, I'm sure being able to make that connection helped you enjoy the game.

As I said, I just couldn't feel it.  I tried to feel for the mages - but everyone I ran into was, actually, a blood mage who attacked me.  Felt for the Templars more, yet in the end, insane Meredith wanted to ignore the actual terrorist and kill mages who didn't do it.  So I couldn't go for that - again, not for game reasons, for personal ones.

[Foolsfolly]

fusilero1 wrote...

I cared because it was ultimately a human decision, it might have had supernatural factors, but your enemy was other humans (who occasionally turned into demons) and not some implacable evil force in the Darkspawn.

Except for the whole blood mage abomination leading the mages and an evil ancient tiki idol leading the Templars.

[Emperor Iaius I]

Yeah. The ending was completely unnecessary. The templar/mage thing was compelling, and you could do a "both sides are wrong" thing without a Harvester and a magic idol lunatic. So unnecessary.

I'm convinced Varric decided to spice up the story at the last second, and Penteghast was so engrossed that she didn't catch it that time.

[Foolsfolly]

I'm convinced Varric decided to spice up the story at the last second, and Penteghast was so engrossed that she didn't catch it that time.

Considering like 1/30 posters and critics seemed to like the ending, this will likely be the canon explanation. They have the nice blanket statement for all possible retcons in Varric. All they have to say is, "Varric lied."

It's as cheap as the entire final act was.

[MKDAWUSS]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I'm convinced Varric decided to spice up the story at the last second, and Penteghast was so engrossed that she didn't catch it that time.

Considering like 1/30 posters and critics seemed to like the ending, this will likely be the canon explanation. They have the nice blanket statement for all possible retcons in Varric. All they have to say is, "Varric lied."

It's as cheap as the entire final act was.

I agree. Someone like Cassandra doesn't sound like the type who would have overlooked his exaggeration, especially at an important point like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Given the greater problems of Thedas as a whole, the fixation on a incredibly small minority of the population unsatisfied with a police state but otherwise largely comfortable and secure existence seemed...typically driven by zeal, and not by 'how can we help the most people.'

Next time, let's help the poor, the dispossessed, and the ones who bear the brunt of crime and banditry and sickness and disease. The plebes, if you will.

And not the effectively secure middle class micro-minority.

[Avilia]

This may be slightly OT but its been bugging me. In her final conversation with Varric, Cassandra says that the Champion showed the mages they could rise up against the Chantry (or similar).

Er, how? If you side with the Templars you cut a bloody swathe through mages doing just that. Bug? Mistake? Example of how the story has been changed as Varric says? Or the game deciding you sided with the mages no matter what? Or me misunderstanding what she says (always possible)?

[Emperor Iaius I]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Next time, let's help the poor, the dispossessed, and the ones who bear the brunt of crime and banditry and sickness and disease. The plebes, if you will.

And not the effectively secure middle class micro-minority.

You're looking for a 19th century rpg, then. Nobody cares about the dirty plebs--or nobody ought to, anyway, in this time period. You might find religious support (alms for the poor, etc.), "robin hood" types, and eccentric noblemen but I can't see it being a driving point in a medieval fantasy game.

I had enough of that nonsense in the Fable games, really. Inserting modern mentalities is the best way to kill immersion.

[Satyricon331]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I stopped caring. why?

Because it ends up being dominated by insanity and demons at the end, it dehumanized the entire conflict. Add to that no character development for the two people who show up when you start the game.

This part of your post is basically my experience too.  After DAO, I was interested in the mage-chantry issue, but by the end of my first playthrough of DA2, it was rather dead for me, at least for Kirkwall.  Meredith was so unsympathetic and the mages were all lunatics... how was I supposed to sympathize with either side?  Perhaps if we saw more of Meredith before she bought the idol, and if they wrote her to be reasonable/responsible at the time, and if they made Kirkwall's mages more sympathetic, it would have felt more compelling.  

As it was, it wasn't even that clear in-game that siding with the Circle mages against Meredith and the right of annulment would depose the Templars altogether or just replace her leadership while leaving Templar control possible.  I think it might have helped if the choice had been cleaner rather than so muddled, but even there, there needed to be more in-game motivation.

[Satyricon331]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Next time, let's help the poor, the dispossessed, and the ones who bear the brunt of crime and banditry and sickness and disease. The plebes, if you will.

And not the effectively secure middle class micro-minority.

You're looking for a 19th century rpg, then. Nobody cares about the dirty plebs--or nobody ought to, anyway, in this time period. You might find religious support (alms for the poor, etc.), "robin hood" types, and eccentric noblemen but I can't see it being a driving point in a medieval fantasy game.

I had enough of that nonsense in the Fable games, really. Inserting modern mentalities is the best way to kill immersion.

Oh, I quite disagree it's a specifically modern mentality.  If you read the Scholastics or other medievals sources, or many East Asian sources, you can see they really felt that helping the poor was morally important (I can't think of an ancient Western source off the top of my head, though - except Jewish/early Christian ones - although that might just be a lack of knowledge on my part).  They just channelled the idea differently than we might, feeling e.g. they needed to keep it in the context of maintaining the people's social role.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hey, if Anders can trigger a war over the status of less than one percent of the population, I'm pretty sure we could find causes to start conflict over far greater minorities (or even majorities) of the population.

Thedas, meet your communist revolution!

[Foolsfolly]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Hey, if Anders can trigger a war over the status of less than one percent of the population, I'm pretty sure we could find causes to start conflict over far greater minorities (or even majorities) of the population.

Thedas, meet your communist revolution!

Another Qunari invasion?

[Suron]

Lithuasil wrote...

If you're saying you didn't care about bethany, that's basically admitting you don't have a heart :|

hard to care about someone when there is hardly any character development or reason given.

here's a clue.  Not every sibling get's along...or cares for the other much..that doesn't mean EITHER of them has "no heart"

seriously..why should we care about her? because the game dictates she's our sister and really doesn't give much meaning too it other then "she's your sister"?

It's like when Hawkes mother dies...other then interjecting how one might feel if it was their REAL mother laying there..there's no reason to care..you have little interaction with her either..some..but not much.

so no, it's not admitting anything other then BioWare needs to slow down and give us a reason to care about these characters instead of just "you should care because she's your sister (or mother)"

[Emperor Iaius I]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Next time, let's help the poor, the dispossessed, and the ones who bear the brunt of crime and banditry and sickness and disease. The plebes, if you will.

And not the effectively secure middle class micro-minority.

You're looking for a 19th century rpg, then. Nobody cares about the dirty plebs--or nobody ought to, anyway, in this time period. You might find religious support (alms for the poor, etc.), "robin hood" types, and eccentric noblemen but I can't see it being a driving point in a medieval fantasy game.

I had enough of that nonsense in the Fable games, really. Inserting modern mentalities is the best way to kill immersion.

Oh, I quite disagree it's a specifically modern mentality.  If you read the Scholastics or other medievals sources, or many East Asian sources, you can see they really felt that helping the poor was morally important (I can't think of an ancient Western source off the top of my head, though - except Jewish/early Christian ones - although that might just be a lack of knowledge on my part).  They just channelled the idea differently than we might, feeling e.g. they needed to keep it in the context of maintaining the people's social role.

Yes, I did mention the religious support. However, as you note, a lot of it was to establish the Church (and other such authorities) as the ultimate dispenser of patronage and largesse. All that aside though, the point is that it's not significant enough a social force to create dramatic tension: those sorts of struggles are purely modern (or at best, the source of ill-conceived insurrections).

As far as ancient sources, sure, you'll find plenty of those. That was less about a social revolution and more about a religious one. The bishop's scene in the film Agora comes to mind, as does the various early Christian writings on the virtue of poverty.

[Satyricon331]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...
Yes, I did mention the religious support. However, as you note, a lot of it was to establish the Church (and other such authorities) as the ultimate dispenser of patronage and largesse. All that aside though, the point is that it's not significant enough a social force to create dramatic tension: those sorts of struggles are purely modern (or at best, the source of ill-conceived insurrections).

As far as ancient sources, sure, you'll find plenty of those. That was less about a social revolution and more about a religious one. The bishop's scene in the film Agora comes to mind, as does the various early Christian writings on the virtue of poverty.

Well, medieval Western philosophers usually thought of themselves as developing universally applicable ethics, so it wasn't particularly for the Church itself in the sense they e.g. thought it was perfectly possible for someone unfamiliar with Christianity to follow virtue thoery.   I just disagree concern for the plebes couldn't motivate enough dramatic tension for a good story - the successful Swiss rebellion against the Habsburgs would be a specific counterexample, since they were seeking to preserve their local freedoms.  The freedoms themselves were feudal, non-individual in nature but the underlying motivation concerned local prosperity and the local popular support for the revolt played an important role.

And besides, I don't think these things should follow real-world particularities too slavishly.  There's enough medieval thought along these lines the plotline that Dean_the_Young wants could fit in the setting comfortably, imo.

(sorry for dorkfacing the thread! )

[EDarkness]

Honestly, I didn't care at all. I simply wanted to walk away from the whole thing, because both sides were bad and I wasn't going to support either one. Then, Orsino changes into a demon for some odd reason? What the hell! Yeah, there was nothing redeeming about either side, and I didn't care at all. Just wanted to rescue Bethany, my maid, the rest of my companions, and get the hell out. I really wasn't impressed with any of it like I should have been.

Modifié par EDarkness, 28 mars 2011 - 03:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

What do you care about? For me, the mages v. chantry bit was one of the most interesting aspects of the DA lore, so I was quite happy about its centrality in DA2.

I thought it was interesting, too, especially since I imported the Hero of Ferelden from the Surana background who asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence.

[Hammer_Of_God]

wollert wrote...

It´s a central event in Thedas but no I did not really care and that´s what made it so great, it felt real... as if as a side effect of you trying to provide for your family/ reclaim your heritage/ aquire power - whatever your motivation to become the champion was, you were forced to pick sides in a conflict you were not directly invested in. It felt real and not as if the world was tailored after your.

My mages just wanted to live in peace, my rouges or warriors were just trying to protect the sister and then mother, and by act 3 you had by events become something you never thought and thus shoe horned into a conflict, I loved it.

That!
Was gonna say pretty much exactly the same thing but its been said here already.

My warrior Hawke ended up siding with the mages because of his sister Bethany. But despite on average being sympathetic to the mages plight, ultimately he was sick to death of constantly being dragged into & caught up in the confict, didnt agree with either side & their aproach and wanted nothing more to do with either of em in the end.
Great stuff - felt so much more real & by not being invested in either outcome still in no way dimnished my experience of playing Hawke or his accomplishments. Love it!

[Emperor Iaius I]

Satyricon: The selfsame virtue ethicists (well, their ancient counterparts, at any rate) opined that it was their lack of virtue that put the impoverished in their place. Arguably, a (stereotypical) argument could be maintained that they were deficient in Prudence and Temperance, among others. I'm sure that the Christian philosophers wouldn't have been that hard, since Humility is one of the theological virtues but not one of the cardinal virtues.

but to focus back on the story: the problem is that it's not the sort of movement we're too familiar with. The mages v. templar bit is grounded in known lore from Origins. Something about the poor revolting would be way too out of the blue, I think, *unless* it was something like the alienage elves revolting (perhaps united with the Dalish? Or even against the Dalish, since they believe in the Maker) or something about social upheaval among dwarven society (but I am sick to death of the Deep Roads, to be honest).

[Satyricon331]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Satyricon: The selfsame virtue ethicists (well, their ancient counterparts, at any rate) opined that it was their lack of virtue that put the impoverished in their place. Arguably, a (stereotypical) argument could be maintained that they were deficient in Prudence and Temperance, among others. I'm sure that the Christian philosophers wouldn't have been that hard, since Humility is one of the theological virtues but not one of the cardinal virtues.

but to focus back on the story: the problem is that it's not the sort of movement we're too familiar with. The mages v. templar bit is grounded in known lore from Origins. Something about the poor revolting would be way too out of the blue, I think, *unless* it was something like the alienage elves revolting (perhaps united with the Dalish? Or even against the Dalish, since they believe in the Maker) or something about social upheaval among dwarven society (but I am sick to death of the Deep Roads, to be honest).

That's true of Aristotle, but not of the medieval virtue theories I'm familiar with (just Aquinas and his debaters), so to that extent we agree.  In the West, it would have been a late-ancient development at best (if you include the Jewish/Christian thinkers).  In any event, it's something that would have existed in time for the medieval period.

But in terms of the story, yeah I agree, a purely human peasant revolt might be too novel, but I don't know that a revolt would be necessary for the matter.  I don't know whether I'd personally want a more peasant-focused plotline, but the medieval elements are there in the lore, if BW wanted to make it part of one of the games, imo anyway.  I'd definitely welcome the opportunity to help people less loathsome than the Kirkwallian mages & Knight-Commander, at least.