1253 réponses à ce sujet

[Follow Me on Twitter]

You forgot Ser Varnell and Ser Alrik.  Both Ruthless killers.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 30 août 2011 - 05:14 .

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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?

Why such a strong desire for a specific outcome? I don't play a game the same way I read the news. If I were reading the news, as in if this were real life, I'd hope for the best for the mages. When I'm playing a game, I want an interesting story, which imo might include mages rising up and attempting to rule everyone, exactly as many people had feared. If that's not the kind of story that interests you, fair enough, but I wouldn't accuse the writers of trying to push some kind of agenda any more than I would claim that if the mages won, that the writers were pandering to the pro mage players.

[Sanguinerin]

I don't intend on raging about "insane" or "stupid" mages, but I will say that there were few shining examples of good mages throughout the story. I understand the need to portray the mages' desperation. They are getting very desperate.

However, there's no mage in the game that I would really consider "great." I've heard that Bethany is a fine example, but I prefer to play mages, so she's a bit removed from my story.

Out of the entire game, I would consider Emile de Launcet to be the best example after my Hawke. He lies, and tries convincing others that he is a blood mage, but at the core he's just a frightened mage with very simple, carnal desires. I feel sorry for him, but... No others really come to mind.

Alain wasn't a terrible person, but he also resorted to blood magic. I think a few, or at least one, strong example of a mage that didn't succumb to blood magic or demon summoning would have been helpful. I believe Nyssa, Huon's wife, was also a mage, but she sticks out more to me in that Hawke merely watches her die rather than attempt to get involved, despite a promise to protect her.

Someone like Wynne, who accepted a spirit into her but continued with her resolve and somewhat Aequitarian ways would have been fantastic. Although I mention Wynne mostly because she was my favorite character from Origins.

Petra, Kinnon, or even Keili would have also been great. Petra and Kinnon seem to have good, sound minds. Keili, not so much, but a Loyalist (or perceived Loyalist) would have played some kind of contrast between the desperate, tormented mages and those who are trying to actively change (or survive) the circumstances of being a mage through peaceful methods, submission, or even apathy (although I might attribute a bit of apathy or submission to those who willingly became Tranquil due to their building fear of what they could become).

We had contract amongst the Templars. I found Cullen to be one of the most reasonable people in Kirkwall. Alrik was too much of an aggressor, while Thrask was too much of a sympathizer. I would say that, in my opinion, the Templars were spread across a larger range than the mages.

I ultimately feel that if I were going to draw a line of characters who I found to be reasonable and/or sane, and unreasonable and/or insane, the Templars' line has a larger spread across the line, while the mage line is more bunched on one particular end.

I think, at the core, that some people--myself included--would prefer a wider area of contrast. Of course, I don't consider the developers to be anti-mage. I feel like the particular direction of DAII came across as much more forceful on the side that mages are dangerous, but I don't believe that this was done intentionally to shove our opinions to one side.

My only request in the matter of mages, (I'll end after this because I know I'm a bit repetitive) is that we have a wider contrast between them. Too many fell on one side, with very few (or next to none) standing out as people unwilling to bend toward... I don't want to use this expression exactly but it fits... as people unwilling to bend toward the dark side. There were so many Anakins, and not really any memorable Lukes.

A stronger character that resists the temptation of demons and/or blood magic, and endures the burden of their magic rather than succumbing to it... It would really help (at least for me) as breaking my feelings on being so bent toward one side.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

You forgot Ser Varnell and Ser Alrik.  Both Ruthless killers.

Ser Alrik, yes.  He's also pretty clearly has sociopathic tendencies as least as far as I can tell.  If there was ever a character depicted without a conscious or soul, he'd be it.

Ser Varnell?  No.  He's an effective fighter (leader type) but he strikes me more as an unthinking and rigid fanatic rather than being cold blooded (like Alrik certainly is).

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Maybe not a ruthless killer but still a religious fanatic that was spreading hatred against the Qunari to other templars and citizens which makes him worse in my opinion.

He was trying to start a religious war seriously thats pretty terrible. Lets not forget Petrice as well she was just as fanatic.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 30 août 2011 - 05:22 .

[LobselVith8]

I pointed out that creating a war that will prevent player participation from deciding one particular outcome over another is my issue, phaonica. I prefer significant choices to linear story-telling. I dislike narratives where we are provided with choices that are ultimately meaningless - like saying no to Petrice, and being forced to go through with her quest without a realistic reason given for completing the quest.

And where did I claim that the writers were pushing an agenda? I addressed that the mage antagonists were depicted as stupid and insane. I already cited several examples. I dislike insane antagonists who made no sense - Decimus, for example, thinking that Hawke, Merrill, Fenris, and Varric are templars makes no sense.

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I dislike insane antagonists who made no sense - Decimus, for example, thinking that Hawke, Merrill, Fenris, and Varric are templars makes no sense.

Agents of the Templar.

[Sanguinerin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

Please read my post for a little more depth on my thoughts here.

Alain is a good lad, in my opinion, but he still resorts to blood magic.

Terrie appears with Grace and company in the beginning and creates a sort of "underground" for the mages, but as a character that has an appearance as a mage who isn't "falling in with the wrong crowd" in a way, she doesn't have much memorable screen time.

Ella, well, we know very little about her. She does seem to be a lot more pure than others, but again, that little screen time doesn't help her stand out.

I've never had Bethany, because I love playing as a mage. From what I understand of her, she's a great example of a decent mage. However, players who pick the mage class are barred from that entire experience to help their sights on things.

I had to look up Solivitus. I didn't even remember him at all, but I don't recall anything particularly mad about him.

You only see the surrendering mages if you side with the Templars. For someone who feels like there are innocents amongst the mages and refuses to cull them because of that theory, we don't see that relieving proof. I would like an example of mages like those that surrendered when I actually choose to help them out. I played through and sided with the Templars to see what it was like, and felt a little slapped in the face when I got a far more humbling image of the mages by not choosing to help them.

As I stated before, it feels like the Templars' opinions are more diverse. The examples on the mage side don't stand out as much, or have less screen time. At least that's what it felt like.

[LobselVith8]

Decimus never claims they are agents of the templars, he claims they are templars when they arrive, Dave of Canada.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I dislike insane antagonists who made no sense - Decimus, for example, thinking that Hawke, Merrill, Fenris, and Varric are templars makes no sense.

Agents of the Templar.

Decimus: They're here! The Templars have come to take us back to the Circle!
Grace: Decimus, no! Stay your hand. These are no Templars!
Decimus: What do I care what shield they carry? If they challenge us, the dead themselves will meet the call!


He doesn't care whether they carry the shield of the mages or the Templars, and doesn't even say anything to make one think he thought Hawke was just an agent of the Templars. He just wants to act like an idiot


edit: "carry what shield they carry"?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[Follow Me on Twitter]

www.youtube.com/watch 

Seems more like he figured he was backed into a corner seeing as he was using blood mage he probably figured he was a dead man anyways.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Decimus never claims they are agents of the templars, he claims they are templars when they arrive, Dave of Canada.

Indeed, and when his girlfriend, Grace points out they are no Templars, he says, "I doesn't matter what shield they bear, all that oppose us will face the dead themselves."

Even ANDERS is aghast at Decimus who rather snarkily but correctly says (when Grace accuses him of betraying their own), "Hello, he was the one that sicced the walking dead on us, no questions asked." (a paraphrase but it's close as I remember)

-POlaris

[Melca36]

Has anyone clicked on Alain in the Gallows? Remember what he said about who was visiting him in his quarters?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

alex90c wrote...


I wanted Gamlen to move in to the estate with me. But no, I had to put up with that whiny spoiled b!tch Leandra.

I give you a hearty bro-fist, serah. You express my opinions perfectly. Gamlen was actually the only family member that made any impact on me, or that I even liked as an NPC. He's my favorite no-account low life uncle who blew the family legacy on hookers, bets, and hare-brained schemes. I do wish we got to have more quests and interaction with him, especially at the Blooming Rose.

I agree with the OP, but it wasn't just the mages. The mages were lunatic idiots and epic fails, it was hard to take them as a threat seriously. That was Bioware's first mistake, if they wanted me to side against the mages. The insanity was neither realistic, well developed, or believable, it was cartoonish. But just as bad it made the templars look like a bunch of psychopathic perverts and sadists, and made it impossible for me to side with them. other than Emeric, Thrask, and Kerran (and Roderick, the senile lyrium addled templar in the hanged man,lol, bless him, he's gonna go tell Meredith he has proof of goat sacrifice amongst te templars, doing demony things, lol), all the other templars were portrayed as numbskull pricks, rapists and sexual predators, sadists and murderers.

In Origins, you had a much better balance for both sides, and I found templars portrayed there as being more even. You saw plenty of good ones, but were given hints and info about the bad ones as well. And we got to see two halves of the mage side, as well. Balance is the key. Both sides have moderates and extremists, I want to see this in balance. And of course, shwoing that every apostate is somehow automatically turn to blood magic is just ridiculous and unbelievable. Certainly, a number would do so. But there are plenty who would not, for various reasons. Mages are humans, humans are as varied in ethics and motivations as anyone else.

[Melca36]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I pointed out that creating a war that will prevent player participation from deciding one particular outcome over another is my issue, phaonica. I prefer significant choices to linear story-telling. I dislike narratives where we are provided with choices that are ultimately meaningless - like saying no to Petrice, and being forced to go through with her quest without a realistic reason given for completing the quest.

And where did I claim that the writers were pushing an agenda? I addressed that the mage antagonists were depicted as stupid and insane. I already cited several examples. I dislike insane antagonists who made no sense - Decimus, for example, thinking that Hawke, Merrill, Fenris, and Varric are templars makes no sense.

Have you read the codexes?

There is a reason people were acting the way they were in Kirkwall.

[Melca36]

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.

I dont think all mages want to rule over people.   They're simply tired of being opressed and having their abilities used by those same people.

Modifié par Melca36, 30 août 2011 - 05:43 .

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I pointed out that creating a war that will prevent player participation from deciding one particular outcome over another is my issue, phaonica.

I'd prefer a less linear storyline, too, and I'd like more impactful decisions. However the issue of accomodating branching narratives in sequals, to me, is sufficient argument for creating bottlenecks in the narrative.

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Is the emancipation of the Circles of Magi going to mean more insane mage antagonists in DLC and Dragon Age 3? Will Hawke be denied meaningful choice in the narrative of the DLCs and forced down a linear progression to deal with insane and stupid mage antagonists? Will the mage antagonists continue to be depicted as insane and stupid characters?

Will the Divine ever apologize for oppressing all those poor, unjustifiably-portrayed insane mages? Will the writers ever admit to hating freedom as much as they clearly must? Will Anders ever get his cat back? Will the same three posters ever stop posting variations on the same topic over and over again?

These questions and MORE answered on the News @ 11!

Keep your fingers on the pulse !

Sorry, reading this post make me want to finish this sentence properly.

Well, I laughed mr Gaider.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2011 - 09:50 .

[Wulfram]

phaonica wrote...

I'd prefer a less linear storyline, too, and I'd like more impactful decisions. However the issue of accomodating branching narratives in sequals, to me, is sufficient argument for creating bottlenecks in the narrative.

And for me it's a sufficient argument for not worrying so much about continuity in sequels.  Particularly if you're going to be relegating the main character to NPCdom in future installments anyway.

I'd rather have my choices be declared non-canon, than not have any meaningful choices be possible.

[LobselVith8]

Melca36,

I read the Band of Three codex entries. That doesn't really change the fact that the antagonists are not only insane, but stupid. Decimus attacks three strangers under the pretense that they are templars? Grace wants revenge against a man who helped her escape? Orsino becomes a Harvester because Hawke defeated the templars? WTF is this? How am I suppose to take the storyline seriously when characters make no sense - when the antagonists are mere caricatures instead of characters.

So far, Legacy gave us a linear narrative where the two "choices" lead to the same outcome: a possessed Warden, Hawke doing nothing even when he addresses something is amiss, and the protagonist's inaction likely being the cause of future deaths via "Shepherding Wolves."

Add the protagonist never vocally saying the written dialogue that was chosen, and the insane, stupid antagonists are only part of the problem I have. Why can't we have engaging antagonists instead of insane and foolish ones who lose their mind for no reason (Orsino) or because of a macguffin (Meredith)? I don't find insane antagonists interesting, I find them lackluster, which was the entire premise of this thread. It reads to me like it's lazy writing, because it Involves little effort in making the antagonist a real character rather than a cardboard cutout.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...
Have you read the codexes?

There is a reason people were acting the way they were in Kirkwall.

A very desperate and uninspired plot device that was never explored. Thus it seems more to me like an excuse to poor writing, nothing more. Had they actually developped it, I may have had a different impression.

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
Have you read the codexes?

There is a reason people were acting the way they were in Kirkwall.

A very desperate and uninspired plot device that was never explored. Thus it seems more to me like an excuse to poor writing, nothing more. Had they actually developped it, I may have had a different impression.

If they had developed it, it probably would've resorted to a big, bad evil as the cause of the whole thing

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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.

He's getting tired of your snide insinuations.

Seriously though, I doubt there is a way to phrase that criticism in a way that Mr. Gaider would approve of. It's understandable of course, since all these questions at least imply that writing was not as good as it should have been. Which I hope they realize is the case and seeek to improve for the future.

My number one question would be: "why didn't we explore the factors that were crucial to the conflict build up that DA2 was supposed to be, like the mage resistance especially?"

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...


So far, Legacy gave us a linear narrative where the two "choices" lead to the same outcome: a possessed Warden, Hawke doing nothing even when he addresses something is amiss, and the protagonist's inaction likely being the cause of future deaths via "Shepherding Wolves."

To be fair, it's only with Larius that something seems off. Janeka doesn't seem odd if you went that route, because she talks the same and seems like the same person.

For Larius, I can understand that you may have wanted the option to say "I don't believe you" to him and try to kill him but ultimately fail to at least make it a believable scenario. I just don't see Hawke being able to immediately discern that something is amiss. He doesn't see Larius start to convulse, nor does he know what Corypheus may have been doing to Larius. He's not an expert on the taint, and he can learn that Corypheus was able to control the Wardens. Who's to say he couldn't also control how they spoke as well? He managed to implant certain thoughts into a Warden mage's mind, so perhaps he was trying to control Larius and Larius was fighting back.

Granted, most of that's just what Hawke can think and it isn't actually true. Had Janeka or Larius said something about what happens to ghoul Wardens, then I would want Hawke to take action against Larius' possessed self because it would make sense.

That the player may know something is amiss because the camera angle showed it doesn't mean Hawke knows, because he's not sitting where we are.

Add the protagonist never vocally saying the written dialogue that was chosen, and the insane, stupid antagonists are only part of the problem I have. Why can't we have engaging antagonists instead of insane and foolish ones who lose their mind for no reason (Orsino) or because of a macguffin (Meredith)? I don't find insane antagonists interesting, I find them lackluster, which was the entire premise of this thread. It reads to me like it's lazy writing, because it Involves little effort in making the antagonist a real character rather than a cardboard cutout.

I still don't know why they didn't just make a toggle that showed the full line of text at the top of the screen before you clicked on the paraphrase. Not everyone would skip the dialogue because they're hearing what they read. That Hawke said many things I would've said doesn't mean I enjoy the paraphrase.

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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.

He's getting tired of your snide insinuations.

Seriously though, I doubt there is a way to phrase that criticism in a way that Mr. Gaider would approve of. It's understandable of course, since all these questions at least imply that writing was not as good as it should have been. Which I hope they realize is the case and seeek to improve for the future.

My number one question would be: "why didn't we explore the factors that were crucial to the conflict build up that DA2 was supposed to be, like the mage resistance especially?"

 at the snide part. That made me laugh

Indeed. The writing is very.... meh I guess. At best.

There are so many things that could've been done for the Mage-Templar conflict to make it amazing. Granted, there would probably still be things we would've wanted in the game had the game been better than it was.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 août 2011 - 01:55 .