791 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabariel]

TeenZombie wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Well, that's a shallower degree of polarization than arguing whether Loghain is a traitor or not. I mean, yeah, I think Fenris is a whiny emo girl but there really isn't anything to debate other than "no he's not" "yes he is." You know? The characters are just shallow.

The Anderps thread went on for a good 3-4 months after release with about 30 pages every single day filled with actual non-squee related discussion. It's the only character thread I've ever seen that actually maintained that level of substantive discussion for so long, actually. Have you actually read any of the character debate threads on the board?

To be fair, Anders was a carryover character, and also arguably the main character of DA2.

He's not the main character.

Seemed like he was to me...

You can ignore him for the whole game, don'r bring him anywhere and never do any of his quest after he's recruited, only playing a part near the end of the game. That's hardly a main character.

Playing DA2 and completely ignoring Anders other than getting the map from him and seeing him blow up the Chantry at the end makes Hawke basically the Forrest Gump of Thedas.

That made me giggle

[Mr.House]

ipgd wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

You can ignore him for the whole game, don'r bring him anywhere and never do any of his quest after he's recruited, only playing a part near the end of the game. That's hardly a main character.

He's pretty much the catalyst for an event that apparently ended up more world-altering than the Blight was. He was the entire climax of Act 3.

Which you can then kill, thus the main character only has a few scenes, hardly what I would call a main character,one of the major characters? Yes, but not main.

[ipgd]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

:lol: Genius. Don't forget the immense complexity of the Oghren "he is totally deep" "no he is not" debate.

To his credit, Oghren is totally deep and criminally misunderstood.

[mesmerizedish]

Mr.House wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

You can ignore him for the whole game, don'r bring him anywhere and never do any of his quest after he's recruited, only playing a part near the end of the game. That's hardly a main character.

He's pretty much the catalyst for an event that apparently ended up more world-altering than the Blight was. He was the entire climax of Act 3.

Which you can then kill, thus the main character only has a few scenes, hardly what I would call a main character,one of the major characters? Yes, but not main.

Then you have a poor understanding of how a narrative can be constructed.

Keyser Söze is the main character of The Usual Suspects. Yet, we never see him. Sort of.

[ipgd]

Mr.House wrote...

Which you can then kill, thus the main character only has a few scenes, hardly what I would call a main character,one of the major characters? Yes, but not main.

... making him a martyr, and potentially the next frigging Andraste if the mage revolutionary leaders play their cards right.

All Hawke really does is try, and fail, to clean up after Anders. Anders's one act had more effect on the Dragon Age world state than the sum of all of Hawke's actions throughout the entirety of the game.

[Addai]

Mr.House wrote...

You can ignore him for the whole game, don'r bring him anywhere and never do any of his quest after he's recruited, only playing a part near the end of the game. That's hardly a main character.

The point of DA2 was to start the mage-templar war.  Anders does that.

Anyway, I don't care to debate whether Origins characters were more interesting than DA2 or not, because it's subjective.  The Origins characters have held my attention far longer, mainly because there was no interesting antagonist in DA2, and I didn't care about Anders or Hawke either for that matter.

Modifié par Addai67, 09 septembre 2011 - 01:52 .

[Monica21]

ipgd wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Well, that's a shallower degree of polarization than arguing whether Loghain is a traitor or not. I mean, yeah, I think Fenris is a whiny emo girl but there really isn't anything to debate other than "no he's not" "yes he is." You know? The characters are just shallow.

The Anderps thread went on for a good 3-4 months after release with about 30 pages every single day filled with actual non-squee related discussion. It's the only character thread I've ever seen that actually maintained that level of substantive discussion for so long, actually. Have you actually read any of the character debate threads on the board?

Yes, and I participate in them.

[Monica21]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Oh, so I guess you're ignoring the fact that there were plenty of polarizing debates related to Anders' actions, including whether or not he was a terrorist or a revolutionary, whether or not his actions were justified, and whether or not mages should have their freedom in light of what he did, etc. Gee whiz, I guess those Anders-related debates were totally shallow in comparison to the debate over whether or not the almighty Loghain was a traitor. Oh boy, the complex level of debate over THAT topic just overwhelms me! *snort*

I'm not ignoring it, but you can't really deny Anders' actions. You can't say he didn't intend to kill people. You can't say that he didn't intend to start a war and you can't say that he didn't try  to involve you. All you can debate is whether he was justified. His characterization is very black and white.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...
I'm not ignoring it, but you can't really deny Anders' actions. You can't say he didn't intend to kill people. You can't say that he didn't intend to start a war and you can't say that he didn't try  to involve you. All you can debate is whether he was justified. His characterization is very black and white.

I do not think much of the other characters, but I have to say the debates revolving around Anders, which I have participated in, were much more than that and did not necessarily lead to black and white (at least not more than Loghain and Bhelen debates). And they were quite fun.

Anders however, is the only one who brought interesting discussions for me.

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...

...By making things simpler so people don't have to <gasp> THINK.    It has everything to do with both intelligence and complexity.

You're creating a strawman, he was saying the complexity is still there its just more in the background.

[leggywillow]

ipgd wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

:lol: Genius. Don't forget the immense complexity of the Oghren "he is totally deep" "no he is not" debate.

To his credit, Oghren is totally deep and criminally misunderstood.

Yes, this.  Honestly, Oghren is one of the more interesting Origins companions for me.  Except for Loghain, while all of the major characters in Origins have depth, it's a depth that's still pretty common among Standard Fantasy Characters, if that makes any sense.  Oghren's tropes are pretty common too but not as common as characters like Morrigan and Zevran (who I still enjoy, don't get me wrong).

I think I prefer the DA2 companions because we get to debate about something new for a change.  With Origins, it's all about "Is the naive bard not as innocent as she seems?", "Can the ambitious ice queen be warmed with love?", "Is the sex-crazed assassin hiding a painful past?", blah blah blah.  Fun tropes, but we've done them all before.  With DA2, we get to debate some different things, like: "Is Varric an unreliable narrator?", "Was Fenris meant to serve as a foil to Anders?", "Were Anders' actions justified and how will they change the landscape of Thedas?", "Did Elthina's peacekeeping do more harm than good", etc.

[ipgd]

Monica21 wrote...

Yes, and I participate in them.

So have you somehow missed the entire novels that have been written about Anders and terrorism? Even KoP, the Patron Saint of your beloved Loghain Debates, posted in those threads. (edit: oh hay koppy bby)

And I read every single post in the entire Anders thread up to around ~2000 and I don't remember you making any memorable contributions, SO.

Monica21 wrote...

I'm not ignoring it, but you can't really deny Anders' actions. You can't say he didn't intend to kill people. You can't say that he didn't intend to start a war and you can't say that he didn't try  to involve you. All you can debate is whether he was justified. His characterization is very black and white.

There's plenty to argue about with Anders. You can argue about what his tactical goals were with the attack. You can argue about whether or not the Chantry constitutes a military target. You can argue whether or not Anders was suitable to start the revolution. You can argue about how much credit he deserves for the mage revolution. You can argue about whether or not the revolution will be successful. You can argue about whether or not he'll become a martyr or fade into obscurity. You can argue about how much autonomy Justice has. You can argue about whether or not Justice is a demon. Then there were the week-long discussions about the differences in the rivalry path and his debilitated Ketojan-esque mental state, the parallels between his situation with Justice with Bipolar disorder, the deliberate structuring of his romance path as a systematic deconstruction of popular romance novel tropes, etc. Dude the Anderps thread was a ****ing wall of text mosh pit.

Most of the hundred-page-long arguments in the Anders thread were not about whether or not Anders's actions were justifiable.

Modifié par ipgd, 09 septembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[Morroian]

TeenZombie wrote...

Morroian wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Honestly, I will totally admit I was wrong if an iconic appearance system in DA3 is well implemented for those who want even partial choice in their party's visual customization, but strategic gameplay is the hill I die upon.  If we're really being told not to expect it in Bioware RPGs anymore, I guess that's the tipping point for me.

Where are we being told that by Bioware? If anything its the opposite everything they've said about Legacy and going forward is that there is going to be a bigger focus on encounter design and tactics.

I'm referring to the discussion in this thread, earlier today, of Stanley Woo's post here.  

Personally, actions speak louder than words, and while Legacy was a step in the right direction, the boss fight was *really* hurt by poor party AI.  

Nothing in there about making the combat less tactical, whereas there are explicit statements from the devs about their intentions going forward as I state above. The AI in the cory fight has also been stated as a concern. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
 You can argue whether or not Anders was suitable to start the revolution. You can argue about how much credit he deserves for the mage revolution. You can argue about whether or not the revolution will be successful.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In hindsight, I should have worded it this way:

KoP will argue whether or not Anders was suitable to start the revolution. KoP will argue about how much credit he deserves for the mage revolution. KoP will argue about whether or not the revolution will be successful.

Modifié par ipgd, 09 septembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[Sowtaaw]

Mr stanley woo design a ugly companion for da3 and lets see the write skillz that da2 team have.

[Zanallen]

Sowtaaw wrote...

Mr stanley woo design a ugly companion for da3 and lets see the write skillz that da2 team have.

I want a fat, constantly complaining mage. Like a Samwell Tarly, but with magic....And possibly only coming along for the chance at gaining a fortune.

[ipgd]

Zanallen wrote...

I want a fat, constantly complaining mage. Like a Samwell Tarly, but with magic....And possibly only coming along for the chance at gaining a fortune.

Bonus points if your party has to carry him around by sedan chair and they cannot engage in combat while doing so. Helping him down requires an ogre killing blow length animation that stuns the entire party for the duration while enemies can still damage you.

Edit: Oh, and you can't take him out of the party for several sections of the game.

Modifié par ipgd, 09 septembre 2011 - 02:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In hindsight, I should have worded it this way:

KoP will argue whether or not Anders was suitable to start the revolution. KoP will argue about how much credit he deserves for the mage revolution. KoP will argue about whether or not the revolution will be successful.

Past tense would likely be more appropriate however.

[AtreiyaN7]

Monica21 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Oh, so I guess you're ignoring the fact that there were plenty of polarizing debates related to Anders' actions, including whether or not he was a terrorist or a revolutionary, whether or not his actions were justified, and whether or not mages should have their freedom in light of what he did, etc. Gee whiz, I guess those Anders-related debates were totally shallow in comparison to the debate over whether or not the almighty Loghain was a traitor. Oh boy, the complex level of debate over THAT topic just overwhelms me! *snort*

I'm not ignoring it, but you can't really deny Anders' actions. You can't say he didn't intend to kill people. You can't say that he didn't intend to start a war and you can't say that he didn't try  to involve you. All you can debate is whether he was justified. His characterization is very black and white.

Nobody denies what he did - not me at any rate. He bombed the Chantry. As a matter of fact, in the Anders discussion thread, I've repeatedly said that I considered him a terrorist/revolutionary and that I was fine if people called him that. I never, ever shied away from what he did. However, you're trying to make out as if he and all the DA2 characters are completely shallow and that any and all debates associated with them are shallow - as if the only thing that exists in those threads is "I hate <x> character" or "I like <x> character."

This is not the case (at least in the Anders thread), nor is Anders' characterization black and white as you state, in my opinion. I don't know if you missed this whole thing during the game, but Anders was a tormented man who was conflicted about what he had become after joining with Justice/Vengenace. The rivalry path shows just how desperate his situation beomes as he seems to lose more control to Vengeance over time. It's a slightly different story on the friendship path since he becomes at least somewhat accepting of what he is.

Question: did Loghain betray his king? That's a pretty black & white question, isn't it? It's also an example of how easy it is to reduce a character's actions to simple yes/no questions that have no level of complexity whatsoever. You can't deny Loghain't actions, can you? Or maybe you can spin it for me so that bailing on the Battle of Ostagar somehow becomes more complex than, well, bailing on the Battle of Ostagar? Oh right - whatever complexity there is related to what Loghain did solely relates his motivation behind the actions that he took and who he was as a person.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 09 septembre 2011 - 02:29 .

[Aggie Punbot]

* passes Atreiya a gold star *

[Monica21]

ipgd wrote...
So have you somehow missed the entire novels that have been written about Anders and terrorism? Even KoP, the Patron Saint of your beloved Loghain Debates, posted in those threads. (edit: oh hay koppy bby)

Well, considering I just started DA2 last month, yes, I probably have missed them. Nor did I seek them out. And I don't care what KoP posted. He and I have disagreed in the past about things DA2 related. Why should I care what he posts regarding another character?

And I read every single post in the entire Anders thread up to around ~2000 and I don't remember you making any memorable contributions, SO.

.... 

Again, just started playing last month. The Anders thread doesn't interest me. 

There's plenty to argue about with Anders. You can argue about what his tactical goals were with the attack. You can argue about whether or not the Chantry constitutes a military target. You can argue whether or not Anders was suitable to start the revolution. You can argue about how much credit he deserves for the mage revolution. You can argue about whether or not the revolution will be successful. You can argue about whether or not he'll become a martyr or fade into obscurity. You can argue about how much autonomy Justice has. You can argue about whether or not Justice is a demon. Then there were the week-long discussions about the differences in the rivalry path and his debilitated Ketojan-esque mental state, the parallels between his situation with Justice with Bipolar disorder, the deliberate structuring of his romance path as a systematic deconstruction of popular romance novel tropes, etc. Dude the Anderps thread was a ****ing wall of text mosh pit.

Most of the hundred-page-long arguments in the Anders thread were not about whether or not Anders's actions were justifiable.

The consequences are not the character. Is Anders messed up? Yep. And....?

[Monica21]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Question: did Loghain betray his king? That's a pretty black & white question, isn't it? It's also an example of how easy it is to reduce a character's actions to simple yes/no questions that have no level of complexity whatsoever. You can't deny Loghain't actions, can you? Or maybe you can spin it for me so that bailing on the Battle of Ostagar somehow becomes more complex than, well, bailing on the Battle of Ostagar? Oh right - whatever complexity there is related to what Loghain did solely relates his motivation behind the actions that he took and who he was as a person.

*sigh* Yes, I can argue that Loghain did not betray his king, rather easily in fact. But I'm not going to do it because I'm tired and frustrated because the only thing I seem to be doing on the internet lately is fighting with people (and people I like at that, not even people I don't even know, like you, although I'm sure you're perfectly nice even though we have different opinions) and I don't want to do it anymore. 

Have a nice evening. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Exactly. Moreso, she's a duelist and swashbuckler. Her fighting style involves parries and acrobatics while fighting herds of minions. Not taking hits.

Bs. Duelist is someone who duels - fights only one enemy. You can't survive being a duelist when tweny templars in full plate mail jump on you from the rooftop.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your definition of a duelist per se, but you *do* remember how Isabela is introduced in DA:O, right? She fights off an entire group of people by herself. This does not change in DA2.

Anyway, the whole argument about armour and how it makes no sense for iconic NPCs wearing very little to not get hurt in a computer game will get people nowhere. You could strip your characters naked in DA:O and fight darkspawn without suffering injuries if you wanted to, yet I see no one arguing that PC-empowered customisation is stupid because of this.

[Zanallen]

You can argue that Loghain didn't betray his king? How? He quite clearly disobeyed a direct order and abandoned Cailan to die on the field. Granted, you could argue that he did it for the good of Ferelden, but he still betrayed Cailan to do so.