429 réponses à ce sujet

[Drasanil]

@thats1evildude here's the relevant part of the definition as far as I'm concerned vis-a-vis DA2's story.

The term iscommonly used in a derisory manner, on the grounds that the best stories are
character driven, and using an object to make things happen is thus seen as a
sign of Bad Writing. 

thats1evildude wrote...
Well, this was supposed to be a spoiler-free forum, but since you let the cat out of the bag ...

Anders destroyed the Chantry to remove any possibility of the conflict being resolved peacefully.

Yes, but why? What was the underlying motive for his actions? The problem is that ultimately it was Justice, not because of character development or progression but because Bioware shoved Justice in him as a way to explain away the changes. 

Because the lyrium idol drove her insane. The effects of the lyrium idol were well-established earlier in the story with Bartrand.

Once again there was no character development or growth just a random doo-hicky that fell into her lap and made her do those things.

A lot of what you're arguing here deals with characterization, not plot devices.

But that's the issue, most of the key points of the story revolved around situations in which characterization was either rather poor or lacking such as Grace's or Orsino's, or where a plot device had been substituted for characterisations such as the underlying reasons for Meredith and Anders' actions.  

It's clear that sparing the mages is the morally "right" choice because you
encounter mages who are clearly not possessed. The only people
advocating for their wholesale slaughter either abhor mages for various
reasons (ie. Morrigan or Sten) or have been deeply traumatized by their
experiences (ie. Cullen).

How is it clear? You can't tell if a mage is possessed just by looking at him if the demon is making a conscious effort to hide, nor can you tell by looking at them if they're innocent or a blood mage pretending to be innocent. That the people who happened to to be in the annulment camp didn't like mages doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong.... how does that old saying go? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean some one isn't out to get you:)

Modifié par Drasanil, 29 septembre 2011 - 06:27 .

[Ostagar2011]

Great thread. I think one or two people confuse oceans of blood with adulthood. Or a formal rating letter with tone and feel. If there was one word in the advertising of this game that was the most egregious misuse, it was "mature". Yes, let's aim the game at the console teens, and repeat the word "mature" all the time in interviews and trailers so people don't catch on.

I've tried to forget this horror of a game, but things that stuck in my mind as juvenile were:
1) Zombie mum quest
2) Isabella scratching obscenities on your house stairs
3) Anders healing STDs
4) Watermelon gore explosions
5) Boobs the size of watermelons
6) Anders and his retarded pyrotechnics at the end
7) Emo companions
8) Cartoon art style
9) "Sex is like sailing ... do it wrong it makes you sick" or "come fe*ate me" / most other cringe-worthy **** lines from Isabella
10)Felicia Day and all the mini-series, facebook games, teen media etc

Basically it has too much gore and sexual innuendo to be for pure kids, yet it is too juvenile and immature on a fundamental level to be of interest to the audience that took BioWare to where it is now. So legally the title was for over 18s, but actually it was aimed squarely at older kids who want to think they're really mature and adult.

[thats1evildude]

Drasanil wrote...

@thats1evildude here's the relevant part of the definition as far as I'm concerned vis-a-vis DA2's story.

The term is commonly used in a derisory manner, on the grounds that the best stories are character driven, and using an object to make things happen is thus seen as asign of Bad Writing.

You can't selectively quote like that. The second portion of that paragraph points out the fallacy in the first sentence by noting that many good stories utilize plot devices.

Drasanil wrote..

What was the underlying motive for his actions? The problem is that ultimately it was Justice, not because of character development or progression but because Bioware shoved Justice in him as a way to explain away the changes.

Anders viewed the Chantry's system of imprisoning mages in the Circle was unjust. The only way to bring down that system was to force a conflict between the mages and the templars, as the current situation was at a complete standstill. Every war must begin with a first shot.

His motives were pretty clear to me.

Drasanil wrote..

How is it clear? You can't tell if a mage is possessed just by looking at him if the demon is making a conscious effort to hide, nor can you tell by looking at them if they're innocent or a blood mage pretending to be innocent.

Well, they're not attacking you, they're not tumor-covered horrors and they're actively fighting off demons trying to break into the room. That to me is enough evidence to suggest they're not abominations. None of your companions believe they're actually possessed, either.

In any case, it is not "moral" to kill people on the off chance they might be possessed by demons when you have no evidence to back that up. That may be a pragmatic choice. It may be a "safe" choice. But it's not morally right.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 06:50 .

[Morroian]

 

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To be a truly "mature" game, a game should offer topics that make you sit back and question what is the best thing to do, for either yourself or the characters involved, and also having to deal with the consequences of those actions, even the unexpected consequences. 

DA2 made me do that several times, probably more than DAO.

Bachmors wrote...
The exaggerated combat and the exploding bodies

How many times does it have to be said that the number of exploding bodies was a bug which has been fixed for ages now.

Anomaly- wrote...
"One of my biggest caveats about the dialogue wheel is that what you're saying, and for the most part, the reaction to what you're saying is already known to you before you say it. I shouldn't be told which option is good, and which bad, 

DA2 didn't do that, if you interpreted the options that way thats on you not the game.  

thats1evildude wrote...OK. There's no way to sit everyone down and talk out their differences. On the other hand, the Broken Circle quest simply demands that the Warden slay a bunch of demon and then decide whether the surviving mages should be spared or slaughtered because they might have demons in them. You don't have to pass judgement on the system and the "morally right" choice is obvious.
How was that, say, more "mature" than the choice presented to you in Enemies Among Us, where you're also called on to decide whether Keran can re-join the Templar Order? They're virtually the same decision.

In actual fact the Keran option made me think more, I was far more certain that the mages in DAO were OK than I was about Keran given what had happened in that quest.

Modifié par Morroian, 29 septembre 2011 - 06:42 .

[Uccio]

Absafraginlootly wrote...

And scenes where your characters mothers head has been sown on various body parts from other corpses by a serial killer and a crazed mage kills a bunch of people to use their bodies to make a big flesh golemesque thing are clearly aimed towards children.

Actually that was one of the worst moments in the game regarding the magnitude of the situation. A serial killer butchers your mom and makes her a zombie bride. And how is this addressed in the game? Fast goodbye and a minor clip where LI tries to comfort you. Thats it.
Such a situation would be a life changing moment and it deffenetly would affect the main characters psyche for the rest of his/hers life. In DA2? Nothing. The whole event is brushed aside as if it would be a minor incident. A mature way would have been to take what happened and handle it through the game as years pass. This was not the case.

[Morroian]

Ukki wrote...

Actually that was one of the worst moments in the game regarding the magnitude of the situation. A serial killer butchers your mom and makes her a zombie bride. And how is this addressed in the game? Fast goodbye and a minor clip where LI tries to comfort you. Thats it.
Such a situation would be a life changing moment and it deffenetly would affect the main characters psyche for the rest of his/hers life. In DA2? Nothing. The whole event is brushed aside as if it would be a minor incident. A mature way would have been to take what happened and handle it through the game as years pass. This was not the case.

You know you can actually role play how Hawke should respond, and I think thats what BW intended. What do you want? A big funeral and Hawke throwing him/herself on the coffin. They don't want to force you down 1 path. If you're a witty Hawke you can choose to moderate that after it just for example. You decide how Hawke changes.

[TEWR]

In actual fact the Keran option made me think more, I was far more certain that the mages in DAO were OK than I was about Keran given what had happened in that quest.

How so? In regards to his attitude towards mages or him being possessed? If it's the latter, Tarohne as well as Anders or Merrill tell you that he isn't possessed.

[thats1evildude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

How so? In regards to his attitude towards mages or him being possessed? If it's the latter, Tarohne as well as Anders or Merrill tell you that he isn't possessed.

Tarohne doesn't say anything like that. You can ask her about Keran's location and all she says is that the rejects from her experiments "feed the compost heap." If anything, that implies he's dead.

'Tis true that Anders and Merrill can confirm Keran isn't possessed. But you have to bring them along to gain that third option. What if you did not and wasn't aware there was a third option?

My original point wasn't that "Enemies Among Us is a far more complex quest than Broken Circle". My point was that they were roughly equal in terms of complexity: basically, is it right to kill or jail someone on the chance that they might be possessed by demons when there isn't any hard evidence of such?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:01 .

[esper]

Ukki wrote...

Absafraginlootly wrote...

And scenes where your characters mothers head has been sown on various body parts from other corpses by a serial killer and a crazed mage kills a bunch of people to use their bodies to make a big flesh golemesque thing are clearly aimed towards children.

Actually that was one of the worst moments in the game regarding the magnitude of the situation. A serial killer butchers your mom and makes her a zombie bride. And how is this addressed in the game? Fast goodbye and a minor clip where LI tries to comfort you. Thats it.
Such a situation would be a life changing moment and it deffenetly would affect the main characters psyche for the rest of his/hers life. In DA2? Nothing. The whole event is brushed aside as if it would be a minor incident. A mature way would have been to take what happened and handle it through the game as years pass. This was not the case.

It is not brushed aside. Even three years after Hawke is mentioning having trouble going into the Mother's room, and it is rubbed in you face by Meridith-
How you choose Hawke to react is your problem. it is a roleplaying game so bioware cannot make all Hawke have a universial break down more than they do. If your Hawke fails to be developed by the act it is your problem not the games.
For my canon Hawke it is the act that started to break her and Avelines relentionship. (I love the whole blaming Aveline thing, it is well written)
My spirit Healer is still in denial about it happening.
For my final Hawke (who was the only one to rival Anders) it is the thing that makes her cling on to Anders despite actually not loving him as much as my canon, but he was literraly all she had left in the world.
My current hasn't reached this point yet, so I don't know. But currently I am planning to have it being the thing that completely robs her of any sense of mercy.

if it is not affecting your Hawke it is your problem. In da:o such things were brushed aside as they were never mentioned again. But in da2 you can express a change in opnion to your LI, you can blame Aveline, you can choose how you react to your family (Gamlen and Sibling) and it is still brought up three years after. If your Hawke does not change from it, it is because you do not want Hawke to change. 

[TEWR]

thats1evildude wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

How so? In regards to his attitude towards mages or him being possessed? If it's the latter, Tarohne as well as Anders or Merrill tell you that he isn't possessed.

Tarohne doesn't say anything like that. You can ask her about Keran's location and all she says is that the rejects from her experiments "feed the compost heap." If anything, that implies he's dead.

'Tis true that Anders and Merrill can confirm Keran isn't possessed. But you have to bring them along to gain that third option. What if you did not and wasn't aware there was a third option?

My original point wasn't that "Enemies Among Us is a far more complex quest than Broken Circle". My point was that they were roughly equal in terms of complexity: basically, is it right to kill or jail someone on the chance that they might be possessed by demons when there isn't any hard evidence of such?

That's what I mean. It's clear that he isn't possessed by that alone, and while one may assume he's dead, that quickly changes after the battle considering she admits that she never used him as a host for a demon.

I found Enemies Among Us to not be really complex because of what was said by Tarohne. I didn't find Broken Circle really complex either because of the points people have made about it in this thread alone.

What would've been a complex issue (for me anyway) was if Tarohne was:

A) sane.
didn't look like a clown
C) offered me the chance to side with her against the Templars

it's mostly A and C, but the issue would then be "Do I take down the Templars from within for the good of the mages at the risk of harming innocent mages and the few good Templars Kirkwall has?"

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:04 .

[thats1evildude]

esper wrote...

In da:o such things were brushed aside as they were never mentioned again. But in da2 you can express a change in opnion to your LI, you can blame Aveline, you can choose how you react to your family (Gamlen and Sibling) and it is still brought up three years after. If your Hawke does not change from it, it is because you do not want Hawke to change. 

Case in point: Tamlen's attack on the party camp as a ghoul. Alistair will express sympathy depending on your dialogue choices, but the rest of the party? Eh, the Warden can stick it out. Mercy killing your best friend isn't that big a deal, right?

Again, I hate being in the position of having to rag on Origins.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:08 .

[esper]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

How so? In regards to his attitude towards mages or him being possessed? If it's the latter, Tarohne as well as Anders or Merrill tell you that he isn't possessed.

Tarohne doesn't say anything like that. You can ask her about Keran's location and all she says is that the rejects from her experiments "feed the compost heap." If anything, that implies he's dead.

That's what I mean. It's clear that he isn't possessed by that alone, and while one may assume he's dead, that quickly changes after the battle considering she admits that she never used him as a host for a demon.

No. Keran mentions that Tarohne was trying to get him possessed that made me pause. But since I always had Anders with me, I soon wasn't in doubt. I was however in doubt whereever I should sabotage his option from returning to the templars, because being lyrium addicted and a mage hunter wasn't something my Hawke was sure was healthy for him in the long run. 

[thats1evildude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That's what I mean.
It's clear that he isn't possessed by that alone, and while one mayassume he's dead, that quickly changes after the battle considering she admits that she never used him as a host for a demon.

So if she lied about Keran being dead, that means she can't possibly have lied about him being possessed?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:15 .

[esper]

thats1evildude wrote...

esper wrote...

In da:o such things were brushed aside as they were never mentioned again. But in da2 you can express a change in opnion to your LI, you can blame Aveline, you can choose how you react to your family (Gamlen and Sibling) and it is still brought up three years after. If your Hawke does not change from it, it is because you do not want Hawke to change. 

Case in point: Tamlen's attack on the party camp as a ghoul. Alistair will express sympathy depending on your dialogue choices, but the rest of the party? Eh, the Warden can stick it out.

And it is forgotten afterwards never to be mentioned again. It is actually a symptom of the big failing in da:o, that origins never relly matters more than a line or two in the situation. Of course you can still roleplay your wardens as reacting to those past things that pops up, but it doens't get any love.
The Leandra thing is still talked about three years later.

[TEWR]

So if she lied about him being dead, that means she can't possibly have lied about him being possessed?

Except she never lies about him being dead, so that's not an issue. Taking something to mean one thing doesn't actually mean it meant that thing.

Besides, she's a master of the arcane and has already spilled more than enough on her plans. I would think stopping now or even lying now wouldn't have gained her much.

If she was banking on Keran being her last Templar should she die, she wouldn't have told Hawke anything so that Hawke would say immediately "Go back to the Gallows now".

edit: when I say "master of the arcane", I don't actually mean she's mastered all forms of it. She's just knowledgable in this particular field.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:11 .

[Drasanil]

thats1evildude wrote...
You can't selectively quote like that. The second portion of that paragraph points out the fallacy in the first sentence by noting that many good stories utilize plot devices.

Actually it doesn't, perhaps you'd care to re-read what it actually says? It says many good stories revolve around a plot device, or use a plot device to generate a character driven story. DA2 does neither of these things, the story doesn't actually revolve around a plot device, they're pretty much parachutted in to from time to time to keep things on the rails, nor does DA2 use plot devices to generate character driven stories, but rather uses plot devices as substitutes characterisation. 

To use your One Ring example, the One Ring is integral to the story, it's destruction is the object of the quest and it's the source of Sauron's power. Now, Justice and the Lyrium idle are not integral to the story, they're just things bolted on to characters to explain away their actions, rather than come up with actual reasons and motives. The One Ring provides a goal for the fellowship to set out, but the members still have their own reasons for being there and their own motivations and their own merits. Conversely Justice and the Lyrium Idle don't provide a goal, but are the reasons, motivations and 'merits' of said characters.

Anders viewed the Chantry's system of imprisoning mages in the Circle was unjust. The only way to bring down that system was to force a conflict between the mages and the templars, as the current situation stood at a standstill.

His motives were pretty clear to me.

Are they? Anders had largely similar views before but never really acted on them, the only reason he did in DA2 was because of Justice rather than any actual motivation or characterisation on his behalf. Hence plot device substituting for actual character, which is bad writing and a very kiddie way of handling something. 

Well, they're not attacking you, they're not tumor-covered horrors and they're actively fighting off demons trying to break into the room. That to me is enough evidence to suggest they're not abominations. 

That's pretty flimsy reasoning. Abominations aren't mindless, they don't have to turn into tumor-covered horrors if they don't want to and they don't have to attack you either if they don't want to. Look at the possessed templars who stayed human looking or the demons that are perfectly happy to have a chat with you and let you be on your way.   

You say DAO handled the situation in a 'kiddie' way, yet you flat out ignored the premise behind said situation in the first place because the mages didn't have the courtesy to twirl their moustaches a few times.   

[thats1evildude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Except she never lies about him being dead, so that's not an issue. Taking something to mean one thing doesn't actually mean it meant that thing.

Sure, she only implied that Keran was dead. But determining that implication was false doesn't translate to Keran=Not an Abomination. The only way you could deduce that was if you took her statement to mean Keran was unsuitable for her experiments. But again, the premise of that statement is that Keran is dead, which is proven false; therefore, nothing she says can be taken as proof of anything.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

What would've been a complex issue (for me anyway) was if Tarohne was:

A) sane.
didn't look like a clown
C) offered me the chance to side with her against the Templars

Yes, Tarohne was Obviously Evil. But compare Tarohne to Uldred, whose goal was simply to shove demons down the throats of unwilling volunteers. After a brief conversation where he hammed it up with such statements as "YOU ARE A THORN IN MY SIDE AND I SHALL REMOVE YOU FROM MY SIDE BEFORE YOU FESTER", Uldred offered you the difficult choice of a) serving him, or serving him after you're dead and he's violated your corpse.

How was that much different from Tarohne?

Again, I'm not suggesting that Enemies Among Us was more complex than Broken Circle. I'm saying they presented virtually the same dilemma (with a few differences) and thus were about the same in terms of complexity.

Addendum: I actually liked Uldred.That guy was so EEEEEEEEEVIL it was delicious. Every once in a while,
you need the bat**** crazy villains to make the "gray" antagonists seem more complex by comparison.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Besides, she's a master of the arcane and has already spilled more than enough on her plans. I would think stopping now or even lying now wouldn't have gained her much.

It served no purpose … except that the lie was more EEEEEEEEEEEVIL.

Drasanil wrote...

Are they? Anders had largely similar views before but never really acted on them, the only reason he did in
DA2 was because of Justice rather than any actual motivation or characterisation on his behalf. Hence plot device substituting for actual character, which is bad writing and a very kiddie way of handling something.

Actually, I would argue that's an example of character development. He held the same anti-Circle views as he did in
Awakening; the only difference is that he finally decided to do something about it.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:38 .

[esper]

[quote]Drasanil wrote...

[quote]thats1evildude wrote...

[quote]Anders viewed the Chantry's system of imprisoning mages in the Circle was unjust. The only way to bring down that system was to force a conflict between the mages and the templars, as the current situation stood at a standstill.

His motives were pretty clear to me.[/quote]

Are they? Anders had largely similar views before but never really acted on them, the only reason he did in DA2 was because of Justice rather than any actual motivation or characterisation on his behalf. Hence plot device substituting for actual character, which is bad writing and a very kiddie way of handling something. 

  
[/quote]



It is not,  da:a Anders always had the potential to do just what he did. Also I doubt act 1 Anders would have done it. You can see how far he has falled in act 3. Justice is a plot device, yes, but stories needs plot and devices, and since this is not a book and we can read the characters mind and spirits and their possession has been introduced in the game lore long before it is not as cheap as Meriridts idol which wasn't fleshed out properly.
In Anders case the justice thing is as much to question what justice actually is as a simple plot device - such a debate is not a kiddie motive. 

.... Sorry the quote messed up

Modifié par esper, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:31 .

[thats1evildude]

Drasanil wrote...

That's pretty flimsy reasoning. Abominations aren't mindless, they don't have to turn into tumor-covered horrors if they don't want to and they don't have to attack you either if they don't want to. Look at the possessed templars who stayed human looking or the demons that are perfectly happy to have a chat with you and let you be on your way.

I never said it was conclusive evidence that they weren't possessed, just that their behaviour and the circumstances didn't indicate demonic possession.

That wasn't really the basis of my argument anyway; as i said in another post, the "morally right" choice is not to kill people because they MIGHT be abominations when there is no evidence of demonic possession. And the only people arguing otherwise are morally wrong (ie. Morrigan) or not thinking clearly (ie. Cullen).

That is the EXACT SAME dilemma you face in Enemies Among Us. Claiming that Broken Circle was more complex is ignoring that Broken Circle presented a fairly simple dilemma with rather obvious right and wrong solutions. (In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if Enemies Among Us was meant as a callback to Broken Circle.)

Drasanil wrote...

Actually it doesn't, perhaps you'd care to re-read what it actually says? It says many good stories revolve around a plot device, or use a plot device to generate a character driven story.

Well, I'd say that DA2 uses plot devices to help generate a character-driven story.

For example, the lyrium idol serves as the plot device that first brings Varric into conflict with his brother Bartrand, and later on it brings Bartrand back to Kirkwall where Varric can finally confront his brother. I don't really see how that's 'parachuted in'.

Drasanil wrote...

Are they? Anders had largely similar views before but never really acted on them, the only reason he did in DA2 was because of Justice rather than any actual motivation or characterisation on his behalf.

Similar? They were exactly the same. Anders was just as rabidly anti-Chantry in Awakening as he was in DA2. The only difference between Anders of Awakening and Anders of DA2 is that the latter is actually willing to act on his beliefs.

How much Justice is to blame is a matter of debate. Anders struggles with Justice, trying to rein him in; the loss of
control that he experiences frightens him greatly. But he never loses complete control. ow much of Anders' actions can be blamed on Justice is debatable; though his control slips a little with each day, Anders never completely loses control over himself.

Drasanil wrote...

Hence plot device substituting for actual character, which is bad writing and a very kiddie way of handling something.

Actually, I would argue that's an example of character development.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 septembre 2011 - 09:05 .

[hobbit of the shire]

By def, this game cannot be for kiddies because it has an M rating. Not that M rating necessarily means anything, but the powers-that-be say that it's for adults. Yet, the game seems to simplify much which I would assume would be to get the younger crowd interested. For the most part, the dialogue reeks immature. Yet, there are quite a few underlying themes in the game that are definitely not for kids. The whole Chantry/mage thing, crazy Anders, slavery, lewd jokes, Isabela, the ending, .....either inappropriate or deep meanings. While in some cases, one can meld a world for all ages (take lots of animated films lately), in other cases, you are better off doing 2 sorts of games. Sure, you won't be reaping the $$$ from every demographic at once, but keeping a subset of your fanbase is a good thing too. So, make the games for the younger crowd, but also make games for the older crowd (which is getting larger and larger). I'm finding that games are increasingly just scraping the surface. Looks fancy yet no story (or extremely simplified and shallow). It's a start, but I think the true potential has only been tapped by some of the great fan fics people have written out there. If some of that was in the actual game........

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dragon Age is like a surreal Disney movie: Decapitation for the whole family. It's OK to chop someone's head of, because the game is intended for 18+, but a nipple needs to be covered, because a 13 year old may buy it anyway and a 6 year old needs to follow the tutorial without problems.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 septembre 2011 - 08:51 .

[Absafraginlootly]

Complistic wrote...

Absafraginlootly wrote...

Yes, because inorder for anything to be enjoyed by an adult audience it absolutely MUST contain barrels of blood gore and sex, because that sort of thing is so very mature.

Actually DA2 has all of that yet I still feel hey were aiming for a "tween" audience. It's not as simple as the content of the game it's how the content is presented.

I was being sarcastic, hence the /sarcasm later in my post. Increasing the amount of these things as stated in OP will not make the game more mature, what is already present of these things doesn't make the game more mature (only less appropriete for children). I agree that how the content is presented has an effect, but I think that saying the game is meant for kids as the topic heading mentions is just silly.