137 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Earlier, I came across this statement from David Gaider in reference to a discussion that delved into magics and mages in Dragon Age 2:

David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

I don't think it's an accurate assessment of why some fans chose to side with the mages, and since I know he's read the threads and responded to one in particular that discussed the dicotomy between the templars and the mages, I'm not certain why he seems to dismiss the fact that people provided arguments and points in what their reasoning was to support the mages and see flaws in the Chantry controlled Circles. Saying that people argued for the mages "by default" completely ignores that there was articulate discussion on the issue, and seems to be the reason why we had the ridiculous plot of "Best Served Cold" in Act III, where we have characters who have selective amnesia and are unaware of Hawke being an apostate and publically denouncing Meredith because they try to kill him for being a Meredith supporter, or why the Harvester was "recycled" as a big bad for the conclusion of Dragon Age 2. This isn't an argument for or against the mages or the templars, but I don't think it's a fair statement to say that people supported the mages by default when he specifically responded to posts where people provided their reasoning and the basis for why they sided with the mages. It reads to me like he's arbitrarily dismissing peoples' reasonings to say it's simply a matter of them picking the side by default.

[blothulfur]

Indeed we can trust neither the mewling of the spoiled brat beasts of the circle or the drug addled incompetent templars, all know that it is only the Qun which is correct.

Anaan esaam Qun.

[Camenae]

To be fair he said "almost by default" so there's some wiggle-room. I don't know why he used the phrase "by default", but I THOUGHT he meant that just as an observation of: pre-DA2 release, a lot more people side with the mages than the templars. Which I think is just a fact. I don't think he's dismissing or passing any kind of judgment on anyone's reasoning.

[Nukenin]

I support the mages by default. It will take a good bit of effort to "go templar". Though I think the leaders of both sides and other principle players are idiots and find the whole affair one of great frustration.

[Maria Caliban]

David thinks that people fall on the side of mages by default because they do. We live in a society that values personal freedom.

The Templars are the militant wing of a large, powerful religious origination. Mages are individuals who are taken from their families at an early age, locked-up, and feared by the regular populous all because of an accident of birth.

Gee, who's going to have the audience's sympathy in this situation?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2011 - 05:28 .

[keginkc]

I'm guessing he thinks that because he "glance[ed] at your average templar vs. mage thread".

[rma2110]

Most posters on this forum were pro-mage before DA2 came out and most still are. The persecution of mages and the abuse they took from the templars was very apparent in DA:O. I don't recall anything in DA:O that made me sympathize with the templars or show that circle was necessary.

That being said, I don't think that having every mage in the game turn into an abomination was the best way to garner sympathy for the templar cause. All it did was make me hate the mages. I wish we had been able to see more of the templar side of things. Templars must have a good side too, when they're not too busy abusing mages and hanging out in brothels.

I love the story of DA2. I love how dark it is and the feeling of being helpless, but I was sick of the whole mages and templar issue.

Modifié par rma2110, 31 mars 2011 - 05:30 .

[Darth Obvious]

Perhaps because "by default" it is the Templars' job to control/imprison/tranquilize mages, whereas "by default" not all mages are evil.

I never liked the idea of Templars being in charge of mages in the first game anyway, and thought it was a stupid move by the devs. Also, they stuck very closely to the traditional d&d class system, EXCEPT when it comes to clerics, simply lumping them in with mages. I still don't see the point of this.

Imagine how much cooler it would have been in the Dragon Age universe if there were MANY gods, and there were clerics of each of these gods, each with unique spells/powers....

Instead we have this blatantly christ-like god system, and no separate cleric class. Boring.

[GSSAGE7]

I notice that he said the thread was before DA2 came out. In Origins/Awakening, how often did people side with the templars against the mages? The only time I remember that option was when you wiped out the circle, and I don't recall it being treated as a good thing.

Maybe that was why so many mages turned to blood magic and demons, to make people have a problem deciding between the two factions?

[Parrk]

Beyond the ever-enduring argument surrounding which side occupies the moral high ground; the mages are the clear underdog on Kirkwall. that may be why he sees them as default.

[MKDAWUSS]

I think the game also leans you toward that decision with the fact that either you yourself or your sister is a mage.

But, that whole conflict developed and escalated rather poorly, so...

[Maria Caliban]

Darth Obvious wrote...

Imagine how much cooler it would have been in the Dragon Age universe if there were MANY gods, and there were clerics of each of these gods, each with unique spells/powers....

Right. Like we could have elven gods, and a companion who worships them. And this companion could have his or her own specialization based on elven tradition and belief.

Why doesn't BioWare do something cool like this?

[Sherbet Lemon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Earlier, I came across this statement from David Gaider in reference to a discussion that delved into magics and mages in Dragon Age 2:

David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

I don't think it's an accurate assessment of why some fans chose to side with the mages, and since I know he's read the threads and responded to one in particular that discussed the dicotomy between the templars and the mages, I'm not certain why he seems to dismiss the fact that people provided arguments and points in what their reasoning was to support the mages and see flaws in the Chantry controlled Circles. t.

You're missing the precursor to that quote as he was responding to what the previous poster wrote:

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think this is necessary, otherwise it would be easy for a contemporary individual to side with the freedom of
the mages by default, as modern Western sensibilities would more or lessdictate.

Western society is based on the highly contentious notion of the individual's rights and the individual's freedom to choose.  It is why many Western nations function on democratic principles as we believe the individual can make qualitative judgements on who is best fit govern.  In a democratic society we choose our leaders as we consider it a right.  It is why freedom as an ideal is a core part of the indoctrination process.  In oher words, modern Western society (i.e. the average Western gamer) would impose their highly individualistic viewpoint onto the game thus making them side with the mages intrinsically without considering that this world is NOT the world in which we live.  We color history with our perspective.

Socialization and societal structures impose their will upon and we act in accordance that process.  It is inevitably who we are.  And now I'm dizzy.  I hope that made sense...

Modifié par Village Idiot, 31 mars 2011 - 05:45 .

[noxsachi]

I was a pretty big supporter of the mages like I was in DA:O but I don't think total abolition of the Circle system is the right idea, rather reform is. Thats a big reason I always side with the templars at the end of DAII. The biggest fault of their reaction to the pro-mage bias was that they assumed that everyone would love the mages going into DAII and so they didn't feel the need to implement a good mage aside from Hawke and Bethany. I mean even your mage companions are insane at the very best. There is no Cullen or Thrask for the mages, which is in my eyes a really big problem for the finale.

[LobselVith8]

Maria Caliban wrote...

David thinks that people fall on the side of mages by default because they do. We live in a society that values personal freedom.

The Templars are the militant wing of a large, powerful religious origination. Mages are individuals who are taken from their families at an early age, locked-up, and feared by the regular populous all because of an accident of birth.

Gee, who's going to have the audience's sympathy in this situation?

But aren't people making an informed choice then, based on the issues surrounding the division between mages and templars, rather than choosing mages merely as a default option?

[Meathooks333]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Right. Like we could have elven gods, and a companion who worships them. And this companion could have his or her own specialization based on elven tradition and belief.

Why doesn't BioWare do something cool like this?

That's nothing compared to the polytheistic nature of D&D (which is pretty kick-ass until they add too many Deities). The Maker and the Creators are practically the same thing, just different names. In D&D the Deities were many and varied, more akin to Greek or ROman beliefs.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Now that the game is actually out, I wonder how many people fall into the "both sides are wrong; why try to blast the other side?" category...

[LadyJaneGrey]

noxsachi wrote...
I mean even your mage companions are insane at the very best. There is no Cullen or Thrask for the mages, which is in my eyes a really big problem for the finale.

Pretty much.  Ella never turned to blood magic or popped out a demon though.  Yay, Ella!

[Beerfish]

I'd say part of it is his observation of the lengthy discussions on the topic before DA2 came out where there was much more support pro mage than pro Templar. Not all of the posts in those threads were in depth back and forth arguments but there were way way way more. "I hate the Templars, (and or chantry), mages should all be free." comments than the other way around.

[Darth Obvious]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Darth Obvious wrote...

Imagine how much cooler it would have been in the Dragon Age universe if there were MANY gods, and there were clerics of each of these gods, each with unique spells/powers....

Right. Like we could have elven gods, and a companion who worships them. And this companion could have his or her own specialization based on elven tradition and belief.

Why doesn't BioWare do something cool like this?

Forget the elves for a second. Just imagine if there were lots of "human" gods. A cleric of a warlike god could wear heavier armor and carry heavier weaponry. A cleric of a stealthy god could be better at sneaking/hiding. A cleric of a god of magic could have spells that are more mage-like (instead of the more defensive/protective spells typically used by clerics), etc.

That was always one of my favorite aspects of traditional d&d: clerics were able to specialize their skills in any number of ways depending on their god of choice, and this greatly added to the diversity of character parties.

[hoorayforicecream]

Western society loves individual freedom and underdogs. In this case, the mages are both. The templars serve a necessary function (somebody has to be able to provide a line of defense against a large group of people who can kill you with their brains), but it is intentionally an oppressive system.

The only way to garner any sort of sympathy for the templars given the audience's inherent bias is to present case after case of evidence why the templars are needed, and even then it is difficult. I'm sure that the dev team is getting all sorts of data metrics from the time spent on gameplay via the whole EA account thing.

[Meathooks333]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

noxsachi wrote...
I mean even your mage companions are insane at the very best. There is no Cullen or Thrask for the mages, which is in my eyes a really big problem for the finale.

Pretty much.  Ella never turned to blood magic or popped out a demon though.  Yay, Ella!

Also Bethany, if she survives.

[Raiil]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

Now that the game is actually out, I wonder how many people fall into the "both sides are wrong; why try to blast the other side?" category...

I think neither is wrong or right, and Kirkwall isn't the example to use because it's taken to extremes. Not all knight-commanders are like Meredith- but then, not all knight-commanders are like Gregoir, either. 

Personally, I support a system of checks and balances. Mages and templars check and balance one another. As my good if somewhat smartass Hawke says, there has to be a better way. The current system is filled with generally good people stuck in a relic of what used to work and what used to be tolerable. There need to be an overhaul.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Meathooks333 wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

noxsachi wrote...
I mean even your mage companions are insane at the very best. There is no Cullen or Thrask for the mages, which is in my eyes a really big problem for the finale.

Pretty much.  Ella never turned to blood magic or popped out a demon though.  Yay, Ella!

Also Bethany, if she survives.

You're right...that part was snipped from the original quote.

[Weskerr]

You're reading too much into it and being overly sensative because of that. Besides, doesn't this seem like something that's silly to be angry about, even if it were true?