140 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

I bash alot of stuff, but I like the characters. I just think there should have been alot more to them, more banter, more interraction. Non combat quests with each character. Less retardo land side quests and just more struff with the companions would have been good. The voice actors for all the companions did a marvelous job. Aveline really grew on me she is a hardcore woman and gauranteed the sexiest when you get her alone (if you could that is). I liked how she was outside of the romance options. I also loved how she was not oversexualized.

[PsychoBlonde]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Of them all Fenris was the only one that didn't move me one way or the other. I found him both hard to like and hard to hate.

I think the reason why I like Fenris is that he's apologetic about being so ANGRY.  (Not to mention he has legitimate reasons for being pissed off and emo.)  He tries REALLY hard to be fair to MageHawke, and while he doesn't always succeed, he owns up to it.  I like that quality in people a LOT.  He's the only NPC in DA2 who seems to be really *struggling* with his nature, and struggling well.  Everyone else seems determined to forge ahead into their own stupidity no matter what.  Except maybe Varric, who isn't the conflicted sort.

[nightscrawl]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

All of them are pretty much irrelevant to the plot.

...

I think this post misses the general point of characters such as this in the game. If you compare story development in games to that of other media (movies, tv, books), you will see how side characters are important.

1. Relationship building: Through interactions with companions you flesh out the personality of the main character. Relationships with family and friends are there to give the main character support, stress, or something to protect. In short, they add to the goals (or impeded the goals) of the main character beyond the overall plot of the story. And regardless of how you, the player, ultimately feel about any one companion, the point was that you did feel something about them which supposedly carried over into the game, so it was ultimately successful.

2. Expository dialogue: This technique is used many times throughout other media and can be done well or poorly. When you have the audience thrust into an environment they might not be familiar with (science, military operations, government, etc) there is usually another person there who can give an outsider's opinion, or (typically) ask questions. Things are explained to this outsider and to the audience simultaneously, often these will be things that are pertinent to major events in the story. Sometimes, the main character will be the outsider, and has to have things explained throughout the story by helpful characters, or villains who don't know when to shut up.

In DA2 specifically, the expository dialogue is offered mainly by Fenris and Anders. These two present facts and opinions on mages, templars, and the way Thedas and its countries work (or fail to work) regarding them. You can think of them analogous to Spock and McCoy in Star Trek. Spock presents the logical view of a problem, while McCoy the emotional view. Kirk then takes from both and makes a decision.

All of the companions and quests in DA2 regarding the mage/templar problem are there to give you, the player behind Hawke, information. What you do with the information, and the opinions you form from it, is all up to you. It works rather well, if forum posts about the issue are any judge.

[The_11thDoctor]

Dormiglione wrote...

You know, everyone has his own likes and dislikes. Myself, i didnt like Fenris.

Agreed. He was too much of a drama queen. Anders had his touchy issues, but I thought Fen was worst by several degrees. I kept both out of my party though. Anders was the weakest mage I never wanted.

[Recycled Human]

Eloquent point nightscrawl. I think an argument can be also made that each character holds a dynamic that makes them come off as real and alive.

Also, I feel a lot of these points mirror the gripe people have about the story. The city itself is alive in the overarching sense that the goings on have dire effects for the city of Kirkwall. The story was as much to tell the unrest of that city to provide an explanation for why the mage revolt was so powerful and what exactly hawke's role was in it. Had Varric skipped straight to the Mage/Templar conflict the story might not have had the believability backing it. But that's a different discussion entirely.

[King Cousland]

On the contrary to them being irrelevent, they were far too relevent, to the point where most major plot points focused around them, and not Hawke, creating either dislike or apathy to both.

For example, Act III just became a segment about how Anders and Vengeance were finally pushed over the edge, and Hawke was powerless to stop them. In fact, when you have a whole game centred around an omniscient companion, then you immediately take the focus away from the protagnist (don't get me wrong, I liked Varric and most of the other companions, but I was apathetic towards them, unlike in DA:O).

[kglaser]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Anders is the worst character in the history of games.

This is a bold statement.
You have inspired me to make a list..

[Jaldaric]

How about "Anders is one of the worst characters in the history of games?"

I only liked Varric and Aveline. Well, tolerated Aveline. I hated the rest of them. Fenris' VA was wasted and would of been put to better use as the voice of male hawke. Same with merill. The VA was wasted there too, and would of been better as the female hawke.

Modifié par Jaldaric, 19 juin 2011 - 03:56 .

[Haristo]

well...

1) you brother is a douchebag. I really hate this character

2) your sister is hot (white and asian versions... the black one looked weird...) and she was charismatic. I liked her... sounds like the game has been written to play as a warrior then they patched Carver for the mage...

3) Aveline is a little boyish but she is also pretty interresting to follow, her goals and motives sometimes differs from yours but she still is pretty comprehensive.

4) Isabela is a ****. Nuff said. However she is a nicely written ****...

5) Anders is a poorly made ''Freedom Fighter'' but at least his motives are clear. the ''Justice'' part is also well written...

6) Varric is a loyal dude, kind of like Aveline, your opinions differs but he's comprehensive.

7) Fenris is a ****ing Final Fantasy Character. he sucks and does not fit into the game.

8) Merill was cute and somehow innocent. it was kind of refreshing to see an elf who doesn't think he knows everything...

9) Prince DLC is weird... Another alienated by religious... this is the type of persons I avoid IRL and I had the same strange feeling with him so... well written !


so... Carver and Fenris Sucks.
Anders sucks too but less than them
the rest was cool.

[kglaser]

Haristo wrote...

well...

1) you brother is a douchebag. I really hate this character

word.  We should have been given the option to sacrifice him to a High Dragon or something.  What a jerk.

[Speakeasy13]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Anders is the worst character in the history of games.

Oh c'mon he's not even the worst character in his own game. That would be Sebastian.

[GodWood]

IMO Carver was the best companion in the game.
Shame we only had him for one Act.

[Speakeasy13]

maxernst wrote...

I actually thought the companions had a lot more to do with the plot than the ones in DA:O.  Other than Alistair, none of the characters in DA:O have anything to do with the main story line, other than Morrigan offering the Dark Ritual at the end.   Whereas Anders actions are pivotal to the 3rd act, Isabela is important to the 2nd act, Bethany/Carver are potentially a significant motivating factors for Hawke's choices in the 3rd act, Varric's personal quest is tied to an object of significance to the main plot, Aveline's position as Captain of the Guard is relevant to a couple of main plot questlines.  I can't speak for Sebastian (but he's a DLC character), but all the other characters except Fenris have clear ties to the main quest lines of either Act 2 or Act 3. If you didn't have the companion characters in DA2, there'd be hardly any game left.

Maybe bcuz there isnt much of a main plot then? Isabela didn't need to be there in Act 1 and Act 3, Anders in Acr 2... etc. Let's face it, they came in strong but there's little no character development during from and towards their respective points of significance anyway.

In DA:O many characters are at least intergral to a certain section of the whole army building process. Also you build an emotional tie with them, knowing that under that sense of urgency, you can't afford to lose any of them... well maybe except for Wayne. Who annoys the crap out of everyone else.

[Speakeasy13]

Recycled Human wrote...

I think they did a great job with the cast! I'm shocked people thought they were one dimensional. At their core Isabella, Fenris and Merrill are very dynamic and by the end of the game it's rather out in the open. Bethany has an extreme swing (carver as well I assume though I haven't bothered with a Mage yet) especially if you take her to the deep roads and she survives. Anders 'may' have an excuse with his being an abomination of vengeance. For what that's worth, but even he shows a 'morrigan-like' amount of breadth if you stay true to him the whole time. By the end he almost sounds remorseful for not telling you. (my first playthrough he remained defiant).

Isabela is pretty much the only "dynamic" person whose personality you can interact with at all. Inner conflict is not the same as dynamic.

Fenris will always be a bitter mage-hater, and Merrill will always be the naive bloodmage. Bethany will always be your spoiled little sister (the swing being different aspect of her spoiledness). Anders will always be the traiteous freedom fighter. No amount of interaction can change those core parts of their personality. And DA2 doesn't exactly take pain to show us who they can be besides that.

No one likes feeling helpless when it comes to making friends. I personaly am not so bothered about the inability to change them fundamentally, but the inablity to reason with them. None of them could interact with you in that manner or even listen to your point of view. That's not how companionship works IRL.

[Chromie]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Anders is the worst character in the history of Bioware games.

Fix'd He was great and sarcastic in Awakening but DAII he was just terrible.

Modifié par Ringo12, 19 juin 2011 - 09:01 .

[Huntress]

To Haristo:
You and I agree in number 9.. that was/is a really wierd character. And like you I avoid this type of people.

[Teddie Sage]

The only ones I hated were all the characters who opposed Anders... Specially Sebastian and Elthina.

[quaresma_Pt]

Ringo12 wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Anders is the worst character in the history of Bioware games.

Fix'd He was great and sarcastic in Awakening but DAII he was just terrible.

 Agree. He should  kill himself after dragon age2.I hope so.

Modifié par quaresma_Pt, 19 juin 2011 - 05:30 .

[errant_knight]

Cyberarmy wrote...

İt is a matter of personel choice. We dont like them, you do..

Pretty much. I simply didn't find the the DA2 characters as likable, interesting, or engaging, nor did they evoke the same level of emotional response. I suspect that I could have found Varric and Aveline as engaging if we'd been allowed to converse with them in the DA:O way and been able to get to know them on a more personal level. As it was, I just didn't care that much about any of them, and found many actively irritatiing. Sebastian was okay, but the shoe-horned fake romance made him appear ridiculous, but then everything about the romances was a 'no-go', for me. 'Get away from me, you nutbar!' isn't the reaction I look for in a romance.

[ISI-Society]

nightscrawl wrote:

If you compare story development in games to that of other media (movies, tv, books), you will see how side characters are important.

1. Relationship building: Through interactions with companions you flesh out the personality of the main character. Relationships with family and friends are there to give the main character support, stress, or something to protect. In short, they add to the goals (or impeded the goals) of the main character beyond the overall plot of the story. And regardless of how you, the player, ultimately feel about any one companion, the point was that you did feel something about them which supposedly carried over into the game, so it was ultimately successful.

2. Expository dialogue: This technique is used many times throughout other media and can be done well or poorly. When you have the audience thrust into an environment they might not be familiar with (science, military operations, government, etc) there is usually another person there who can give an outsider's opinion, or (typically) ask questions. Things are explained to this outsider and to the audience simultaneously, often these will be things that are pertinent to major events in the story. Sometimes, the main character will be the outsider, and has to have things explained throughout the story by helpful characters, or villains who don't know when to shut up.

In DA2 specifically, the expository dialogue is offered mainly by Fenris and Anders. These two present facts and opinions on mages, templars, and the way Thedas and its countries work (or fail to work) regarding them. You can think of them analogous to Spock and McCoy in Star Trek. Spock presents the logical view of a problem, while McCoy the emotional view. Kirk then takes from both and makes a decision.

All of the companions and quests in DA2 regarding the mage/templar problem are there to give you, the player behind Hawke, information. What you do with the information, and the opinions you form from it, is all up to you. It works rather well, if forum posts about the issue are any judge.

Probably the most cogent post so far in this thread, and agreed on all counts.

However, that doesn't detract in any way from some of the criticisms leveled at DA2, regarding the ill-advised decision to 'truncate' the player's ability to interact with their companions. That, to me, ran directly contrary to one of the central purposes/attractions of RPG gaming.

Speakeasy13 raised a similar point:

No one likes feeling helpless when it comes to making friends. I personally am not so bothered about the inability to change them fundamentally, but the inability to reason with them. None of them could interact with you in that manner or even listen to your point of view. That's not how companionship works IRL.

Well said.

The truncated interactions/romances are one the areas that I felt DA2 took a noticeable (and unwelcome) step backwards from DAO. As much as I appreciated the significantly improved and refined combat mechanics and skill trees of DA2, I found myself missing the better and more varied role-playing interactions of DAO even more.

Looking ahead - I thing that if DA3 can combine the better interactions of DAO with the generally improved combat/tactics system of DA2, and not repeat DA2's silliness with recycled maps, they'll have a winner on their hands.

That said, I do have some nits regarding individual characters in DA2, but I'll save that for a subsequent post, since this one is getting a bit long.

Modifié par ISI-Society, 19 juin 2011 - 05:45 .

[Recycled Human]

What is the core of Fenris' personality? Is it hating mages, or hating slavery, or is it hating himself for choosing the easy road as a slave instead of holding true to his own needs and desires? I argue that mages to Fenris are a scapegoat to the true underlying problem; that when the chips were down he picked lap dog over rebel. If you were his friend and the chips are down again he chooses to rely on his hatred again but when confronted about it he changes his tune because he trusts you as a friend. That is a dynamic change to me.

Most (if not all) of the characters have similar core changes I believe. In fact there's even a quest for each called 'questioning beliefs'; while I'm not sure what affects their decision I think it's rather dynamic that they falter at all.

And certainly, the cast is anything but one dimensional.

As for how things work IRL. I don't know anyone but the emotionally gullible that will change for someone else, and even they aren't really changing for you. I think Da2 (of the list of rpgs I personally have played) is the closest we've come to characters that know what your beliefs and opinions are. Ex. Pro mage and anders is very supportive and interested (thank you for caring); anti mage and anders is very snide and reproachful (not that you'd care).

[Ianamus]

I liked the charcters, but I think that I would have preferred them If I had been able to have DAO style conversations with them.

"Merrill, what was it like travelling to Ferelden?" oh... I can't ask you. "What was your chidhood like?" Ok... can't ask you that either... but there is a vague reference in your codex to it!

"Aveline, we were both at Ostagar, let's talk about it..." Ok, no option there "How did you and Wesley meet?"....... nope, can't talk about that.... what can we talk about?

Modifié par EJ107, 19 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[Perles75]

The only problem I have with some characters (namely, Anders, Fenris and Sebastian) is that they don't evolve their point of view (Fenris: mages baaaad!, Anders: templars baaaad!) even if ten years of game and various quests give them the possibility to see that both sides are not just black and white. In some dialogues I really wanted to shake the screen and say "how could you say that?? didn't you remember what happened when..."
And I'm saying this even if I love Anders as a character.

In general, however, characters are well designed and more complex than the majority of the DAO companions. I dislike some of them (Merrill), love others, but this is what well-rounded characters should inspire.
I think the character bashing comes from this new fashion of hating everything that is DA2.

[Cody211282]

I only hate Anders and Fenris, because they are horrible.

Modifié par Cody211282, 19 juin 2011 - 06:09 .

[Perles75]

ISI-Society wrote...

However, that doesn't detract in any way from some of the criticisms leveled at DA2, regarding the ill-advised decision to 'truncate' the player's ability to interact with their companions. That, to me, ran directly contrary to one of the central purposes/attractions of RPG gaming.

The supposed greater interactive possibility of DAO seems to me mostly fake. In the sense: it's true that you could speak with your companions at any time, but usually, after the two or three dialogues that really matter (that in DA2 are just trasfered to the companions' homes, not eliminated) it is just the same lines repeated all the time.
I don't consider this an "enhanced interaction".