1253 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I certainly wouldn't argue in favor of making any antagonist to be stupid and insane, Dragoonlordz. And why show bias? Why not simply have factions and allow players to chose a particular side? Certainly not every mage or templar needs to be depicted as an insipid fool. I still recall Hawke telling Cullen about Anders plot against the Chantry, with Anders standing right next to Hawke, while Cullen brushed off the conversation..

Well so long as we agree that it's not just mages, I'm happy.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Thanks Dave!

[phaonica]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Here's a few threads basically involving mage or people claiming the writers are anti-mage / liars / communists which Gaider responded in with the Templar point of view (not Gaider's own thoughts), though you're not getting the full picture. You'd have to read the full thread.
One, two, three, four.

Thank you.

[David Gaider]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
How hard is it to simply answer them, instead of putting the same energy in avoiding them?

Because "Are all the mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions. They are opinions disguised as questions.

And there is no energy to be spent in not answering them (or trying to, as I have previously). I just happened to browse the forums and saw the thread and thought, "What? This again? Still?" And, yep, same bat-faces. I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions-- if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

Modifié par David Gaider, 30 août 2011 - 04:42 .

[LobselVith8]

Which is why I think factions should be the route to go, Dragoonlordz. I think Morrowind and the Fallout series have the right idea about giving the protagonist the choice of deciding more than one faction, and providing consequences to choices. I didn't like how linear Dragon Age 2 was, how the protagonist didn't feel like my character, and how nine of my choices felt significant. Even the final decision at the end of the game produces "two" endings that produce virtually identical outcomes: mages rebel, templars rebel, Hawke disappears.

And now we have a war between mages and templars that we all know isn't going to be in our hands, because Bioware isn't going to accommodate every sequel to decide in favor of one or the other when we see how much trouble they had importing the decisions from Origins. I don't see the point - either the war will be interrupted, it won't be resolved, or there will be a "canon" victor for every sequel. And since the pro-mage and pro-templar players aren't going to change their minds, won't deciding in favor of one over the other anger one side? It reminds me of how Dragon Age 2 has split people in favor of the Origins style and in favor of the Dragon Age 2 style- there's no way to please both.

Some engaging and intelligent characters for the factions would be highly preferred over one-dimensional, insane antagonists in a linear story.

[Silent 1]

Everyone is insane in there own way...

[JPadinhaT]

Mages are not depicted as insane and stupid, they're depicted as people who are feeling desperate because the Templars are the biggest army in Kirkwall and they are relentess in their hunt.

They are also depicted as people who feel superior because of their magic and will not allow templars, people that can't use magic, to rule over them.

At least that's what I think is correct.

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
How hard is it to simply answer them, instead of putting the same energy in avoiding them?

Because "Are all the mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions. They are opinions disguised as questions.

And there is no energy to be spent in not answering them (or trying to, as I have previously). I just happened to browse the forums and saw the thread and thought, "What? This again? Still?" And, yep, same bat-faces. I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions-- if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

I'll take a shot at some legitimate questions:

Is there anything about the Mage-Templar conflict of DAII you regret?

Why wasn't the Mage-Templar conflict the central story of all three acts, where each Act's story connected to the Mage-Templar conflict?

Why weren't Meredith and Orsino properly characterized?

Why does Orsino betray Hawke for no valid reason?

Why does Decimus not bother to ascertain which side Hawke is on before he tries to kill him, which leads to Grace doing what she does (which imo just made her a pathetic character, but that's irrelevant to my question)?

Could you please retcon Orsino's fate for pro-mage people? Because no one liked that as far as I can tell.

[Dragoonlordz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which is why I think factions should be the route to go, Dragoonlordz. I think Morrowind and the Fallout series have the right idea about giving the protagonist the choice of deciding more than one faction, and providing consequences to choices. I didn't like how linear Dragon Age 2 was, how the protagonist didn't feel like my character, and how nine of my choices felt significant. Even the final decision at the end of the game produces "two" endings that produce virtually identical outcomes: mages rebel, templars rebel, Hawke disappears.

And now we have a war between mages and templars that we all know isn't going to be in our hands, because Bioware isn't going to accommodate every sequel to decide in favor of one or the other when we see how much trouble they had importing the decisions from Origins. I don't see the point - either the war will be interrupted, it won't be resolved, or there will be a "canon" victor for every sequel. And since the pro-mage and pro-templar players aren't going to change their minds, won't deciding in favor of one over the other anger one side? It reminds me of how Dragon Age 2 has split people in favor of the Origins style and in favor of the Dragon Age 2 style- there's no way to please both.

Some engaging and intelligent characters for the factions would be highly preferred over one-dimensional, insane antagonists in a linear story.

My point was in my last reply to you highlighting aspects of what was written beforehand, that you are in fact agreeing with me because I covered both aspects which you have talked about as possible routes they may take.

I can't argue or debate this with you because you are agreeing about what I said but I think you misunderstood the meaning.

Also if you read my review your actually agreeing also to aspects of my opinion about DA2.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 août 2011 - 04:54 .

[LobselVith8]

I've complained about the portrayal of templars in the past as well, phaonica. Origins did it better with the Lothering Templars, Ser Bryant, Ser Otto, and even Knight-Commander Greagoir. While I didn't agree with the Chantry controlled Circles, it was clear that templars weren't evil. All I saw in Dragon Age 2 was a wave of stupidity and senseless madness, with antagonists that had no depth or motivation beyond being a Saturday Morning Cartoon. Endgame Orsino becomes insane for no reason, Meredith is possessed by a macguffin, and both choices lead to identical outcomes, so I hardly feel like my decision mattered. Honestly, the decision between Orsino and Meredith carries more weight in debates than it seems to in the actual game.

[TEWR]

JPadinhaT wrote...

Mages are not depicted as insane and stupid, they're depicted as people who are feeling desperate because the Templars are the biggest army in Kirkwall and they are relentess in their hunt.

They are also depicted as people who feel superior because of their magic and will not allow templars, people that can't use magic, to rule over them.

At least that's what I think is correct.

Malcolm Hawke didn't want to rule over anyone and didn't feel superior to anyone. Anders didn't. Bethany and Hawke didn't. The Mage Wardens didn't. Wynne didn't. Morrigan didn't. Emile didn't. Connor didn't. Merrill didn't. Marethari didn't. Zathrian didn't. Lanaya didn't.

I could keep going.

Some of those people understand that the Templars are necessary.

[TheJediSaint]

Well, here's a dead horse that must be the consistency of pudding by now. These "Bioware writers are anti-mage" threads have gotten more than a little old. I mean it's been almost six months since the game has released, you'd thing people would find new things to be offended over.

[Dave of Canada]

Factions worked in an open world game where there's no real sense of progression in terms of the larger story. However, when you're creating a more established story, you have to root down the player more. Establish ties, how they'll be introduced to the faction, who they'll meet and when, ect.

Unlike say... New Vegas, events will progress throughout the world and things should change. Befriending the Legion and being hated by the NCR changed nothing from the main plot because except for the ending, it had no real ties to it. The Courier was a nobody, he was tied to the Legion and he's against the NCR and takes [location] for them.

What happens if you're a more established character? More companions? More defined main story which doesn't allow much deviation from the core? You'd either have to create large branching paths with possibly no way of changing (switching from one path to another would be a scripting nightmare) or make the game have one core story where you're establishing who you're working with (similar to how DA2 worked).

Filament wrote...
You're just mad because you thought denial was just a river in Egypt. :innocent:

You mean it isn't?!

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

Because "Are all mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions.

I never asked if mage antagonists were insane and stupid. They are insane and stupid. All I need to do is look at Decimus thinking Hawke is a templar (along with Merrill, Fenris, and Varric), or Grace, who apparently is angry that Hawke helped her escape. Neither of these antagonists make any sense - they act stupid, and insane.

I certainly wouldn't argue that ridiculous behavior is solely for mages, though. Many are familiar with Cullen hand-waving Hawke's warning about Anders plot against the Chantry, with Anders standing right next to him...

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
How hard is it to simply answer them, instead of putting the same energy in avoiding them?

Because "Are all the mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions. They are opinions disguised as questions.

And there is no energy to be spent in not answering them (or trying to, as I have previously). I just happened to browse the forums and saw the thread and thought, "What? This again? Still?" And, yep, same bat-faces. I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions-- if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

I'll take a shot at some legitimate questions:

Is there anything about the Mage-Templar conflict of DAII you regret?

Why wasn't the Mage-Templar conflict the central story of all three acts, where each Act's story connected to the Mage-Templar conflict?

Why weren't Meredith and Orsino properly characterized?

Why does Orsino betray Hawke for no valid reason?

Why does Decimus not bother to ascertain which side Hawke is on before he tries to kill him, which leads to Grace doing what she does (which imo just made her a pathetic character, but that's irrelevant to my question)?

Could you please retcon Orsino's fate for pro-mage people? Because no one liked that as far as I can tell.

In an effort to salvage the discussion, I'll take a shot.

Here's my interpretation of the portrayals: Templars are given varied personalities. Thrask is well-meaning and reasonable, Cullen ruthless but ultimately fair, Meredith extremely ruthless, Alrik monstrous, Ser Agatha duty-bound and reasonable, Ser Merrin needlessly ruthless, etc. They're portrayed as varied people.

Then we get to the Circle Mages, who. Grace is a blood mage, she escapes, get caught, possessed, and then attacks you. Decimus attacks you. Orsino attacks you. All those mage rebels attack you, even if you express support for the mages. It doesn't matter who they were before. They all end up the same way, and it generally ends up being blood magic = instant evil.

Then, the game goes out of its way to show mages as bloodthirsty villains, but doesn't really go into the Templars' faults, and always has a convenient excuse ready for them when they're revealed.

Even in the party, Anders, the pro-mage poster boy, ends up being a mass murderer. Fenris, the pro-Templar posterboy, has killed a handful of people who largely deserved it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear from you about this.

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And now we have a war between mages and templars that we all know isn't going to be in our hands, because Bioware isn't going to accommodate every sequel to decide in favor of one or the other when we see how much trouble they had importing the decisions from Origins. I don't see the point - either the war will be interrupted, it won't be resolved, or there will be a "canon" victor for every sequel. And since the pro-mage and pro-templar players aren't going to change their minds, won't deciding in favor of one over the other anger one side?

I'm not sure why one would even want to take sides. To me it doesn't matter who wins so long as the story is interesting.

[Dave of Canada]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Then we get to the Circle Mages, who. Grace is a blood mage, she escapes, get caught, possessed, and then attacks you. Decimus attacks you. Orsino attacks you. All those mage rebels attack you, even if you express support for the mages. It doesn't matter who they were before. They all end up the same way, and it generally ends up being blood magic = instant evil.

Alain, Terrie, Ella, Feynriel, Bethany, Solivitus, the surrendering mages, ect.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 août 2011 - 05:08 .

[LobselVith8]

Because some people agree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and some people agree with the emancipation of the mages, phaonica. It's like asking a pro-templar player to play the game entirely as a Resolutionist, or a pro-mage player as a Seeker. Why play as a member of a faction that you personally dislike? Why play for an outcome that you don't want?

[CrimsonZephyr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Then we get to the Circle Mages, who. Grace is a blood mage, she escapes, get caught, possessed, and then attacks you. Decimus attacks you. Orsino attacks you. All those mage rebels attack you, even if you express support for the mages. It doesn't matter who they were before. They all end up the same way, and it generally ends up being blood magic = instant evil.

Alain, Terrie, Ella, Feynriel, Bethany, Solivitus.

In some cases, Bethany might not even be alive.

[Sharn01]

David Gaider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
How hard is it to simply answer them, instead of putting the same energy in avoiding them?

Because "Are all the mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions. They are opinions disguised as questions.

And there is no energy to be spent in not answering them (or trying to, as I have previously). I just happened to browse the forums and saw the thread and thought, "What? This again? Still?" And, yep, same bat-faces. I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions-- if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

Despite their unwillingness to bend they do have some valid points, I think it probably has a lot more to do with the fact that these conversations have taken place exactly the same way numerous times already.  But when I read the forums it seems that DA2 did put a lot of misconceptions into peoples minds about the frequency of abominations. 

In origins it seems most mages go their whole lives without encountering a demon other then the one they are forced to encounter during the harrowing.  I was under the impression that if a mage wasnt in the fade or practicing a magic like certain blood magic rituals where they actually contact a demon there was no threat of possession, in DA2 abominations are everywhere.

Another thing that bugged me was how mages are portrayed in general in DA2, I distinctly remember having a conversation with an NPC in Origins where I was told that templars hunt mages in groups, because a mages powers are always dangerous and powerful mages are often to much for even a group of Templars to handle.  In DA2 mages are treated as a joke, and large groups of mages cower before individual templars reguarly, even the abominations they almost always turn into are no threat at all.  If a mage or an abomination is no more dangerous then a generic steet thug, there is really little reason to keep them confined.

[TEWR]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
How hard is it to simply answer them, instead of putting the same energy in avoiding them?

Because "Are all the mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions. They are opinions disguised as questions.

And there is no energy to be spent in not answering them (or trying to, as I have previously). I just happened to browse the forums and saw the thread and thought, "What? This again? Still?" And, yep, same bat-faces. I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions-- if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

I'll take a shot at some legitimate questions:

Is there anything about the Mage-Templar conflict of DAII you regret?

Why wasn't the Mage-Templar conflict the central story of all three acts, where each Act's story connected to the Mage-Templar conflict?

Why weren't Meredith and Orsino properly characterized?

Why does Orsino betray Hawke for no valid reason?

Why does Decimus not bother to ascertain which side Hawke is on before he tries to kill him, which leads to Grace doing what she does (which imo just made her a pathetic character, but that's irrelevant to my question)?

Could you please retcon Orsino's fate for pro-mage people? Because no one liked that as far as I can tell.

In an effort to salvage the discussion, I'll take a shot.

Here's my interpretation of the portrayals: Templars are given varied personalities. Thrask is well-meaning and reasonable, Cullen ruthless but ultimately fair, Meredith extremely ruthless, Alrik monstrous, Ser Agatha duty-bound and reasonable, Ser Merrin needlessly ruthless, etc. They're portrayed as varied people.

Then we get to the Circle Mages, who. Grace is a blood mage, she escapes, get caught, possessed, and then attacks you. Decimus attacks you. Orsino attacks you. All those mage rebels attack you, even if you express support for the mages. It doesn't matter who they were before. They all end up the same way, and it generally ends up being blood magic = instant evil.

Then, the game goes out of its way to show mages as bloodthirsty villains, but doesn't really go into the Templars' faults, and always has a convenient excuse ready for them when they're revealed.

Even in the party, Anders, the pro-mage poster boy, ends up being a mass murderer. Fenris, the pro-Templar posterboy, has killed a handful of people who largely deserved it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear from you about this.

That does seem to convey a sense of "Mages bad. Templars better. Why Tarzan here?"

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Because "Are all mages insane and stupid or did you just write them badly? Will you continue to make them insane and stupid?" are not questions.

I never asked if mage antagonists were insane and stupid. They are insane and stupid.

Yeah, see the way you word that makes it sound to me like you're not interested in an answer to that question, you're just interested in antagonizing him.

While I can't help but agree that a significant number of the characters were unreasonable, there are more far more constructive ways to present a criticism.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Then we get to the Circle Mages, who. Grace is a blood mage, she escapes, get caught, possessed, and then attacks you. Decimus attacks you. Orsino attacks you. All those mage rebels attack you, even if you express support for the mages. It doesn't matter who they were before. They all end up the same way, and it generally ends up being blood magic = instant evil.

Alain, Terrie, Ella, Feynriel, Bethany, Solivitus, the surrendering mages, ect.

• Alain can be killed.
• We don't know much about Terrie, but she is a good mage from what I can recall
• Ella can be killed
• Feynriel can be made Tranquil or an Abomination, so he doesn't count if those happen. Otherwise, he's a good mage if you send him to Tevinter.
• Bethany may be dead
• Solivitus is a good guy.
• The surrendering mages are made Tranquil.
• etc. is etc.

then there's the fact that only one of those can barely be called a blood mage, and the ones that CrimsonZephyr listed are all blood mages who try to drive this notion that blood magic is automatically evil and makes a person evil.

[LobselVith8]

Gaider already made it clear he isn't going to address it seriously pages back, phaonica. And he seems more interested in misrepresenting what I've said than addressing what was actually written. What's the point in trying to establish a line of dialogue with someone who has made it clear that he has no interest in it? He seemed to favor the poster who called people who favored the mages perspective "stupid," so I see little point in making the effort.