1253 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

I'm happy to answer legitimate, polite questions

Well, but will Anders ever get his cat back? ;/

(that's actually somewhat legitimate -- as i understand it, he doesn't have one in DA2 in large part because there wasn't enough resources to convert/create animated cat model for the new game. So if say, theoretically such model was made now, either for DA3 or the DLC, is it possible Anders would be seen with one again? Provided of course we get to see Anders again at all)

if I see them, and if I think they're interesting. Otherwise I shall feel free to mock. And then leave you to it.

Ah, rats. Well, mock then if you must.

[billy the squid]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

Well, its nice to know Mr. Gaider still has a sense of humour, after writing DA2's storyline I would have thought he used up his material.

The Mage Templar conflict seems more symptomatic of the A vs B approach which crops up in most Bioware games, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it tends to get somewhat boring after a while when the potential to expand on details was quite obviously there. But, that is something which may have also been a development time issue, rather than stricly a writing issue.

Modifié par billy the squid, 30 août 2011 - 02:12 .

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

We'll have a few of the same people saying Gaider has an anti-mage agenda, the post will be quoted out of context a few times and then the pro-mage cycle repeats. Don't worry, it's marked on my calendar.

Pro Mage Syndrome fits better, i think. Explains neatly the cyclical nature of the phenomenon as well...

(i'll get my coat)

Modifié par tmp7704, 30 août 2011 - 02:13 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

billy the squid wrote...
The Mage Templar conflict seems more symptomatic of the A vs B approach which crops up in most Bioware games, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it tends to get somewhat boring after a while when the potential to expand on details was quite obviously there. But, that is something which may have also been a development time issue, rather than stricly a writing issue.

An A vs B approach that was not done well, for whatever reason.

[Gunderic]

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!

That single-digit number of people that keep attacking your writing of the templar/mage plot for Dragon Age 2 must be awfully persistent. 

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Read the links dave posted and look at the posters. Then facepalm and change the subject.

This discussions will never end well because the people who bring these kind of topics up will never be satisified with any answer.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 30 août 2011 - 04:07 .

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

The problem (for me) is that it's another example of Hawke being inactive. I'm honestly tired of it. I want a proactive protagonist and engaging antagonists. If Hawke is never going to be proactive or depicted as an intelligent man (or woman), is there any point in purchasing future DLC? I didn't find the story of Legacy all that interesting, especially since none of my choices mattered.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I hated the paraphrasing. How am I supposed to immerse myself in a character when he never says what I chose for him to say, and when he says entire lines of dialogue completely out of my control? I don't feel like I'm playing an RPG when I'm being handed Bioware's character and told that it's really my character.

As for the dichotomy between mages and templars, people are never going to come to an agreement on the issue. Some people think that the Chantry controlled Circles (and by extension, the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars) are wrong, but also wonder aloud why a storyline that should have a mature look at the dichotomy between mages and templars as two irreconcilable groups (with the warring ideologies between Chantry controlled Circles and autonomous Circles) instead has mages being depicted as mentally unbalanced fools and the Knight-Commander of Kirkwall being possessed by a macguffin.

[LobselVith8]

Gunderic wrote...

That single-digit number of people that keep attacking your writing of the templar/mage plot for Dragon Age 2 must be awfully persistent.  

According to you, only one person has an issue with the writing in Dragon Age 2? I have to respectfully disagree. I'm certainly not alone in my criticism against the depiction of antagonists or the handling of Hawke as the protagonist. The criticism against Dragon Age 2 is what lead Mike Laidlaw to create the "Thank You" thread and addressed the problems with the narrative and the significance of choice... that remain issues in Legacy. It's also the reason why the thread was locked.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Read the links dave posted and look at the posters. Then facepalm and change the subject.

You mean the thread about Sister Nightingale that was made nearly a month ago and the thread made three months ago about the templars? How does that have anything to do with making antagonists insane and stupid in Dragon Age 2? Are you telling me Decimus was a brilliant mastermind when he thought Hawke was a templar, or when Grace had decided to destroy everything because she wanted revenge against a man who helped her escape, or when Orsino decided to become an abomination because Hawke defeated the templars? How about when Cullen handwaved the warning Hawke gave him about Anders when the apostate was standing right next to him, or when Meredith became possessed by the Soul Calibur sword? If you want to counter the arguments I've made and the examples that I've provided, feel free to.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

This discussions will never end well because the people who bring these kind of topics up will never be satisified with any answer.

Probably because Dave of Canada's examples dealt with different issues across the span of months, from mages to templars and finally Leliana in "Faith"?

[Herr Uhl]

I recall most if not all of the antagonists to be considered stupid or insane by these forums.

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

I recall most if not all of the antagonists to be considered stupid or insane by these forums.

The whole concept of going against the protagonist in RPG is very much Catch-22.

Modifié par tmp7704, 30 août 2011 - 05:06 .

[Gunderic]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

That single-digit number of people that keep attacking your writing of the templar/mage plot for Dragon Age 2 must be awfully persistent.  

According to you, only one person has an issue with the writing in Dragon Age 2? I have to respectfully disagree. I'm certainly not alone in my criticism against the depiction of antagonists or the handling of Hawke as the protagonist. The criticism against Dragon Age 2 is what lead Mike Laidlaw to create the "Thank You" thread and addressed the problems with the narrative and the significance of choice... that remain issues in Legacy. It's also the reason why the thread was locked.

It was sarcasm. 

[JPadinhaT]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

Sorry, I was gonna add that some mages are depicted as mages that understand the necessity of the Templars, but I just didn't bother xD

[LobselVith8]

Herr Uhl wrote...

I recall most if not all of the antagonists to be considered stupid or insane by these forums.

Isn't that a problem that should be corrected so fans can be invested in the storyline, since plenty of fans felt that they wished they could leave Kirkwall in Act III rather than get involved with two factions that were horribly depicted throughout the story? I certainly don't that it was only mages who acted insane and foolish.

Gunderic wrote...

It was sarcasm.  

Sorry about that, Gunderic.

[Herr Uhl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

I recall most if not all of the antagonists to be considered stupid or insane by these forums.

Isn't that a problem that should be corrected so fans can be invested in the storyline, since plenty of fans felt that they wished they could leave Kirkwall in Act III rather than get involved with two factions that were horribly depicted throughout the story? I certainly don't that it was only mages who acted insane and foolish.

I'm saying that it is a bioware problem at large, not something that only applies to mages. The previous statement also includes DAO.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

They explain why mages have a higher chance of turning to blood magic/being insane in the engima of kirkwall.

[Ryzaki]

Herr Uhl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

I recall most if not all of the antagonists to be considered stupid or insane by these forums.

Isn't that a problem that should be corrected so fans can be invested in the storyline, since plenty of fans felt that they wished they could leave Kirkwall in Act III rather than get involved with two factions that were horribly depicted throughout the story? I certainly don't that it was only mages who acted insane and foolish.

I'm saying that it is a bioware problem at large, not something that only applies to mages. The previous statement also includes DAO.

True true. You get a few exceptions but for the most part they're either crazy/stupid. 

[Rifneno]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

They explain why mages have a higher chance of turning to blood magic/being insane in the engima of kirkwall.

Yes, but it's just such a drastic change that it makes no sense that the Chantry and Circle didn't know something was dreadfully wrong.  It's not a little subtle, it's like walking in to a horror movie.  How can the Circle not realize they're under an extremely high Fade influence compare to elsewhere?  Native mages, yeah, but plenty of them were foreigners.

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

They explain why mages have a higher chance of turning to blood magic/being insane in the engima of kirkwall.

I've already addressed that I read the Band of Three entries, but whether it's Orsino becoming insane after Hawke and his companions defeated the templars or Meredith losing her sanity to a lyrium idol, I didn't find the plethora of insane enemies interesting. I didn't think Decimus, Tarohne, Grace, or Huon were engaging, and they were all crazy antagonists. New Vegas had Caesar argue Hegelian dialectics as the framework of his attempt to rebuild civilization. Morrowind's Dagoth Ur and the Tribunal had flawed but intelligent antagonists who Nerevarine could engage, with Dagoth Ur and Vivec having two different viewpoints and motivations for their actions. I simply don't see that with the templars or the mages in Dragon Age 2.

[Xilizhra]

Tarohne never struck me as insane. She doesn't seem disconnected from reality, anyway, especially if you read the Forbidden Knowledge codex entries.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

They explain why mages have a higher chance of turning to blood magic/being insane in the engima of kirkwall.

Yes, but it's just such a drastic change that it makes no sense that the Chantry and Circle didn't know something was dreadfully wrong.  It's not a little subtle, it's like walking in to a horror movie.  How can the Circle not realize they're under an extremely high Fade influence compare to elsewhere?  Native mages, yeah, but plenty of them were foreigners.

That's because the writers wanted to beat the idea that mages are evvilll exploding kitties with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.  They HAD to include the Enigma of Kirkwall codies to explain the radical departure from what was canon elsewhere, the sure didn't emphasize it or explain the significance to the player (which means the player unless they knew better from DAO) would reasonably think that mages everywhere are this way which I believe was BW's intent.

-Polaris

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's because the writers wanted to beat the idea that mages are evvilll exploding kitties with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. 

-Polaris

They also wanted to make templars and the chantry look evvilll by the constant talk of rape and abuse. This you have no problem with though.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

If insane people could reason with the PC they would not be insane.

And thats what they were insane mages.

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

If insane people could reason with the PC they would not be insane.

And thats what they were insane mages.

Antagonists don't need to be insane in order to want the protagonist dead; a pro-templar Hawke can deal with pro-mage antagonists, and vice versa. A pro-templar Hawke having to deal with Meredith thinking he's a traitor when he supported her fully makes as much sense as a pro-mage Hawke watching Orsino loose it after he's defeated a wave of templars. I don't think it's much of a stretch to provide the opinion that neither faction needs to be portrayed as insane or lacking intelligence. A system like New Vegas, where the protagonist can choose a faction - and gain allies or enemies depending on the choice made - would (in my humble opinion) be better than having antagonists who are insane and attacking the protagonist for reasons that don't add up. Nevarine in Morrowind and the Courier in New Vegas can deal with antagonists who are not insane, even engaging them in dialogue.

So I see no need for insane mages any more than I see a need for an insane Knight-Commander who lost her mind because of a plot device.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That's because the writers wanted to beat the idea that mages are evvilll exploding kitties with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. 

-Polaris

They also wanted to make templars and the chantry look evvilll by the constant talk of rape and abuse. This you have no problem with though.

False.  They made some members of the Chantry and Templars look that way.  We had Templars that were supposedly genuinely good guys.  NO DA2 was definately and iMHO unfairly slanted anti-mage and done with all the subtlety of a cement truck.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

There is a problem that if you don't make the antagonist totally bananas people will complain that they can't join up with them.

There are quite a few complaints about not being able to support the Qunari - and they're pretty nuts really. Some people even seem to have wanted to support Saren.