1253 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So she's bitter and yet takes no direct action? This is a horrible mark against the game?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

So she's bitter and yet takes no direct action? This is a horrible mark against the game?

It's a mark of poor writing, and one of several in the game that made me facepalm. Especially since, as someone else said before, that you couldn't even confront her on it. But yeah, its stupid. Being bitter is one thing. But Grace has no one to blame but herself if she got recaptured, especially as Hawke risked alot to free her and the rest of the Manson family from the templars.

Being angry and bitter about being captured and brought to the Gallows is one thing. Blaming Hawke for getting recaptured when Hawke risked alot to help her flee, is just stupid. If Grace got recaptured, it happened beyond Hawke's ability to influence and control the situation. Act 2 is three years after Act 1. If Grace ended up getting recaptured, its not Hawke's fault. Blaming Hawke is just plain stupid.

It's like, if you helped someone get off drugs by kicking the crap out of their dealers and helping them get on a bus to go somewhere else to sort themselves out, then three years later, they come back all strung out and blame you for their failure. It's petty, stupid, and rather insane. And I find it to be poor writing. Especially given how Act 3 plays out.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Yeah,  this. What really got me about Grace was that in like act 2, when I click on her, she's berating me for her capture because.....i didn't give them food, money, and tickets to Disneyland?

She says more than that too.

She says that there's no way the Templars could've tracked her down, they wouldn't have kept looking for her (because she's supposedly dead) unless somebody told the Templar the mages had lived and were running. As she reasons the only person who could've told them was Hawke, she's pissed off at you.

It isn't illogical to hate somebody who let you run away without food, money or shelter and still think they sent the dogs after you.

It's illogical for Grace to hate someone who did nothing but help her, including killing a squad of templars, despite the fact that some of her companions tried to murder Hawke in cold blood. Given the facts of the storyline, it doesn't make any sense for Grace to think a pro-mage, possibly apostate Hawke aided the templars in capturing her. By the events of Act III, she knows that Hawke's status as Champion is protecting his apostate companions, and Hawke can publicly condemn Meredith's dictatorship, so why would she think that Hawke is pro-templar? It doesn't make any sense, and I don't see why you think it isn't illogical. In fact, since Cullen reveals that Meredith is refusing any outside help after the events of "Enemies Among Us," no outsiders would have accompanied the templars in capturing Grace or any of the other Starkhaven mages.

Since only templars would have been there to capture Grace because of Meredith's edict against outsiders aiding the templars, and none of them even suspect that she's a blood mage since she wasn't made tranquil or that she was witness to Ser Kerras' death, I don't see how it makes any sense that Grace thinks that Hawke aided the templars. Since Hawke can be an apostate and always has apostate companions, he clearly didn't turn in his illegal mage allies to the templars, so why would she think Hawke would turn her over after killing almost every templar hunting her down except for Ser Thrask? Additionally, she seems to have no issue with Ser Thrask, who she knows helped Hawke defeat the templars hunting them down outside the cavern, so I don't see how Grace's actions are rational or even plausible.

Again, I don't see why sane mage antagonists are too much to ask for when it comes to future content.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Again, I don't see why sane mage antagonists are too much to ask for when it comes to future content.

I don't either. In Origins, we had Caladrius and the Tevinter blood mage slavers. They were certainly devious, deplorable characters. And they were quite sane. I'd like to see future mage villians in a similar presentation. Clever, devious, wicked, cold-hearted, but still sane with goals and motives that would actually make sense. Instead of raving nutcases who turn abomination on the drop of a dime.

The only sane mage antagonist/enemy I ran into in DA2 was Danarius. And I got to see him for less than 5 minutes, on a companion quest that was totally optional.

[Xilizhra]

Actually...
Have we ever had a mentally stable antagonist?

Loghain's paranoia about the Orlesians certainly incorporates a certain level of disassociation with reality. Howe was probably some variety of sociopath/psychopath. Uldred was an abomination. Kolgrim was full of delusions about Andraste. Zathrian was buried in a quagmire of perma-vengeance. Branka was, well, Branka. The archdemon is driven into a killing rage by the taint. Etcetera.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually...
Have we ever had a mentally stable antagonist?

Loghain's paranoia about the Orlesians certainly incorporates a certain level of disassociation with reality. Howe was probably some variety of sociopath/psychopath. Uldred was an abomination. Kolgrim was full of delusions about Andraste. Zathrian was buried in a quagmire of perma-vengeance. Branka was, well, Branka. The archdemon is driven into a killing rage by the taint. Etcetera.

Paranoia does not equal insanity. Loghain wasn't a raving madman, and his paranoia had basis in his own past, as well as history. Howe wasn't insane. Being a self-serving psychop[athic bastard is actually pretty normal for politicians in general. Kolgrim was a nut, yes. He is but one antagonist. Branka was also quite mad. Zathrien was not crazy. He was hateful and vindictive. But even that had reasonable source.  Beyond Witherfang, Zathrien seemed little different from other keepers or Dalish mages.

There is a difference between a troubled antagonist who does things based on a logical progression of events, as opposed to someone who just goes crazy or decides to be stupid because the plot demands. There was no logical reason for Grace to behave as she did. Tahrone was just plain out of her head, period. Orsino goes harvestino on you for no logical reason (and this pissed me off even more, because until that point, he actually seemed more reasonable and grounded than everyone else).  Quentin is crazy. Decimus is crazy. Antagonists do things in the game that make little sense in context, and instead, lazy plot devices like thin veils and red lyrium are invoked to explain away otherwise non-sensical, illogical character and plot progression. Which makes them come off as being crazy or incredibly stupid.

Having issues such as ill-directed paranoia or nurturing old hatreds, or ruthlessly pursuing personal ambitions are normal parts of any sentient being. And can be written quite interestingly. Whatever the writers intentions when they wrote the characters of DA2, they ended up with a bunch of people, mage and non mage, who were doing sh*t that made no sense from a past, present, or future perspective. In otherwords, crazy and stupid.

[Xilizhra]

Why is Quentin trying to bring back his dead wife crazier than Zathrien keeping a curse over the descendants of a bunch of human rapists? Why is Tahrone's demon plan crazier than Branka's?

For Grace and Orsino, we probably needed to see more character development (or for Orsino, for it to not happen at all).

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually...
Have we ever had a mentally stable antagonist?

Loghain's paranoia about the Orlesians certainly incorporates a certain level of disassociation with reality. Howe was probably some variety of sociopath/psychopath. Uldred was an abomination. Kolgrim was full of delusions about Andraste. Zathrian was buried in a quagmire of perma-vengeance. Branka was, well, Branka. The archdemon is driven into a killing rage by the taint. Etcetera.

Actually, the Archdemon showed a great deal of intellect despite the taint - leading the darkspawn to attack the human forces through the tunnels beneath the ruins of Ostagar so they attacked from two directions, and misleading the human forces into thinking the darkspawn horde was heading for Redcliffe when they were really marching towards Denerim. It was luck that Riordian managed to leap onto the Archdemon and injure its wing, since the Grey Wardens lost their griffons a long time ago and those were their only means of flight.

[Bhaal]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually...
Have we ever had a mentally stable antagonist?

Loghain's paranoia about the Orlesians certainly incorporates a certain level of disassociation with reality. Howe was probably some variety of sociopath/psychopath. Uldred was an abomination. Kolgrim was full of delusions about Andraste. Zathrian was buried in a quagmire of perma-vengeance. Branka was, well, Branka. The archdemon is driven into a killing rage by the taint. Etcetera.

 
Loghain was indeed paranoid yet his paraoia wasn't like: "THEY GONNA KILL ME SO I GO INTO BERzERG NOWW ARGSFDV". Also his thing wasn't simple paranoia: there was also deep and rightful hatret againts Orlesians and he was a nationalist before anything.  His whole life and character built upon war so his condition was very very realistic that you can point out many real world person with same ideology and behavior.

Whole DA2 antagonists on the other hand... They were absurd say to least. Theirs is not madness but plain imbecility; they even lack the basic instict of survival just here to provide combat and experience; plain and simple.

I don't even see why people argue that; Bioware didn't or (due to lack of development time) couldn't write good quests and characters. I mean can the enigma of Kirkwall explain why people warp out of blue in Kirkwall? Or how the mages teleporting in direct contradiction to lore?

Modifié par Adakutay, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:16 .

[tmp7704]

Xilizhra wrote...

So she's bitter and yet takes no direct action? This is a horrible mark against the game?

No, the mark against is the inability to react to her early accusations and/or potentially affect the outcome.

The fact these accusations are completely illogical and feel like someone was trying to force the square peg into round hole just to have some vague justification for an event down the road doesn't help, either. See: the very topic of this thread.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why is Quentin trying to bring back his dead wife crazier than Zathrien keeping a curse over the descendants of a bunch of human rapists?

Because Keeper Zathrian cursed the men responsible for murdering his son and raping his daughter, while Quentin is patching a bunch of random bodies together into his "pseudo-wife" rather than using his necromancy to ressurect his actual wife from the dead?

Xilizhra wrote...

Why is Tahrone's demon plan crazier than Branka's?

Branka went insane trying to find a way to defeat the darkspawn from annihilating her race, and was coherent enough not to try to murder The Warden or Oghren unless they opposed her goal. Tahrone never bothers to ask whether an apostate Hawke (or a nomal Hawke with apostate companions) will aid her. And she looks and sounds like she's an Archdemon short of a Blight...

Xilizhra wrote...

For Grace and Orsino, we probably needed to see more character development (or for Orsino, for it to not happen at all).

It didn't need to happen with Grace, either, if Hawke aided her. In fact, since Grace is literally outside the Gallows when she confronts Hawke, why is she angry at Hawke when she can clearly escape at any time?

[Xilizhra]

Because Keeper Zathrian cursed the men responsible for murdering his son and raping his daughter, while Quentin is patching a bunch of random bodies together into his "pseudo-wife" rather than using his necromancy to ressurect his actual wife from the dead?

I think his wife died in such a way that her original body was unable to be retrieved. Possibly she drowned or something.

Branka went insane trying to find a way to defeat the darkspawn from annihilating her race, and was coherent enough not to try to murder The Warden or Oghren unless they opposed her goal. Tahrone never bothers to ask whether an apostate Hawke (or a nomal Hawke with apostate companions) will aid her. And she looks and sounds like she's an Archdemon short of a Blight...

Maybe that has to do with the fact that Hawke just blasted through all of the sanctuary's defenses. Though I'm curious if your Hawke would aid her...

[Addai]

Xilizhra wrote...

Branka went insane trying to find a way to defeat the darkspawn from annihilating her race, and was coherent enough not to try to murder The Warden or Oghren unless they opposed her goal. Tahrone never bothers to ask whether an apostate Hawke (or a nomal Hawke with apostate companions) will aid her. And she looks and sounds like she's an Archdemon short of a Blight...

Maybe that has to do with the fact that Hawke just blasted through all of the sanctuary's defenses. Though I'm curious if your Hawke would aid her...

Tarohne doesn't say that, though.  She just says she wants you as experimental material.  Which makes no sense, since her goal is to infest templars and send them back into templar ranks- actually not a bad plan, if you are trying to take down the order.  A Hawke who is supporting the mage underground should have the option of helping her.

A lot of these situations feel like stories that have good elements, that could have been compelling, but suffer from railroading since I guess the devs did not have enough time to account for actual branching choices in the game.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why is Quentin trying to bring back his dead wife crazier than Zathrien keeping a curse over the descendants of a bunch of human rapists? Why is Tahrone's demon plan crazier than Branka's?

Zathrien's cursing the werewolves was something based in bitterness and vengance that he never allowed to die. He was carrying on his revenge for what was done to his family and his people. It is certainly cruel and very wrong of him to do so. But his motives and consequences make sense for his character to do so. He was not detatched from reality like a nutcase is. vendettas and grudges are not. It is not good nor rational to carry hatred onto future generations, but the basis and motives for such feelings are not insane. Zathrien was incredibly flawed, bitter, and dangerously tied to his hatred and his past. But he was not crazy, just cruel and overly bitter, and foolishly short sighted.

Quentin's wife is dead. She has been for some time. hacking up a bunch of women who he doesn't personaly know, and who have no ties to him or his wife, and stiching them up to animate his new Franken-wife, who will not even be his wife but a creepy, decaying undead construct for him to love....yeah, that's crazy.

For Grace and Orsino, we probably needed to see more character development (or for Orsino, for it to not happen at all).

Orsino and meredith both needed tons of character development, yet they had none. I don't even meet them until the end of Act 2 in the middle of an invasion. Hell, I'd never even seen orsino, let alone heard anything about him in the game, beyond the rare passing mention of him being the First Enchanter. We don't even get cutscenes like we did in Origins, where you at least get some sort of glimpse into Loghain and Howe, and even Anora, and what is going on behind the scenes. This could have been done in DA2 with Meredith, orsino, and Elthina. Cutscenes unrelated to Hawke, showing us a little glimpse of what was going on beyond behind the scenes where Hawke wasn't present. It would have been better than everything being dropped out of the blue all at once in Act 3, when it made no sense.

[Wulfram]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, I don't see why sane mage antagonists are too much to ask for when it comes to future content.

Well, if they're sane won't you want to be on their side?  Unless they're made just plain evil, which isn't a big step up from insane.

You could have sane mage antagonists if you made the protagonist have to be a chantry supporter, but I don't think that's a deal you'd be willing to make.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Branka went insane trying to find a way to defeat the darkspawn from annihilating her race, and was coherent enough not to try to murder The Warden or Oghren unless they opposed her goal. Tahrone never bothers to ask whether an apostate Hawke (or a nomal Hawke with apostate companions) will aid her. And she looks and sounds like she's an Archdemon short of a Blight...

Maybe that has to do with the fact that Hawke just blasted through all of the sanctuary's defenses. Though I'm curious if your Hawke would aid her...

Tarohne doesn't say that, though.  She just says she wants you as experimental material.  Which makes no sense, since her goal is to infest templars and send them back into templar ranks- actually not a bad plan, if you are trying to take down the order.  A Hawke who is supporting the mage underground should have the option of helping her.

A lot of these situations feel like stories that have good elements, that could have been compelling, but suffer from railroading since I guess the devs did not have enough time to account for actual branching choices in the game.

Although Tarohne does sound crazy (actually, she sounds like an abomination), I agree that her plan makes a certain amount of sense...I actually enjoyed that quest quite a bit, mostly because it went in a direction I wasn't expecting at all.  But depending on being able to control enough demons to take over the Templars is extremely high risk...it would have been a hard branch to cover, as it would have pushed Kirkwall towards conflagration so early.  Not being able to help her wasn't nearly as grating as not having any choice in the way Best Served Cold played out.

Don't you think that the framed narrative bears as much responsibility for the railroading as lack of developer time?  If Hawke were able to make choices that would radically shape the mage/templar relationship in Kirkwall, the choices he made would surely influence the way Cassandra sees him from the start of the game--and the game can't know what choices you're going to make in advance.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Maybe that has to do with the fact that Hawke just blasted through all of the sanctuary's defenses. Though I'm curious if your Hawke would aid her...

If Tahrone was a sane mage who wanted to emancipate the mages from Chantry and templar control, my apostate Hawke would have aided her. To be honest, I wouldn't have killed Idunna or sent her to the templars if I actually had any real choices in the matter. I would have loved to oppose the Chantry and the templars in the narrative, and the option to become part of a movement to remove mages from almost a millennia of Chantry and templar control would have been more viable than doing nothing at all. Kirkwall is the center of templar power over eastern Thedas, and I think the plan could have worked with the right leadership.

If there were other options - other choices besides Tahrone - perhaps I would chose differently, but ultimately I don't believe there's any compromise between the members of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars who want to control the mages and the mages who want to be free from Chantry and templar control. Their goals can never be reconciled. Having the option to aid a sane Tahrone, or oppose her, would have been better than being railroaded into dealing with a lunatic who acts like a villain out of a Satuday Morning Cartoon.

Given the lack of significant choices in the narrative of Dragon Age 2, I think the templar and mage factions could have been better fleshed out. Sane individuals trying to persuade Hawke to either side would have been preferable, because the mage v. templar threads show that people have their own perspectives on the issues. I would have loved to have Hawke be part of the mage underground, to be proactive in dealing with the multiple factions within the mage underground that sought different methods of achieving their goals of mage freedom, and work his way up to being leader of the mage resistance.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Wulfram wrote...


Well, if they're sane won't you want to be on their side?  Unless they're made just plain evil, which isn't a big step up from insane.

Not necessarily. A mage doesn't need to be moustache twirling evil or barking mad to make it desirable to side against them. There are numerous ways mages could be portrayed that could give reasonable reasons to decide to side against them. Insanity or "evil" need play no part.

As it's been said numerous times before, Connor was a very good example. He was not crazy, he was not evil, he was not an idiot. He was an innocent boy who had been born with powers he didn't understand, and without understanding the consequences, tried to save his father and make mother happy by making a deal with an entity that was too powerful for him to understand or control. He made a very powerful arguement for the practical reasons why Circles are needed.

That was but one example. There could be other completely different scenarios featuring mages in different situations, where the mage isn't a cackling lunatic or complete psychopath. It's called good writing, and making 3-dimensional characters and situations that are not a case of simple black/white mentality.

You could have sane mage antagonists if you made the protagonist have to be a chantry supporter, but I don't think that's a deal you'd be willing to make.

See above. There are many possible ways to make a mage antagonist mroe than just a crazy nutcase or raging abomination. Or a psychopath. Good writing is magic in its own right.

[Xilizhra]

He made a very powerful arguement for the practical reasons why Circles are needed.

More like why training in general is necessary...

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Come to think of it, Fenriyel would have actually been a potentially good way to depict a more grey area with mages. Here was a guy with an incredibly dangerous magical talent that he couldn't control, and it made him a big threat to everyone around him, even beyond.

This would have been perfect had the templars and the Gallows not been shown as a bunch of psychopathic sadists, because then I might have actually considered sending him to the Circle. But just like the mages, the templars, with the exception of a couple, are generally psychopathic sadists or complete bastards, and Meredith, their commander, is as off her rocker as the mages she tries to control. The only reason I found it difficult to send fenrieyel to the Circle, was because the Gallows was a place I felt would more than likely turn him into a monster, Freddy krueger v.2.0 Thedas.

fenriyel was a nice kid. He wasn't an idiot, he wasn't plotting some evil scheme to take over everyone. he was a kid who was born into sad circumstances, born with a power he didn't ask for, but could not control, endangering himself and the world around him.

So it wasn't just idiot, crazy mages that really killed the story, the templars were presented just as badly, from a different direction. the crazy mages were laughable, and I couldn't take them seriously. the templars just made me sick. So I ended up siding with crazy-stupid because sadistic-deranged control freaks actually made my stomach turn.

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, I don't see why sane mage antagonists are too much to ask for when it comes to future content.

Well, if they're sane won't you want to be on their side?  Unless they're made just plain evil, which isn't a big step up from insane.

It depends on what they represent. Why would a pro-templar Hawke side with a sane mage who wants autonomy for her people any more than a pro-mage Hawke would side with a templar who wanted to control the mages? If Hawke supports the autonomy of the Circle from the Chantry and the templars, wouldn't pro-Chantry controlled Circle mage antagonists make sense? Antagonists don't need to be insane. Siding with a respective faction because you agree with their ideology, while opposing another faction because you disagree with their goals, should be part of a story where Hawke is faced with the choice between siding with the templars or the mages.

Wulfram wrote...

You could have sane mage antagonists if you made the protagonist have to be a chantry supporter, but I don't think that's a deal you'd be willing to make.

I don't agree. Why would Hawke need to be pro-Chantry to deal with sane mage antagonists? Danarius wasn't insane, and my apostate Hawke opposed his goal of enslaving Fenris. Why can't Hawke have a choice in dealing with some mage antagonists, like The Warden does with the unnamed blood mage in "A Broken Circle," Zathrian, and the newly transformed werewolves? If The Warden can have choices in dealing with Caladrius and Loghain, why can't Hawke have choices?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

He made a very powerful arguement for the practical reasons why Circles are needed.

More like why training in general is necessary...

Which at this time, in Andrastian ferelden, only the Circles provide. And the Circle of Ferelden, while still a prison, is at least one that I didn't get the impression was being run by completly deranged idiots. Gregoire was a hard ass, but he did care about the mages as people. Irving and gregoire worked together, and they each had to make comprimises. It was a very grey scenario. Unlike the gallows, you didn't have templars running amok and getting away with abuses and corruption openly. Irving was actively trying to root out blood magic and corruption in his own ranks. And though it backfired, that was more due to circumstances outside of the Circle's control (Loghain and the Civil War). Irving was not secretly studying to be a giant blob monster while telling Gregoire to get stuffed, and gregoire wasn't allowing random mages to get tranquiled or letting people like Alrik build up their tranquil harems, nor was he permitting templars to openly abuse or torment mages (he even sends Cullen away).

So it wasn't like I was being asked to send Connor off to a place that resembles Guantanamo Bay more than an institution where he can grow to master himself.

[Xilizhra]

Which at this time, in Andrastian ferelden, only the Circles provide. And the Circle of Ferelden, while still a prison, is at least one that I didn't get the impression was being run by completly deranged idiots. Gregoire was a hard ass, but he did care about the mages as people. Irving and gregoire worked together, and they each had to make comprimises. It was a very grey scenario. Unlike the gallows, you didn't have templars running amok and getting away with abuses and corruption openly. Irving was actively trying to root out blood magic and corruption in his own ranks. And though it backfired, that was more due to circumstances outside of the Circle's control (Loghain and the Civil War). Irving was not secretly studying to be a giant blob monster while telling Gregoire to get stuffed, and gregoire wasn't allowing random mages to get tranquiled or letting people like Alrik build up their tranquil harems, nor was he permitting templars to openly abuse or torment mages (he even sends Cullen away).

Well, Irving practices entrapment on apprentices whom he'll then agree to Tranquilize, Greagoir imprisons nonmages for... well, not that much, and Anders says in few uncertain terms that Kinloch Hold really sucks, it's just that the Gallows is even worse. Greagoir and Irving are both status quo-loving ****s.

[Wulfram]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Not necessarily. A mage doesn't need to be moustache twirling evil or barking mad to make it desirable to side against them. There are numerous ways mages could be portrayed that could give reasonable reasons to decide to side against them. Insanity or "evil" need play no part.

Reasonable reasons?  Sure.  Reasons that'll apply to all PCs?  More difficult.

As it's been said numerous times before, Connor was a very good example

Connor wasn't an antagonist, apart from when he was a crazy possessed abomination.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:14 .