443 réponses à ce sujet

[Sepewrath]

GavrielKay wrote...
Yeah, the badlly justified forced quests were another problem for me with DA2.  Wasn't Shepherding Wolves forced as well?  And why would my apostate Hawke want to help Petrice?  Or a Qunari...  It was just impossible to really role play Hawke.  Not enough choices and too mnay missed opportunities (or forced acceptance) to actually have any immersion.

Better question is why wouldn't an apostate Hawke help, your trying to provide your family, your going to turn down what is suppose to be an easy job, that would make no sense. Unless your roleplaying a Hawke whose an idiot, I don't see many viable options there. And most of this I want to do this and I want to do that stuff makes no sense, you cant just do whatever you want. If you choose to leave Kirkwall at the start of the gamem one I don't how Hawke would pull that off, unless their swimming back. And second, the game would be all but an hour, 60 bucks well spent lol.

I was kind of hoping that at least one mage would take a sincere and
vocal stance against becoming exactly what Meredith accuses them of
becoming. I'm not talking about the mages that just wanted to go about
their lives and not get invovled with the conflict, but someone who
actively wanted freedom for mages who purposely made of themselves an
example that mages do have the potential to not resort to forbidden
magic, even when in dire straits. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
remember any, and if they did, they didn't make a very significant
impact on me.

There were a number of them of that didn't use blood magic and if they didn't make significant impact on you, then that simply means your own idea would have no impact on you.

[phaonica]

GavrielKay wrote...

But the mages were comic strip bad guys, if they even had that much personality.  And the Templars were just as bad...  so they didn't slide much. 

It's true. We had examples of mages and templars who had crossed the line beyond acceptable behavior, such as Quentin, Alrik, and Petrice, but characters who were trying to make a sincere compromise such as Thrask had their efforts symied for (imo) stupid reasons. IMO, all of the writers efforts to make the templar pov more sympathetic were undermined when they made Meredith insane.

There was nothing about random bad guys or specific bad guys that made it more believable to me that all mages have to be locked up for everyone else's good.  Not in the way Connor showed that a mage doesn't have to be ill intentioned to cause damage. 

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

[phaonica]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Exactly. i would have been happy with such an outcome, because it would at least give the impression of choices made, and that actions were taken as a result, even if you can't stop the inevitable. And perhaps, as a result of at least attempting to stop it, scored some cool points with someone important who could later be called upon as an ally or something. Anything.

Yes, even something so simple as this would have made me feel empowered by my choices. Most of the time, I didn't feel empowered by my choices.

The most empowerment I felt from my choices was 1) refusing to give Merril the arulin'holm, 2) refusing to distract the Grand Cleric for Anders.

[Xilizhra]

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

I do. Unless the way magic worked fundamentally changed, maybe.

[phaonica]

Sepewrath wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Yeah, the badlly justified forced quests were another problem for me with DA2.  Wasn't Shepherding Wolves forced as well?  And why would my apostate Hawke want to help Petrice?  Or a Qunari...  It was just impossible to really role play Hawke.  Not enough choices and too mnay missed opportunities (or forced acceptance) to actually have any immersion.

Better question is why wouldn't an apostate Hawke help, your trying to provide your family, your going to turn down what is suppose to be an easy job, that would make no sense. Unless your roleplaying a Hawke whose an idiot, I don't see many viable options there.

I wanted to turn it down because I felt like the task was politically charged and I wasn't going to be used as plausible deniability in a conflict that was none of my business.

There were a number of them of that didn't use blood magic and if they didn't make significant impact on you, then that simply means your own idea would have no impact on you.

That's why I said vocal. Maybe those mages didn't use blood magic because they think it's wrong. Maybe they didn't use blood magic because they don't know how, or otherwise they would have. I don't know. There is no such vocal representative for mages who might take the stance I described.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

I do. Unless the way magic worked fundamentally changed, maybe.

Do you find any of the conflicts in DA to be gray?

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

I do. Unless the way magic worked fundamentally changed, maybe.

Do you find any of the conflicts in DA to be gray?

It depends on how you define gray. Technically, both the mages and templars are "gray"; however, the sides themselves feel less so. At least the templars.

I would consider Petrice vs. the Arishok to be gray. Petrice may have provoked things, but the qunari are fundamentally dangerous.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

It depends on how you define gray. Technically, both the mages and templars are "gray"; however, the sides themselves feel less so. At least the templars.

I would consider Petrice vs. the Arishok to be gray. Petrice may have provoked things, but the qunari are fundamentally dangerous.

I guess by gray I mean something like.... a decent and reasonable person could make either choice.

[Xilizhra]

That's what I meant there too, regarding Petrice/Arishok.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...
It's true. We had examples of mages and templars who had crossed the line beyond acceptable behavior, such as Quentin, Alrik, and Petrice, but characters who were trying to make a sincere compromise such as Thrask had their efforts symied for (imo) stupid reasons. IMO, all of the writers efforts to make the templar pov more sympathetic were undermined when they made Meredith insane.

Imo, all efforts to make Templars sympathetic were undermined due to how stupid they were portrayed. Them, specifically Meredith and the Chantry, which displayed remarkable blindness instead of having it be paralyzed by internal divisions that could have been shown. The idol was the final nail.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 août 2011 - 02:59 .

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Imo, all efforts to make Templars sympathetic were undermined due to how stupid they were portrayed. Them, specifically Meredith and the Chantry, which displayed remarkable blindness instead of having it paralyzed by internal divisions that could have been shown. The idol was the final nail.

On the one hand, I liked that DA2 was trying to prove how dangerous mages had the potential to be, and why local society is so afraid of them. On the other hand they didn't convince me that killing all of them was a reasonable solution.

So for me, the nail in the coffin was Meredith's insanity. I had a character move to the pro-Circle side during the course of the game who would have leapt to the templar's side if Meredith had sounded remotely reasonable to me.

Modifié par phaonica, 16 août 2011 - 03:21 .

[Xilizhra]

I admit, Phaonica, I'm curious to hear your take on the qunari thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I thought it's handling of mages was overkill and ridiculous, that I couldn't take it seriously. Mages with actual reasonable motivations, instead of lunatics, would have been a lot more scarier, imo.

[IanPolaris]

I'll tell you something that might have made it more Grey (for me at least). If the mages had suddenly and spontaneously revolted perhaps in light of some last Templar outrage, took matters intot heir own hands and seized the Gallows and perhaps some of the docks...or even if they declared this and Anders AND some senior enchanters blew up the chantry, then perhaps I could reasonably see siding with the Templars.

At that point it becomes Moral Justice vs Law and Order and that's not always a clear cut choice.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

I admit, Phaonica, I'm curious to hear your take on the qunari thing.

In a nutshell, I agree that it's gray, as we've defined gray. I think
a reasonable and decent person could take either side, for various
reasons. I don't know if I entirely agree that the Qun is "fundamentally
dangerous", but I understand how someone could have that stance.

[Rifneno]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

I do. Unless the way magic worked fundamentally changed, maybe.

Do you find any of the conflicts in DA to be gray?

I'm also in the camp of "this cannot be made gray."  And I do find most of DA's choices to be gray.  Bhelen vs. Harrowmont is a great one.  A cutthroat, soulless, corrupt son of a **** who has some good ideas to improve his society, or a borderline retarded man with a sense of honor who I wouldn't generally trust to run a McDonald's.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In the interest of making the choice more gray, what kind of argument might *have* made you question that maybe all mages should be locked up? Do you think it might be an issue that can't be made gray?

I do. Unless the way magic worked fundamentally changed, maybe.

Do you find any of the conflicts in DA to be gray?

I'm also in the camp of "this cannot be made gray."  And I do find most of DA's choices to be gray.  Bhelen vs. Harrowmont is a great one.  A cutthroat, soulless, corrupt son of a **** who has some good ideas to improve his society, or a borderline retarded man with a sense of honor who I wouldn't generally trust to run a McDonald's.

I think the Mage-Templar issue could've been made gray, but it would take a lot of work on what DAII had.


And please don't bring up Bhelen-Harrowmont. That brings up painful memories of how Xanthos Aeducan couldn't take the throne.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm also in the camp of "this cannot be made gray."  And I do find most of DA's choices to be gray.  Bhelen vs. Harrowmont is a great one.  A cutthroat, soulless, corrupt son of a **** who has some good ideas to improve his society, or a borderline retarded man with a sense of honor who I wouldn't generally trust to run a McDonald's.

I hear you.  The Orzammar choice was particularly well done. Both sides weren't great (to put it mildly) but both could be justified morally.  Another one is the decision to back Queen Anora for the Throne or toss her to the wolves.  On one hand it's virtually certain (as I've argued exstensively at length) by time alone (during the Queen's rescue) that Anora did double-cross you and try to get your warden captured by Loghain.  In addition, you are told in no uncertain terms by multiple sources that Anora simply can't be trusted.

OTOH, she is the sitting queen and she is definately a better leader and definately better for Fereldan than an unhardened Alistair.

The choice with Conner could have been a spectacular example of a Dark Grey choice except they had to give the Tower as the obvious escape hatch option.  I wouldn't have done it.  I would have told the Warden that there wasn't time to go to the tower and back because Conner would break free again within hours.

That would leave the choice of Kill Conner to kill the demon, or Kill Isolde using forbidden magic to save Conner.  A terrific morally grey choice.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Orzammar was "morally grey" (and well done. Bhelen is ruthless, but Harrowmont while has the image of honor supports an oppressive system), but in objective terms, Harrowmont was a complete irredeemable failure. Bhelen is objectively the better king.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'll tell you something that might have made it more Grey (for me at least). If the mages had suddenly and spontaneously revolted perhaps in light of some last Templar outrage, took matters intot heir own hands and seized the Gallows and perhaps some of the docks...or even if they declared this and Anders AND some senior enchanters blew up the chantry, then perhaps I could reasonably see siding with the Templars.

At that point it becomes Moral Justice vs Law and Order and that's not always a clear cut choice.

-Polaris

I think that might have helped. I don't know if we were supposed to be challenged into choosing a situation where innocents are unfortunate but unavoidable war casulties. Or if we were supposed to consider a point of view where indeed that the potential for mages to become a danger is too great for them not to be quarantined. Or something else completely that I can't think of right now.

[TEWR]

The basic idea for what DAII should've been about consisted of the idea of Freedom vs. Security.

DAII failed to pull that off, for various reasons.

EDIT: That doesn't mean that Freedom vs. Security could've been the only gray area in the game for the Mage-Templar conflict. But it is the basic one they were shooting for, and failed to strike at.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 août 2011 - 04:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The basic idea for what DAII should've been about consisted of the idea of Freedom vs. Security.

DAII failed to pull that off, for various reasons.

Quite frankly, I think part of the problem is simplistic dichotomies like that. It's been done a million times and real life is much more complicated than this.

I'd much rather they stop being bipolar and show numerous facets to each faction / choice.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The basic idea for what DAII should've been about consisted of the idea of Freedom vs. Security.

DAII failed to pull that off, for various reasons.

Indeed.  It seems this entire dramatic tension in the setting was written immediately post 9/11.  At least the mage vs templar (freedom vs security) issue seems to have those hallmarks.

Unfortunately for the writers and devs (even post 9-11), this issue had already been settled in Western societies some 70 years prior during the Nuremberg trials, US apologies to Japanese Americans and many many other cases.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The basic idea for what DAII should've been about consisted of the idea of Freedom vs. Security.

DAII failed to pull that off, for various reasons.

Quite frankly, I think part of the problem is simplistic dichotomies like that. It's been done a million times and real life is much more complicated than this.

I'd much rather they stop being bipolar and show numerous facets to each faction / choice.

Yea I agree. I edited my post just now to say that Freedom vs. Security didn't have to be the only gray area in the game, but it's what Bioware was aiming for.


@Ian: I agree with you as well. It's true.

[phaonica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


I think the Mage-Templar issue could've been made gray, but it would take a lot of work on what DAII had.

I think it could have been made more gray, but then my character was already pretty strongly pro-Circle. If Meredith had turned her wrath towards the Resolutionists or Mage Underground, then my character probably would have gone along with that. I might have even gone along with the RoA if it had been in response to Orsino going Harvester, and if more evidence had been shown of Orsino's influence on various people's turning to blood magic throughout the game.