182 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

You'll have to pardon me for taking the argument that they (intentionally) wrote Flemeth as corny comic relief with a grain of salt.

They intentionally wrote her as an absurd character with unclear goals and motivations and a markedly alien thought process. Bizarre lines like that are in line with her character.

Modifié par ipgd, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:05 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Ah, so DA2 is in fact a tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of cheesy romance dreck, failed attempts at humor by video game writers, and so on. So it's like the Duke Nukem of fantasy RPGs

(Honestly, I don't think that DA:O is exactly Psychonauts, either. But the writing there gets the job done, and clearly doesn't in DA2).

Objection, Reducto ad absurdum. You're trying to take a single part of a much larger story and conflating that with the entirety of the game. You couldn't be purposely trying to misrepresent the game for your own purposes, could you?

Reducto ad absurdum?

And "for my own purposes?" I'm not sure what you think my "own purposes" might be. My purposes (as you will see if you read back in the tread) are to discuss what elements of DA2 did and didn't work, and why I think that means that future Bioware games could absolutely use elements of DA2 (like the frame narrative and the smaller focus) if they were executed better than it was. Sadly, this discussion got kind of sidetracked because nothing makes fanbois rage like suggesting a game in a series that they like was below par in certain respects.

[upsettingshorts]

Ah yes, "fanboy rage."  

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

RinjiRenee wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Ah, so DA2 is in fact a tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of cheesy romance dreck, failed attempts at humor by video game writers, and so on. So it's like the Duke Nukem of fantasy RPGs

(Honestly, I don't think that DA:O is exactly Psychonauts, either. But the writing there gets the job done, and clearly doesn't in DA2).

Anders' romance dialogue was meant to incite the stereotypical, idealistic and over-the-top feelings of romance because he was a romantic character, in the broader sense of the word.  Everything about his beliefs were extremely idealistic and romantic, so this came out in the "cheesey" romance dialogue he throws at you.  And look where his idealism got him in the end -- deconstruction.

Just because you were off-put or sickened by his dialogue does not mean that it was bad writing -- in fact, it achieved the very goal that was intended.

I'd be more inclined to buy that if there were non-dreck romance subplots in DA2. Ask yourself the question: "could I apply the argument I am using to excuse the bad writing in this game to excuse Twilight's bad writing?" If the answer is yes, there's probably something wrong with your argument, no?

[hoorayforicecream]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Ah, so DA2 is in fact a tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of cheesy romance dreck, failed attempts at humor by video game writers, and so on. So it's like the Duke Nukem of fantasy RPGs

(Honestly, I don't think that DA:O is exactly Psychonauts, either. But the writing there gets the job done, and clearly doesn't in DA2).

Objection, Reducto ad absurdum. You're trying to take a single part of a much larger story and conflating that with the entirety of the game. You couldn't be purposely trying to misrepresent the game for your own purposes, could you?

Reducto ad absurdum?

And "for my own purposes?" I'm not sure what you think my "own purposes" might be. My purposes (as you will see if you read back in the tread) are to discuss what elements of DA2 did and didn't work, and why I think that means that future Bioware games could absolutely use elements of DA2 (like the frame narrative and the smaller focus) if they were executed better than it was. Sadly, this discussion got kind of sidetracked because nothing makes fanbois rage like suggesting a game in a series that they like was below par in certain respects.

Nobody's raging. You're using specious and fallacious arguments, as many people have been pointing out, when all that you've really been saying is "I didn't like it, and I wish they would get different people to make it". That's not particularly constructive, because it doesn't address any of the actual issues of why you didn't like it, and what might be done to make it better.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Nobody's raging.

Lol

[upsettingshorts]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nobody's raging. You're using specious and fallacious arguments, as many people have been pointing out, when all that you've really been saying is "I didn't like it, and I wish they would get different people to make it". That's not particularly constructive, because it doesn't address any of the actual issues of why you didn't like it, and what might be done to make it better.

You clearly don't understand that any response other than "You're right, it did suck!" is fanboy rage.  This is the internet. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:17 .

[leggywillow]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
I'd be more inclined to buy that if there were non-dreck romance subplots in DA2. Ask yourself the question: "could I apply the argument I am using to excuse the bad writing in this game to excuse Twilight's bad writing?" If the answer is yes, there's probably something wrong with your argument, no?

Except you can't.  Twilight plays it completely straight and wants the audience to view it as a good example of a healthy relationship.  DA2 plays out Anders' romance to its inevitable and depressing conclusion, hence the "deconstruction" label.  But ipgd has said this far more eloquently than I have in the past, so I'll just leave her to it. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You clearly don't understand that any response other than "You're right, it did suck!" is fanboy rage.  This is the internet. 

At least it helps clarify who I should be putting on my ignore list. There's this lovely firefox script I found that lets me strip posts by user from the BSN forums. It's been a godsend.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

leggywillow wrote...
Twilight plays it completely straight and wants the audience to view it as a good example of a healthy relationship. 

Maybe it's just really subtle satire - and besides, as we've seen from the fanbois in this thread, it's impossible for anyone to accurately asess something as subjective as "bad writing" anyway

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ignore list.

As I said, fanboy rage

[ipgd]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Reducto ad absurdum?

And "for my own purposes?" I'm not sure what you think my "own purposes" might be. My purposes (as you will see if you read back in the tread) are to discuss what elements of DA2 did and didn't work, and why I think that means that future Bioware games could absolutely use elements of DA2 (like the frame narrative and the smaller focus) if they were executed better than it was. Sadly, this discussion got kind of sidetracked because nothing makes fanbois rage like suggesting a game in a series that they like was below par in certain respects.

You did not suggest DA2 was below par in certain respects. You entered, proclaimed that the lead writer of both DAO and DA2 had no business writing games, revised your statement to attribute the quality of his work to his editors when you discovered the facts were not in line with your opinion, continued to draw ridiculous imbalanced comparisons, and then proclaimed yourself grand arbiter of video game writing quality.

There are ways to state opinions that contain actual arguable grounds, and do not make you sound like an ass.

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

I'd be more inclined to buy that if there were non-dreck romance subplots in DA2. Ask yourself the question: "could I apply the argument I am using to excuse the bad writing in this game to excuse Twilight's bad writing?" If the answer is yes, there's probably something wrong with your argument, no?

Here, read this.

Anders's romance does directly invoke similarities to cheesy romance novels like Twilight. That is the point. It presents these tropes straight, and after the peak of the arc, systematically deconstructs them in order to highlight the negative aspects that the typical romance genre either glosses over or ignores entirely. In that respect, Anders's arc is very well written, but it requires a willingness to actually, you know, not deliberately take things at face value in order to confirm your own points despite evidence.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ipgd wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

You'll have to pardon me for taking the argument that they (intentionally) wrote Flemeth as corny comic relief with a grain of salt.

They intentionally wrote her as an absurd character with unclear goals and motivations and a markedly alien thought process. Bizarre lines like that are in line with her character.

I will grant that Flemeth was never well-written anyway haha. (In Bioware's defense, it's really, really hard to do "enigmatic" right.) The question is whether she stands out as a badly written character, or fits right in with the rest of the badly written characters.

[upsettingshorts]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Maybe it's just really subtle satire - and besides, as we've seen from the fanbois in this thread, it's impossible for anyone to accurately asess something as subjective as "bad writing" anyway

It's not subtle. 

Also, I haven't actually said what I think of any of the lines.  Asking that you be more constructive, precise, or useful in your criticisms is not an implicit endorsement.  

I'm simply being critical of your argument.  Which, believe it or not, actually has nothing to do with Dragon Age 2 - only the fact that you apparently think your position is compelling, which is the thing I am actually challenging.  

You're basically making up the rules of the argument as you do, dismissing criticisms of your approach as arbitrary or motivated by loyalty, and refusing to adhere to anything resembling a consistent, logical set of standards that might actually give your position some weight.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:25 .

[TheCrakFox]

I'd like to see Bioware make a game where you don't play the hero.

[VegasVance]

I'd like to see a stop to the Mandolorian/Krogan/Qunari troupe. I find it sad that whenever a bunch of bad-asses conquer the lands. They get magically defeated by a bunch of pathetic (see: Mercs, Gunts, and everyday soldiers of those games) For once I'd like them to be the threat they really can be, don't cop out like in DAII the ending and write in a "new bad guy" last minute after you've claimed the Qunari could fight all the nation of Thedas to a standstill.

[upsettingshorts]

TheCrakFox wrote...

I'd like to see Bioware make a game where you don't play the hero.

People argue all the time that Dragon Age 2 was that game.  Most of them would say this is a bad thing, or the result of a failure of execution.  Others view this as a good thing and working as intended.  It's a polarizing topic. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:26 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ipgd wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Reducto ad absurdum?

And "for my own purposes?" I'm not sure what you think my "own purposes" might be. My purposes (as you will see if you read back in the tread) are to discuss what elements of DA2 did and didn't work, and why I think that means that future Bioware games could absolutely use elements of DA2 (like the frame narrative and the smaller focus) if they were executed better than it was. Sadly, this discussion got kind of sidetracked because nothing makes fanbois rage like suggesting a game in a series that they like was below par in certain respects.

You did not suggest DA2 was below par in certain respects. You entered, proclaimed that the lead writer of both DAO and DA2 had no business writing games, revised your statement to attribute the quality of his work to his editors when you discovered the facts were not in line with your opinion, continued to draw ridiculous imbalanced comparisons, and then proclaimed yourself grand arbiter of video game writing quality.

Now, if you actually read the thread, you would note that I granted that Gaider et al. must have had some sort of factor (better editor, more time, better lead designer, etc) that precipitated the drop in quality between installments. And the point was (until all the fanboys jumped in) not to bash DA2, but to point out how DA2's negative reception probably had to do with elements of the game other than the frame narrative, personal story, and so on. Of course, watching people do intellectual contortions to defend bad writing is also funny, but it's a lot less prodcutive than talking about what future Bioware games can learn from what DA2 did right. I get that it annoys you when people don't like aspects of DA2, but pretending its flaws don't exist isn't exactly conducive to a good discussion.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

I'd like to see Bioware make a game where you don't play the hero.

People argue all the time that Dragon Age 2 was that game.  Most of them would say this is a bad thing, or the result of a failure of execution.  Others view this as a good thing and working as intended.  It's a polarizing topic. 

Yeah, the "make the protagonist a less central character to the plot" works well, I think. It's also why, for instance, the Orzammar bits of DA:O are particularly good if you're a dwarf - you're part of the story and do a lot of the legwork, but are not the part of the story that in-universe history will remember. It would certainly be something I'd like to see more of.

[upsettingshorts]

Pretending your flimsy ad hoc rationalizations behind your argument aren't being countered with valid criticisms is the opposite of a discussion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:33 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Now, if you actually read the thread, you would note that I granted that Gaider et al. must have had some sort of factor (better editor, more time, better lead designer, etc) that precipitated the drop in quality between installments. And the point was (until all the fanboys jumped in) not to bash DA2, but to point out how DA2's negative reception probably had to do with elements of the game other than the frame narrative, personal story, and so on. Of course, watching people do intellectual contortions to defend bad writing is also funny, but it's a lot less prodcutive than talking about what future Bioware games can learn from what DA2 did right. I get that it annoys you when people don't like aspects of DA2, but pretending its flaws don't exist isn't exactly conducive to a good discussion.

Ignoring everyone's valid critcisms of your argument is also not conducive to good discussion. See the following image:



As for DA2's bad writing, I suggest you visit this link.   You might also read our posts and see that we are in now way defending DA2's flaws.  We're just saying that you're flimsy arguments aren't legitimate crticisms of the game.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:41 .

[ipgd]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Now, if you actually read the thread, you would note that I granted that Gaider et al. must have had some sort of factor (better editor, more time, better lead designer, etc) that precipitated the drop in quality between installments. And the point was (until all the fanboys jumped in) not to bash DA2, but to point out how DA2's negative reception probably had to do with elements of the game other than the frame narrative, personal story, and so on. Of course, watching people do intellectual contortions to defend bad writing is also funny, but it's a lot less prodcutive than talking about what future Bioware games can learn from what DA2 did right. I get that it annoys you when people don't like aspects of DA2, but pretending its flaws don't exist isn't exactly conducive to a good discussion.

I am not pretending DA2's flaws do not exist.

I am suggesting that you are blowing DA2's flaws out of proportions, and deliberately ignoring its positive aspects, in order to discard or twist anything and everything into the preconceived narrative you prefer over reality.

I am also suggesting that the arguments you choose to support your opinion are flimsy, generated on the fly, and impossible to argue because you repeatedly move the goalposts and invent new justifications for your opinion when others are defeated. It makes it seem like your arguments are crafted in order to justify an opinion you would hold with or without any meaningful reason, rather than your opinion being built on your arguments.

Modifié par ipgd, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:41 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Wow you should go marry Smudboy or something.

You two sound like a match made in heaven.

[AtreiyaN7]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

ipgd wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

You'll have to pardon me for taking the argument that they (intentionally) wrote Flemeth as corny comic relief with a grain of salt.

They intentionally wrote her as an absurd character with unclear goals and motivations and a markedly alien thought process. Bizarre lines like that are in line with her character.

I will grant that Flemeth was never well-written anyway haha. (In Bioware's defense, it's really, really hard to do "enigmatic" right.) The question is whether she stands out as a badly written character, or fits right in with the rest of the badly written characters.

What, in her statement, implies that Flemeth was not well-written? The character is meant to by a cypher and perhaps something of a sybil. As such, I thought the performance and dialogue were apt.