40 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

You know, this is a very interesting idea. Unfortunately, it's one I would absolutely despise.

I was skeptical of the whole framed narrative in a game from the beginning. I enjoy it in movies - The Usual Suspects is a GREAT movie, and the Princess Bride is quite fun (as you wish . . . . . . .) - but in an interactive game, in which I'm supposed to be the protaganist and the one making choices?

Sure, Varric could have been lying - a lot, a little, who knows. But "Varric lied" is an easy device to use to invalidate whatever a particular player did. We all played our Hawke's a certain way, and for some, that way was NOT to be some kind of mastermind. Anything that invalidates that would be extremely disappointing to me.

[TJPags]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

TJPags wrote...

... but in an interactive game, in which I'm supposed to be the protaganist and the one making choices?

Sure, Varric could have been lying - a lot, a little, who knows. But "Varric lied" is an easy device to use to invalidate whatever a particular player did. We all played our Hawke's a certain way, and for some, that way was NOT to be some kind of mastermind. Anything that invalidates that would be extremely disappointing to me.

You see, there are two kinds of RPG players. Those who play as themselves, and those who don't. You're the first kind, and I'm the second.

When I play RPGs, I'm telling a story. I'm the director of the movie, not the lead actor. The game's options are the script given to me. Honestly, if I wish to make my own choices as if I were in the game, then no game would be satisfying, no choice would be enough. I see no possibility even in the distant future for any RPG game to cater to all the choices that I would want to make. All I could do is what a movie director does- change a great script into a great movie; a great game out of the box, into a great playthrough of the game.

In short, I have been playing as Varric, while you (and perhaps most players) have been playing as Hawke. I guess I didn't do what was expected of me.

Oh, I don't know if I'd say you didn't do what was expected, or what was right.  You did what you enjoyed doing.  Which is what playing a game is all about, after all.

But think of this - you say you played a Varric.  So you were, in essence, choosing what to tell Cassandra, as you saw it, right?  Whereas I was choosing what Varric had to tell.  But what if it turns out that what you're Varric told Cassandra was . . .not what happened.  You directed the movie, edited it, and sent it to the studio . . .but what's shows up on screen is different.

Would you be annoyed?

That's how I read what you suggest, couched in terms of you being "Varric".  If I understand you correctly, anyway. 

[nuclearpengu1nn]

that would be a total slap in the face

[TJPags]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Oh, I don't know if I'd say you didn't do what was expected, or what was right.  You did what you enjoyed doing.  Which is what playing a game is all about, after all.

But think of this - you say you played a Varric.  So you were, in essence, choosing what to tell Cassandra, as you saw it, right?  Whereas I was choosing what Varric had to tell.  But what if it turns out that what you're Varric told Cassandra was . . .not what happened.  You directed the movie, edited it, and sent it to the studio . . .but what's shows up on screen is different.

Would you be annoyed?

Thanks! You understood me perfectly.

No, I wouldn't be annoyed- because in this case I am the director, the studio, the audience (unless I upload it as an LP on YouTube), and the MPAA. I think this is part of the reason why games are satisfying- it's the freedom that it gives you. All the creative restrictions (no nude scenes, etc.) were already stoically suffered by BioWare in your stead, and you're left to do whatever you want with what you have.

With the dialogue wheel in particular, it feels even more that I am actually working as a director with Hawke/Jo Wyatt as the star of the movie. It's as if I said to Hawke: "OK, now say something humorous" and Hawke ended up sounding like a total jerk. Then I sigh, say "let's roll it again" and reload the game to redo the scene. "Let's say it in a diplomatic tone this time shall we? Action!"

Edit: As for 'what really happened', I don't think there is any such thing. A game is a fiction, like a movie. Even if is based on someone's real life, it's still a form of creative media. I don't think any one fictional world would have more merit or validity than another simply because the authors label it as 'what really happened'.

For example, I have seen numerous fanfictions that surpass the original work. I will not hold the original author's version unconditionally above all others simply because the author declares it to be canon. Intellectual property is one thing, imaginative freedom is something else.

I see.  I think, then, that I may have misunderstood your first post.

I assumed you were talking about, say, DA3 changing something you actually did in the game, with the excuse "well, Varric lied".  THAT would annoy me to no end.  Not just for the change, but for the crappy, pre-packaged reason (Varric is an unreliable narrator and all).  And that's the scenario I was trying to describe, by saying you directed, edited, and delivered the movie, but what the audience saw was something else.

However, I now think you're referring to - do we really know what Hawke did at all?  Even the things we played, did Varric just make those up, or did they really happen?

If so, then THAT is a VERY interesting question.  That's something I may not be bothered by at all.  I'll need to think about that ., . . .

[Paeyne]

Brian Griffin: So, what you're saying is that what you experienced in the simulation didn't really happen, or even matter?
Stewie Griffin: Yes, that's correct.
Brian Griffin: So, it was sorta like a dream?
Stewie Griffin: No, it was a simulation.
Brian Griffin: Yes, but, theoretically, if someone watched the events of that simulation from start to finish, only to find out that none of it really happened, I mean... you don't think, that would, j-- be just like a giant middle finger to them?
Stewie Griffin: Well, hopefully, they would have enjoyed the ride.
Brian Griffin: I don't know, man. I think you'd ****** a lot of people off that way.
Stewie Griffin: Well, at least it didn't end like The Sopranos, where it just cut to black in mid-sen--

[soulrapist]

i say give the town to qunarry and leave that postule of a city to them

[Greta13]

What I wonder is why Varric is the one Cassandra talks to, I know he's the story telling ect. But wouldn't it make more sense to talk to Aveline? With her being the Captain of the Guards, upholder of truth and law, loyal citizen to Kirkwall and all that (unless you rivaled her, then she's off to Ferelden)
This doesn't really matter, but I can't help wondering.

[GenericPlayer2]

Varric is Keyser Soze?

[Silfren]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Seekers have the ability to discern truth from lies. You see this played out every time Cassandra calls Varric on something that either is an exaggeration or isn't true at all.

I thought it takes Blood Magic to read minds in Thedas? Time and again we see how easily fooled any Templar is- I do not see Seekers could be any different.

And honestly, the few times of Varric for lying/exaggerating that Cassandra called on are so bloodly obvious- "You're strong and handsome, and so very smart!" Don't tell me you need to be a Seeker to catch that one!

You're forgetting that Varric point-blank asks Cassandra if she's not worried about him just making it up, and she answers with a no-nonsense "not at all."  One wonders how she could be so assured that she'd get the true story from him and not just more lies, because unless you have a means of determining truth from lies, even threatening someone at knife-point won't guarantee the truth if you have only that person's word to go on.  It would seem she has some way of knowing.  Notice that aside from a few points where she interrupts, she doesn't question the veracity of his claims.  But she does seem to notice when he's telling the truth but omitting certain details.  Yes, the thing about Varric's one-man assault on his brother was an obvious lie...although interestingly enough she didn't interrupt him until the end of it.  But the opening bit about Hawke and sibling, was less obvious, and even though the actual story of Flemeth's dragon save would seem just as far-fetched, she accepts that version as true. 

From the codex entry on Seekers:

"It’s said they are immune to a blood mage’s mind control and possess the ability to read minds or erase memories, but this is likely exaggeration."

Yes, it's true that codices carry the biases of their in-story writers, and yes it's true that that codex itself states that the claim is likely exaggeration.  However, it does prove that there is at least a belief that Seekers can read minds, and the interaction between Cassandra and Varric bears this out, so it would seem that there's some truth to that belief. 

It would explain why a Seeker would take it upon herself to interrogate Varric.  If Seekers are immune to mind control and have the ability to read minds, that makes them ideal interrogators when having the full truth of a matter is decidedly urgent. 

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2011 - 07:10 .

[Chiramu]

Then the whole game is a lie! O_O

[Maria Caliban]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

What if our perception of Hawke as a "glorified errand boy/girl" "with no particular talent" is but a facade, a camouflage that fooled everyone, including Varric, while in fact Hawke is the scheming mastermind social climber that Cassandra has suspected them to be in the very beginning?

That would have been a great story.

iOnlySignIn wrote...

From the codex entry on Seekers:

"It’s said they are immune to a blood mage’s mind control and possess the ability to read minds or erase memories, but this is likely exaggeration."

Any distinguished Templar should be able to resist mind control (which is why Meredith was surprised and disgusted that Cullen appeared to had been mind-controlled).

Of course Templars can erase memories- they can just make you Tranquil.

The mind-reading part, though, is most likely propaganda by the Seekers to scare their opponents. Not unless there are Mages working for the Seekers (which is quite possible IMO). Cassandra is apparently no Mage.

1. Being a tranquil doesn't erase your memories.

2. Blood magic can erase memories.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 mai 2011 - 03:01 .