359 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wait what.. Are we seriously discussing wether or not Meredith had respect for the law? She had the utmost respect for the law, she also had an undying to her duty, which may sometimes have lead her to ignore some aspects of the law. But she was certainly not flouting.

Which is why Meredith ordered an act of genocide on the Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders committed, and proceeded to ignore the apostate responsible for the death of Grand Cleric Elthina.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Also, you can't tranquilize a mage without the First Enchanter giving permission.

Which explains why First Enchanter Irving said it wasn't up to him and that if it was up to him Jowan wouldn't be made tranquil, and why the Rite of Tranquility on Jowan was signed by Knight-Commander Greagoir.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well... Anders said it was illegal to tranquilize a harrowed mage, that must be true then!!11one

This isn't actually the first time the comments from a dev contradicted what was explicitly stated in the actual game, which I suppose happens when you have a group of writers writing the game. Not that I contest what Gaider stated about the Rite of Tranquility, but it illustrates the problem of multiple writers and a lack of communication among them. I recall Gaider stating that what's said about apostates in the Magi Origin was inaccurate, as well as the mention of Prince Maric getting stabbed in "Something Wicked."

Therefore, it really doesn't have anything to do with Anders, it's a problem of the writers not communicating with each other about the lore of Dragon Age. It's another example of writers not being on the same page, which explains the references to mages being in servitude or in service to the Chantry, and Gaider saying that it isn't true. I wish there was more communication among the writers to avoid these inconsistencies.

[caridounette]

Nightwriter wrote...

caridounette wrote...

As a player roleplaying a mage, i found it difficult to understanding how hard it was not to turn to blood magic. I was backed in corners many times in the game but never did it felt hard to resist demons and blood magic.

Well, that's the thing. How do they make you feel tempted by blood magic and demons? Most good mages turn to blood magic out of desperation, and since you are the protagonist (and by default, nigh undefeatable) you will never feel that desperation. You win every fight.

Aside from that, I totally agree with everything you said. I was unsatisfied with their portrayal of mages and my ability to interact with the issue.

Well one possible way i see to make the player feel the strenght of demons would be to force him/her to fall to temptation. This could be done in away that develops strongly the character's personality, meaning by letting the player choose what his Hawke would fall for: seeing a dead loved one again (bro/sis, father), gold, status, sex, more freedom, etc.

This is much more in the lines of a RPG then gaining 6 attribute points... (like the game isnt easy enough. Of course i can say no to that). As the companions show it, everyone is corruptible in the Fade. Almighty Hawke should be too, to some extent. Hawke could finally find a way to break free of the temptation through some interesting dialogue, giving a chance to the player to experience more fully the situation.

[caridounette]

I dont know how to put 2 separate quotes in one post so ill do a new one (sorry)

Le Diable wrote...

In the end, my thoughts somehow seem to question my personal belief of deserving the title of a Champion as the only epicness I felt came out of ending the Qunari invasion with choices of a peaceful retreat with Isabela being handed over to them or with the blood of the Arishok. In my way it did not matter much to me to hand Isabela into their custody but what seemed intolerable for the character of my Hawke is the murder of many innocents in the Keep and mercilessly murdering the Viscount who always sought a calm and diplomatic dealings with the Qunari residing in their city. Always keep thinking "is this what made me the Champion and ruined it all?". I feel Hawke has been denied his/her destiny as a Champion.

Im really with you on the whole Champion issue and i believe it comes from the time jump narrative used throughout the game. 

After dealing with the Arishok, i was (as player) really ready to embrace my <champion> status. I was expecting to get a chance to use my status for this or that, maybe to be recognized somewhat by the citizans. And as Act 3 starts with Hawke being asked to take a stand on the mage/templar issue in front of everyone, i can say that those expectations seemed reasonable. 

Now that i have a few playthroughs done, I understand the game is constructed as the rise AND FALL of the Champion. Specially if you play promage. That is, the narrative completly skips the 3 years where you supposibly played <look at me i am the champion> to put you at the beginning of your fall, making you all powerless to have any influence in this preparing war between templars/mages.

The thing is, you just realize it AFTER you finished the game, that it all somehow made sense because your glory years where swept by the 3 years jump. While you actually play, it gives a very confusing feeling to the player who expects some Champion action and gets attacked every few inches at night time, runs around doing errands and fetch quests, still have no job/political ties/anything to account for those 3 years, cant talk some senses into anyone, etc.

In the end, i leave Kirkwall and go in hiding after sparking a terrible war in Thedas... im certain the Kirkwallers dont wanna see my face again. Over all I have been Champion for what 3 years (the one that have been skipped) ? Not that i dont like roleplaying the underdog or the fall of a character, but it just felt so out of place with the narrative.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well... Anders said it was illegal to tranquilize a harrowed mage, that must be true then!!11one

This isn't actually the first time the comments from a dev contradicted what was explicitly stated in the actual game, which I suppose happens when you have a group of writers writing the game. Not that I contest what Gaider stated about the Rite of Tranquility, but it illustrates the problem of multiple writers and a lack of communication among them. I recall Gaider stating that what's said about apostates in the Magi Origin was inaccurate, as well as the mention of Prince Maric getting stabbed in "Something Wicked."

Therefore, it really doesn't have anything to do with Anders, it's a problem of the writers not communicating with each other about the lore of Dragon Age. It's another example of writers not being on the same page, which explains the references to mages being in servitude or in service to the Chantry, and Gaider saying that it isn't true. I wish there was more communication among the writers to avoid these inconsistencies.

Ever think for a second that Anders may have simply been wrong when he said that? 

Or perhaps bending the truth to support his position?

[EmperorSahlertz]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well... Anders said it was illegal to tranquilize a harrowed mage, that must be true then!!11one

This isn't actually the first time the comments from a dev contradicted what was explicitly stated in the actual game, which I suppose happens when you have a group of writers writing the game. Not that I contest what Gaider stated about the Rite of Tranquility, but it illustrates the problem of multiple writers and a lack of communication among them. I recall Gaider stating that what's said about apostates in the Magi Origin was inaccurate, as well as the mention of Prince Maric getting stabbed in "Something Wicked."

Therefore, it really doesn't have anything to do with Anders, it's a problem of the writers not communicating with each other about the lore of Dragon Age. It's another example of writers not being on the same page, which explains the references to mages being in servitude or in service to the Chantry, and Gaider saying that it isn't true. I wish there was more communication among the writers to avoid these inconsistencies.

Ever think for a second that Anders may have simply been wrong when he said that? 

Or perhaps bending the truth to support his position?

Unthinkable! Anders would never lie!

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wait what.. Are we seriously discussing wether or not Meredith had respect for the law? She had the utmost respect for the law, she also had an undying to her duty, which may sometimes have lead her to ignore some aspects of the law. But she was certainly not flouting.

Which is why Meredith ordered an act of genocide on the Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders committed, and proceeded to ignore the apostate responsible for the death of Grand Cleric Elthina.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Also, you can't tranquilize a mage without the First Enchanter giving permission.

Which explains why First Enchanter Irving said it wasn't up to him and that if it was up to him Jowan wouldn't be made tranquil, and why the Rite of Tranquility on Jowan was signed by Knight-Commander Greagoir.

He says it is out of his hands, because he has already signed the papers.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This isn't actually the first time the comments from a dev contradicted what was explicitly stated in the actual game, which I suppose happens when you have a group of writers writing the game. Not that I contest what Gaider stated about the Rite of Tranquility, but it illustrates the problem of multiple writers and a lack of communication among them. I recall Gaider stating that what's said about apostates in the Magi Origin was inaccurate, as well as the mention of Prince Maric getting stabbed in "Something Wicked."

Therefore, it really doesn't have anything to do with Anders, it's a problem of the writers not communicating with each other about the lore of Dragon Age. It's another example of writers not being on the same page, which explains the references to mages being in servitude or in service to the Chantry, and Gaider saying that it isn't true. I wish there was more communication among the writers to avoid these inconsistencies.

Ever think for a second that Anders may have simply been wrong when he said that? 

Or perhaps bending the truth to support his position?

Ever think for a second that this isn't the first time that David Gaider has stated that the game was incorrect about the lore of Dragon Age?

This happened when people were discussing what was said about apostates in the Magi Origin and again when incorrect information about King Maric's death was provided in "Something Wicked," and both times Gaider stated that what was said in the game was incorrect.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 18 avril 2011 - 01:14 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Unthinkable! Anders would never lie!

The way you talk about Anders, you'd think he called for an act of genocide against men, women, and children.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He says it is out of his hands, because he has already signed the papers.

Incorrect. Knight-Commander Greagoir signed the Rite of Tranquility against Jowan.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This isn't actually the first time the comments from a dev contradicted what was explicitly stated in the actual game, which I suppose happens when you have a group of writers writing the game. Not that I contest what Gaider stated about the Rite of Tranquility, but it illustrates the problem of multiple writers and a lack of communication among them. I recall Gaider stating that what's said about apostates in the Magi Origin was inaccurate, as well as the mention of Prince Maric getting stabbed in "Something Wicked."

Therefore, it really doesn't have anything to do with Anders, it's a problem of the writers not communicating with each other about the lore of Dragon Age. It's another example of writers not being on the same page, which explains the references to mages being in servitude or in service to the Chantry, and Gaider saying that it isn't true. I wish there was more communication among the writers to avoid these inconsistencies.

Ever think for a second that Anders may have simply been wrong when he said that? 

Or perhaps bending the truth to support his position?

Ever think for a second that this isn't the first time that David Gaider has stated that the game was incorrect about the lore of Dragon Age?

This happened when people were discussing what was said about apostates in the Magi Origin and again when incorrect information about King Maric's death was provided in "Something Wicked," and both times Gaider stated that what was said in the game was incorrect.

So Anders being wrong or misinformed is completely out of the question? What the F?
And does DA:O even mention the circumstances of Maric's death at all?