317 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

Fenris's
role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better
results than the Chantry.

That said, he's not tied into the plot as much, but that's why he's optional.

I see, and I've argued so much before - framed as a theory as to his primary role in any case.

However his stoicism and personal issues undermine that role doesn't it? Anders is passionate, focused, determined, single-minded. Fenris clearly has a counterargument to present, and I wouldn't dispute that for a second, nor would I even try to gloss over his position as not compelling - because it is - but it just felt to me that Fenris never really pushed the issue the way Anders did, never acted to the extend Anders did, and never argued as forcefully as Anders did.

In a sense, I suppose the best way I could describe Fenris in this role would be to imagine Anders as a large fire, and Fenris as a small bucket of water tossed onto that fire.

While Anders is out writing manifestos and planning terrorist attacks Fenris is... worrying - justifiably, of course - about his own issues and drinking all the wine in Danarius' friends mansion. Which I understand is in character for him, but it seemed to make him ineffective as a foil for Anders and the mage freedom position at large.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 mai 2011 - 04:21 .

[mesmerizedish]

David Gaider wrote...

I can see that. I would say, however, that this is a spot where the overall story and the characters sort of blend together. I think some people treat them as the same thing, and that's probably fine because they tend to inform each other... if you're connected to the characters, you'll connect to the story. If you're connected with the story, you'll connect with the characters.

In many ways, the DA2 story is pretty unforgiving. There isn't a lot of room for empathy. That is, of course, going to be subjective like you said-- but I can definitely see how someone might not connect with one or both. That's not to say there's a "right" way to do it, or that we set out to write some kind of existential drama... but we were definitely getting away from "adventure romp" and the lighter tone associated with that. For some people, that's not necessarily a good thing.

Well, (and this is only my opinion, mind you) the story, the characters, and the fifth-season Angel tone of dread that coated it all worked really well. I think you know you've taken some flak for Act III (it was definitely the weakest of the three), but the ideas are all there and they're very good. It all felt like a punch to the gut, and I loved that! 

But don't do it for DAIII. Two miserable* games in a row is just too much. You can do depressing again in the fourth game, but the next one needs to feel more triumphant than DAII did.




*In terms of how it made me feel as the audience of a story; I'm in no way saying it's a "miserable failute" or anything.

[Beerfish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This might just be the unexpected amount of booze in my system talking but...

...DG, I'm seriously having a hard time figuring out what Fenris' role in the story was in DA2. I recall a post of yours from a while back about how all companions - especially and specifically Fenris - were getting one in this game... and he doesnt seem to have one.

Honestly, he reminds me a lot of... Thane, in that he's there - has his fans, and indeed is definitely appealing to some folks, but could be removed entirely from the narrative and... nothing would change.

Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

DG beat me to the punch as I was going to post almost exactly what he posted.  In at least half of my play throughs Fenris says exactly what I'm thinking in regards to the mage/templar issue.

[IanPolaris]

Quite frankly, I think Fenris is just as untrustworthy a source and just as radical as Anders if not more so, just from the opposite side of the spectrum, so I hardly think he should be viewed as a reliable guide or 'voice of reason' about Tevinter, or magic in general. Just saying.

-Polaris

[Beerfish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

Fenris's
role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the
group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the
voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for
those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in
Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better
results than the Chantry.

That said, he's not tied into the plot as much, but that's why he's optional.

I see, and I've argued so much before - framed as a theory as to his primary role in any case.

However in that role his stoicism undermines that role doesn't it? Anders is passionate, focused, determined, single-minded. Fenris clearly has a counterargument to present, and I wouldn't dispute that for a second, nor would I even try to gloss over his position as not compelling - because it is - but it just felt to me that Fenris never really pushed the issue the way Anders did, never acted to the extend Anders did, and never argued as forcefully as Anders did.

In a sense, I suppose the best way I could describe Fenris in this role would be to imagine Anders as a large fire, and Fenris as a small bucket of water tossed onto that fire.

While Anders is out writing manifestos and planning terrorist attacks Fenris is... worrying - justifiably, of course - about his own issues and drinking all the wine in Danarius' friends mansion. Which I understand is in character for him, but it seemed to make him ineffective as a foil for Anders and the mage freedom position at large.

While Anders is blathering on spewing venom on his issue Fenris makes valid observations from past experience and logic.  He has no big stake in this present conflict other than making biting but pretty fair comments.  Even when he annoyed me by picking on Merrill he was right in his observations.

[Paeyne]

David Gaider wrote...

Paeyne wrote...
It does come down to a question of empathy for me.  It is because I felt so little empathy for the companions that I have so little connection to them.  Whether it is my reaction to the writing or the writing itself is a matter of debate.  Like many things, the answer is probably some where in the middle.

I can see that. I would say, however, that this is a spot where the overall story and the characters sort of blend together. I think some people treat them as the same thing, and that's probably fine because they tend to inform each other... if you're connected to the characters, you'll connect to the story. If you're connected with the story, you'll connect with the characters.

In many ways, the DA2 story is pretty unforgiving. There isn't a lot of room for empathy. That is, of course, going to be subjective like you said-- but I can definitely see how someone might not connect with one or both. That's not to say there's a "right" way to do it, or that we set out to write some kind of existential drama... but we were definitely getting away from "adventure romp" and the lighter tone associated with that. For some people, that's not necessarily a good thing.

Certainly the story and the characters are connected.  I found I connected to the plot far more than i connected to the characters.  Perhaps even more than Origins.

I disagree that a story necessarily needs "lightness" to promote empathy.  In fact, in tragedy we often see people for who they truly are.  Many great stories are based on situations where they not only have little chance of winning but little chance of surviving.  How Hawke faces his mother's death or how Alistair faces the death of Duncan tells us something about them.  In the case of the companions, I never really learned much about them beyond the superficial and their prescribed agenda.

I am not really looking for roses, cards and flowers, I am just looking for a genuineness that I felt was lacking.

The story was good in many ways, but to be honest I wouldn't care one way or another if I saw any of these characters again in future stories.

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Quite frankly, I think Fenris is just as untrustworthy a source and just as radical as Anders if not more so, just from the opposite side of the spectrum, so I hardly think he should be viewed as a reliable guide or 'voice of reason' about Tevinter, or magic in general. Just saying.

-Polaris

Other than like actually seeing tevinter and what happens there 1st hand.  He has no major stake in lieing and no massive agenda, unlike Anders who has a huge agenda from day one.

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I see, and I've argued so much before - framed as a theory as to his primary role in any case.

However in that role his stoicism undermines that role doesn't it? Anders is passionate, focused, determined, single-minded. Fenris clearly has a counterargument to present, and I wouldn't dispute that for a second, nor would I even try to gloss over his position as not compelling - because it is - but it just felt to me that Fenris never really pushed the issue the way Anders did, never acted to the extend Anders did, and never argued as forcefully as Anders did.

In a sense, I suppose the best way I could describe Fenris in this role would be to imagine Anders as a large fire, and Fenris as a small bucket of water tossed onto that fire.

While Anders is out writing manifestos and planning terrorist attacks Fenris is... worrying - justifiably, of course - about his own issues and drinking all the wine in Danarius' friends mansion. Which I understand is in character for him, but it seemed to make him ineffective as a foil for Anders and the mage freedom position at large.

The best response I could think of to this is "Still waters run deep". There's a lot of conflict in Fenris, and it really starts to bleed through if you look at his attitude towards everything. He provides that much-needed anti-mage counterpoint from the party, and has sufficient experience to trump any sort of handwaving.

After examining Fenris specifically, I also thought of his story as a journey to maturity. He starts off much more impulsive, and demanding things be done now now now. As Hawke builds a relationship with him, he realizes that just trying to get his way doesn't always lead to what he really wants, and by act 3, he's changed some. That makes him a much more interesting character to me, despite the fact he never really changes his stance on mages or slavery.

[ipgd]

Normal people are horrifically boring. I much, much prefer romances that are utterly awful because it's actually interesting. If anything, I'm worried that DA3 is going to have trouble topping DA2; after My Boyfriend Is A Terrorist, I'm afraid I won't be able to get hard unless at least one of the love interests reveals themselves to be a secret pedophile rapist and also my character's father (and also secretly a man, if she were leading me to believe she was female up to this point).* Don't disappoint, Bioware.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In a sense, I suppose the best way I could describe Fenris in this role would be to imagine Anders as a large fire, and Fenris as a small bucket of water tossed onto that fire.

My main problem with Fenris was that he was so damn... reasonable about everything, considering what he'd been through. He's basically that old lazy, passive racist who nobody cares about because he was a war vet and everyone gets it. I honestly wish he'd actually taken some sort of action against Merrill/Anders/Mage!Hawke at some point.



* I would fully and unironically enjoy this.

Modifié par ipgd, 14 mai 2011 - 04:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

I agree to the extent that Fenris was saying what I was thinking, but he delivers his sarcasm or commentary - often in banter or in the background of some dialogue Hawke is having with an NPC - and then does nothing about it.

Just to pose a counterexample, why not have say, a Tali/Legion moment between Anders and Fenris? Or have the latter take his position beyond simple opinion and in to decisive action?

This is all just speculation of course, Fenris as the anti-mage companion has always been my primary interpretation, but in that sense I didn't think he was effective compared to Anders.

That being said, I've had folks in the Fenris thread argue that Fenris' role was not to represent the generally speaking "anti-mage" position so, as weird as that stance seems to me, I left the initial question open ended.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 mai 2011 - 04:27 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fenris isn't much of a radical. Even when he hates mages, he mostly wants to be left alone to... stew.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fenris isn't much of a radical. Even when he hates mages, he mostly wants to be left alone to... stew.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Quite frankly, I think Fenris is just as untrustworthy a source and just as radical as Anders if not more so, just from the opposite side of the spectrum, so I hardly think he should be viewed as a reliable guide or 'voice of reason' about Tevinter, or magic in general. Just saying.

-Polaris

Other than like actually seeing tevinter and what happens there 1st hand.  He has no major stake in lieing and no massive agenda, unlike Anders who has a huge agenda from day one.

Fenris has an unreasonable hate of magic and mages to the point of blaming magic for everything wrong with his life and the lives of others (a gross exxageration at best).  Even HE admits to that to the point that he can't evaluate them fairly.  That IMHO severely damages his role as spokesman so I dissent with the comments DG made prior.

-Polaris

[ipgd]

IanPolaris wrote...

Fenris has an unreasonable hate of magic and mages to the point of blaming magic for everything wrong with his life and the lives of others (a gross exxageration at best).  Even HE admits to that to the point that he can't evaluate them fairly.  That IMHO severely damages his role as spokesman so I dissent with the comments DG made prior.

-Polaris

Whether or not he's a "reliable witness" doesn't really have much to do with it. He's the representative of An Opinion, which doesn't have to be correct or accurately sourced.

And his hatred of magic isn't really that unreasonable, given it was to blame for pretty much everything wrong with his life. In fact, I had trouble putting any blame at all on Fenris for feeling how he did, and when coupled with his non-confrontational inaction about it, it sort of contributed to my general meh feeling about him.

[mesmerizedish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Fenris has an unreasonable hate of magic and mages to the point of blaming magic for everything wrong with his life and the lives of others (a gross exxageration at best).  Even HE admits to that to the point that he can't evaluate them fairly.  That IMHO severely damages his role as spokesman so I dissent with the comments DG made prior.

-Polaris

Fenris is as reliable a spokesperson for anti-mage sentimant as Anders is for the pro-mage side of things.

[IanPolaris]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fenris has an unreasonable hate of magic and mages to the point of blaming magic for everything wrong with his life and the lives of others (a gross exxageration at best).  Even HE admits to that to the point that he can't evaluate them fairly.  That IMHO severely damages his role as spokesman so I dissent with the comments DG made prior.

-Polaris

Fenris is as reliable a spokesperson for anti-mage sentimant as Anders is for the pro-mage side of things.

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

[mesmerizedish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

I do, and I'm not sure anyone is suggesting we trust Fenris without reservation.

[ipgd]

IanPolaris wrote...

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

When did anyone say Fenris was anything approaching a reliable/impartial source?

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fenris has an unreasonable hate of magic and mages to the point of blaming magic for everything wrong with his life and the lives of others (a gross exxageration at best).  Even HE admits to that to the point that he can't evaluate them fairly.  That IMHO severely damages his role as spokesman so I dissent with the comments DG made prior.

-Polaris

Fenris is as reliable a spokesperson for anti-mage sentimant as Anders is for the pro-mage side of things.

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

I'm sure Fenris exaggerates his treatment at the hands of magic and mages as much as Anders exaggerates the cruelties of the templars to the circle mages.

[IanPolaris]

ipgd wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

When did anyone say Fenris was anything approaching a reliable/impartial source?

See DG quote from prior page.  Enough said.

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not so sure that either "exaggerates" however given the nature of their experiences they both represent "outliers" or atypical positions.

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not so sure that either "exaggerates" however given the nature of their experiences they both represent "outliers" or atypical positions.

I can actually agree with this.

-Polaris

[ipgd]

IanPolaris wrote...

ipgd wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

When did anyone say Fenris was anything approaching a reliable/impartial source?

See DG quote from prior page.  Enough said.

-Polaris

All what he said indicates is that Fenris feels a certain way about the issue based on his personal experiences and that he represents an opinion in the mage/templar conflict. Gaider is the only one who knows how much of what he says is accurate and how much of it is hyperbolic, but since it's pretty obviously written to accommodate doubt and ambiguity, he's not going to tell us.

[Super_Fr33k]

Firstly, I take issue with the OP's simplistic takedowns of the romance options. Of course they're all screwed up. They're *Dragon Age* characters. You can't possibly be normal in such a dysfunctional world. Even a person who seems perfectly well-adjusted would be weird just for handling so much mayhem so easily, lol.

Some people like the idea of romancing a hot mess more than others, of course. I respect that you might not be attracted to the romance options. That's fine. As Gaider pointed out, romance is idiosyncratic, and no one person can appeal to all people. But it's excessive to say there's nothing likeable, and ultimately loveable, about each character. I, personally, don't mesh well with Fenris, Aveline or Sebastian, but there are things I like and dislike about each of them. (Disclaimer: I haven't romanced them or Anders, I'm just commenting on their personalities.)

A more valid criticism, IMO, is that the romances lacked depth. I would have been happier with fewer romance options with more detail and more dialogue. I think people need to accept that quality over quantity should win out for party-member romance. If, in an alternate universe, this had cost me romance with Isabela or Merrill, so be it. If you don't see unique aspects of a character during romance, what's the point of it? I feel similarly about ME2, though most playthroughs I swore off new romance for Liara. I'm an old-fashioned, one-blue-chick-but-not-technically-a-chick kind of guy.

Of course, the other important part of this thread is whether the romanceable party members' causes/crimes were tolerable. This is a matter of role-playing perspective, not a definitive statement that can be made. My personal opinion is that Merrill is, of course, naive, but it was premature to say whether she could actually fix the Eluvian. Is it a terrible risk? Yes, but accomplishing anything in Thedas requires terrible risk. I don't differ with her over risking demonic possession so much as her inefficiency in trying to help her people. The Keeper's job, above recovering heritage, is to protect and strengthen the Dalish. I think Merrill, and really all other Dalish, make a mistake when they do not try to make the best of their present resources and knowledge. Much like the dwarves, they search for their future in their past, and, as such, they will always frustrate and inhibit themselves.

I can go down the list for everyone else, but, then again, whether you're attracted to someone, and whether you think they're making a mistake, are two different questions. Love isn't simple. I'd imagine some people romanced Anders, but still killed him when he blew up the Chantry.

[upsettingshorts]

ipgd wrote...
Gaider is the only one who knows how much of what he says is accurate and how much of it is hyperbolic, but since it's pretty obviously written to accommodate doubt and ambiguity, he's not going to tell us.

What if we bother him as much and as often as the "OMG ALISTAIR GETTING MAD AT THE LANDSMEET IS OOC" people?