613 réponses à ce sujet

[Arquen]

*cough*no path is darker then when your eyes are shut*cough*

As I said im dropping Merrill arguments since this is the why I hate companion x thread. As for others opinions I honestly am indifferent to some degree when people hate my favorites. What irks me is baseless unfocused hate such as I hate isabela because she is a hobag, I hate Anders because he is a terrorist whiny emo, I hate fenris because he is a final fantasy reject and doesn't belong in this game, I hate merrill because she is a ditz and clueless, and I hate Aveline because she is a tomboy, etc etc.

Those reasons make me facepalm but I don't sit there and try to convince people to love a certain character. Just for maker's sakes if that is the only reason you dislike someone then your doing it wrong.

I have a kneejerk reaction when people go on and on about selling Fenris back to Danarius, but its their game, and while I abhore such a decision im not going to nerdrage all over them for doing it.

[Sepewrath]

Personally I think someone being a hobag can only be a plus

[Quething]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I once argued the merits of killing my beloved Morrigan in Witch Hunt, after I saw the few who did get swarmed by those who didn't understand.

Idle question: Do you follow Morrigan through the mirror or not?

Gespenst wrote...

Quething wrote...

Aveline, I go back and forth on a lot. She's certainly really hypocritical (her opinion on Kelder versus her opinion on the elves the Arishok is sheltering,

Well the two incidents were more than three years apart - and in both cases she's after murderers...

In the case of Kelder, Aveline faces a known murderer who has repeatedly escaped and will continue to escape justice due to his placement in the power hierarchy of the Kirkwall community (a magistrate's son). In this situation, she approves strongly of killing the criminal outright - of Hawke "taking the law into her own hands" in vigilante justice.

In the case of the elves being sheltered by the Arishok, those elves faced a known rapist who repeatedly escaped and would continue to escape justice due to his placement in the power hierarchy of the Kirkwall community (a city guard). In this situation, Aveline disapproves strongly of killing the criminal outright, and condemns the elves "taking the law into their own hands" in vigilante justice.

Because she happened to be on the other side of the equation, and it wasn't her friend doing the killing, but rather her guard getting away with it.

That's stone cold hypocrisy.

Which I would totally love! It's an interesting character trait! Except neither Hawke nor Aveline nor anyone else in the game ever actually gets to point it out or acknowledge it. So. Kind of obnoxious.

Modifié par Quething, 15 août 2011 - 07:06 .

[Knight of Dane]

Neminea wrote...
Her keeper is the one responsible for reclaiming anything they can find on their heritage and she continuesly warns her to not do it, it isn't worth it.

And this is where Merrill is too proudful, the keeper never gives her a valid reason to stop other than "it is dangerous."
From her viewpoint it *may* have something to do with Tamlen's disapperance, but there is no proof of that, and the Keeper never tells her what she suspects is the demon's plan either.
Merrill is the teenage girl in this case, many youngsters try out drugs because they aren't given any other reason than "it is dangerous" which doesn't work on a set mind.

[berelinde]

Quething wrote...
In the case of Kelder, Aveline faces a known murderer who has repeatedly escaped and will continue to escape justice due to his placement in the power hierarchy of the Kirkwall community (a magistrate's son). In this situation, she approves strongly of killing the criminal outright - of Hawke "taking the law into her own hands" in vigilante justice.

In the case of the elves being sheltered by the Arishok, those elves faced a known rapist who repeatedly escaped and would continue to escape justice due to his placement in the power hierarchy of the Kirkwall community (a city guard). In this situation, Aveline disapproves strongly of killing the criminal outright, and condemns the elves "taking the law into their own hands" in vigilante justice.

Because she happened to be on the other side of the equation, and it wasn't her friend doing the killing, but rather her guard getting away with it.

That's stone cold hypocrisy.

Which I would totally love! It's an interesting character trait! Except neither Hawke nor Aveline nor anyone else in the game ever actually gets to point it out or acknowledge it. So. Kind of obnoxious.

There is another way to look at it.


In the case of Kelder, Aveline is actin in an unofficial capacity. The magistrate did NOT want the guard involved. So, she is acting as a private citizen. If something disgusts her, she can do something about it.

In the case of the elves, she is acting in an official capacity, on behalf of Kirkwall. Regardless of her personal feelings, she is bound by what the law decrees. Her mistake is that she expects Hawke to be bound by the same restrictions she is, forgetting that Hawke is not actually part of the guard, but that's "part of her charm." So those rivalry points you get, if she isn't already maxed at that point? They're out of disappointment with you for not siding with her no matter what, not necessarily because you didn't demand the return of the elves.

Not trying to defend Aveline, not really. I like her, but I understand why someone wouldn't. Just trying to explain my take on her character.

[john-in-france]

Xilizhra wrote...

Out of curiosity, what do those of you who didn't like any of the characters feel about those of us who do? What do you, feeling indifferent about Merrill, feel about my loving her?

No problem at all. Different games and personalities involved.

Personally I think it nice that Merrill gets some support. It is too easy to just dislike someone, and really it shows your own 'red button' zones. I'm honest enough to admit it, especially with JAnders.

In my head canon when I'm Merrills friend rather than rival, I think that her naivete is really a language difference and how easy it is to sound 'off' when you are still learning a new language instead of Elven. Who knows maybe she'll come into her own if they ever write an Eluvian DLC.
Judy

[Neminea]

Seems sort of self-centered if you get rivalry points with her becuase you didn't pick her side when she was doing her job, and I was trying to keep the peace.

Ooooooo Eluvian dlc? Yes please!

Modifié par Neminea, 15 août 2011 - 01:03 .

[rak72]

Arquen wrote...

*cough*no path is darker then when your eyes are shut*cough*

As I said im dropping Merrill arguments since this is the why I hate companion x thread. As for others opinions I honestly am indifferent to some degree when people hate my favorites. What irks me is baseless unfocused hate such as I hate isabela because she is a hobag, I hate Anders because he is a terrorist whiny emo, I hate fenris because he is a final fantasy reject and doesn't belong in this game, I hate merrill because she is a ditz and clueless, and I hate Aveline because she is a tomboy, etc etc.

Those reasons make me facepalm but I don't sit there and try to convince people to love a certain character. Just for maker's sakes if that is the only reason you dislike someone then your doing it wrong.

I have a kneejerk reaction when people go on and on about selling Fenris back to Danarius, but its their game, and while I abhore such a decision im not going to nerdrage all over them for doing it.

The trouble is, the witers threw out all sense of moderation in this game and didn't give us much else to see about the characters.  They took that one aspect of the person's character and just kept pounding us with it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

rak72 wrote...

The trouble is, the witers threw out all sense of moderation in this game and didn't give us much else to see about the characters.  They took that one aspect of the person's character and just kept pounding us with it.

This. In Origins, the companions were more 3 dimensional. They had a major aspect to their character and personality, yet they had alot of other parts of their personas that were extended upon and explored, as judging by their companion banters vs. convos you have with them directly. And sometimes, they carried surprises of their own.

[rak72]

Agreed, Skadi

[Arquen]

I still think you get what you take out of it. As stated if all you see are those qualities then your doing it wrong. There is great depth to be found in each character it just takes some analysis.

They don't blatantly lay out everything, and Origins did have more in the way of cutscenes, interactions, but I still found the characters in DA2 very fleshed out and complete. Sure they could have shown more. I wish they had. I would have liked a campfire type environment as well where you could just ask random questions, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to the characters than what they "pound" you with.

[RagingCyclone]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

rak72 wrote...

The trouble is, the witers threw out all sense of moderation in this game and didn't give us much else to see about the characters.  They took that one aspect of the person's character and just kept pounding us with it.

This. In Origins, the companions were more 3 dimensional. They had a major aspect to their character and personality, yet they had alot of other parts of their personas that were extended upon and explored, as judging by their companion banters vs. convos you have with them directly. And sometimes, they carried surprises of their own.

Very much this. While the DA2 companions do have some depth, they are not near as complex as the Origins companions. I have been told they are deeper in DA2, but I have yet to see where unless you sit and over analyze them which takes a lot of the fun out of playing the game, for me. Just being able to talk to the companions more IN DA2 would have been a big help to see who they really are, and not try to decipher their banter while you fight waves of opponents. (Yes, this happens quite often where they are talking and fighting at the same time)

[rak72]

Arquen wrote...

I still think you get what you take out of it. As stated if all you see are those qualities then your doing it wrong. There is great depth to be found in each character it just takes some analysis.

They don't blatantly lay out everything, and Origins did have more in the way of cutscenes, interactions, but I still found the characters in DA2 very fleshed out and complete. Sure they could have shown more. I wish they had. I would have liked a campfire type environment as well where you could just ask random questions, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to the characters than what they "pound" you with.

*shrugs*
I don't think I'm doing it wrong, I  think they wanted to make sure they got their point across about the character & didn't even try to be subtle about it.  Maybe you are more patient & less easily anoyed than me.
I actually liked Isabella, she was funny & had a good heart somewheree in there.  But really does everything have to be a sexual inuendo. 
I think the writers just should have toned everything down a little.

[berelinde]

rak72 wrote...
I actually liked Isabella, she was funny & had a good heart somewheree in there.  But really does everything have to be a sexual inuendo. 

Heh. That was one of my favorite things about Isabela, although I do admit that it took a long, long time for me to get to that point. No matter how crazy the world/the mages/the templars/my boyfriend got, there was Isabela, turning everything into a joke about sex. Without her levity, my Hawkes would probably have gone crazy, too.

[rak72]

berelinde wrote...

rak72 wrote...
I actually liked Isabella, she was funny & had a good heart somewheree in there.  But really does everything have to be a sexual inuendo. 

Heh. That was one of my favorite things about Isabela, although I do admit that it took a long, long time for me to get to that point. No matter how crazy the world/the mages/the templars/my boyfriend got, there was Isabela, turning everything into a joke about sex. Without her levity, my Hawkes would probably have gone crazy, too.

Yea, but if they gave her more topices for the jokes...

That way, maybe the 1st thought when people think about her would be , "Oh, isabella.  She's the funny one (who happens to like sex)". Instead of, "Oh Isabella. She likes sex".

So thing like that with all the characters would have gone a long way, I think.

[Arquen]

I am just that over-analytical looking at everything from multiple angles. Tearing it down, rebuilding it, dwelling on philosophical fancies kind of person. I enjoy digging into layers of story and analyzing and re-analyzing and over-analyzing things especially if they pique my interest.

Still, it is one of those things. "Don't judge a book by its cover." -- There is depth to be found, but if you don't want to go looking then that is fine. At least admit that the surface is all your going by when trying to defend or critique a character to others.

[rak72]

Arquen wrote...

I am just that over-analytical looking at everything from multiple angles. Tearing it down, rebuilding it, dwelling on philosophical fancies kind of person. I enjoy digging into layers of story and analyzing and re-analyzing and over-analyzing things especially if they pique my interest.

Still, it is one of those things. "Don't judge a book by its cover." -- There is depth to be found, but if you don't want to go looking then that is fine. At least admit that the surface is all your going by when trying to defend or critique a character to others.

Maybe i'm not seeing everthing that is there, maybe you are seeing more that is there?  Who knows.
The game and the characters worked for you because they piqued your interest.  For me, they just got on my nerves.  It's not a right & wrong thing.

With DAO it was a lot different for me.  Lel, Zev, Sten all anoyed me at first, that changed after I talked to them in the game.  Wynn I though was a nice Granny at first, but then I just wanted to tell her to shut it by the end.  Most everyone evolved for me during the game.  I guess I'm not the type that likes extra homework.

[RagingCyclone]

Arquen wrote...

I am just that over-analytical looking at everything from multiple angles. Tearing it down, rebuilding it, dwelling on philosophical fancies kind of person. I enjoy digging into layers of story and analyzing and re-analyzing and over-analyzing things especially if they pique my interest.

Still, it is one of those things. "Don't judge a book by its cover." -- There is depth to be found, but if you don't want to go looking then that is fine. At least admit that the surface is all your going by when trying to defend or critique a character to others.

Very true and sound advice, but does not always work for everyone. First impressions are always the most important when a person is deciding if they want to delve deeper.  And there is a pitfall to over analyzing...the trap of seeing things that are not really there.

[Arquen]

Agreed agreed. First impressions are important, but then again I'm also the kind of person who doesn't take first impressions and judges someone or something based purely on them.

The way to avoid the abyss of over-analyzing and going into baseless assumptions and suppositions is to base it on evidence. The game offers quite a bit of evidence for theories and canon. However, the problem is interpretation. That is true with any work of literature or play or movie or any kind of story and character based works. People interpret things differently. This is where the fun comes in... bouncing theories and interpretations off of others. Yet evidence is still the crux. Must have something to back up assumptions and claims for it to be an actual analysis and not a wild assumption.

That isn't the right or wrong. Taking things at face value and judging them based solely on that and then claiming it to be fact and all there is. I think that is doing it wrong for anything.

[Auroras]

Sebastian. -shudder-

[Neminea]

I try to stay away from sebastian posts because I haven't done legacy (edit: i mean the other one.. the prince thing)yet but I have the feeling I am not going to like the guy much

Modifié par Neminea, 20 août 2011 - 04:57 .

[Icy Magebane]

I don't like Merrill.  Not only is she a Dalish elf (which I freely admit, I do not like), she's a ditz.

Anders is very annoying, halfway to the halfway house, and I need to constantly remind him that I don't give a hot damn about mages in Kirkwall.

Aveline annoys me sometimes because she's too self-righteous and... well, she won't give Hawke the time of day.  <_<

Isabela is a skank.  Nothing more to be said about that one.

[thegoldfinch]

If it wasn't for their romances to help me get attached to them, I would have a difficult time liking Anders and Fenris. I know they have to be foils of each other and to reflect the main attitude of the game, but it sure would have been nice to have them talk about something other than their respective obsessions a little more.

Otherwise, Isabela was the only character I truly did not like. I have never liked the "hooker with a heart of gold" trope, which is essentially the core of her personality. I can understand the appeal but... Well. It's always been annoying to me.

And, for me at least, she comes off as a little too perfect. She's beautiful, she's sexy, she's lusted after, she's confident, she's talented, she has that heart of gold, and she may have janked up Kirkwall, but unless Hawke essentially sentences her to death she never faces any consequences for the horrible thing she's caused. I heard companions ask why she came back but no one is completely repulsed by what she has done. There may very well have been a darker side to her... I guess I never saw it.

Modifié par pixieface, 20 août 2011 - 12:34 .

[berelinde]

pixieface wrote...
\\Otherwise, Isabela was the only character I truly did not like. I have never liked the "hooker with a heart of gold" trope, which is essentially the core of her personality. I can understand the appeal but... Well. It's always been annoying to me.

And, for me at least, she comes off as a little too perfect. She's beautiful, she's sexy, she's lusted after, she's confident, she's talented, she has that heart of gold, and she may have janked up Kirkwall, but unless Hawke essentially sentences her to death she never faces any consequences for the horrible thing she's caused. I heard companions ask why she came back but no one is completely repulsed by what she has done. There may very well have been a darker side to her... I guess I never saw it.

If there is a darker side, we'll never see it. Don't get me wrong. I simply adore the "hooker with the heart of gold" trope. I worship it. It's far, far better than the whole "mindless fanservice sex outlet" alternative. I love that Isabela embraces her sexuality and takes it to unanticipated levels of cheese. It's what I live for. If she did not exist, I'd have to invent her. It's just that I don't get why you think it's so wrong that a character can be fallible. Or that other characters could forgive her for it. She's Isabela. Did anyone expect her to be Ms. Constancy?

[Time4Tiddy]

One thing that is notable, the characters are much more interesting if you keep them in your party longer. It's easy to dismiss a character that you use only when you absolutely have to, as their initial party banters are pretty one-dimensional and only emphasize their dominant traits, like Merrill's naivete or Isabella's sexuality. However, keep them in your party for a significant length of time, and their party banters show a much more well-rounded character, especially if they are always grouped with the same people.

It's a way to reward you for consistency in your party make-up. The first 2 or 3 party banters between each set of companions is pretty shallow, but by the 9th or 10th there is some real meat.