craigdolphin wrote...
Cartoons NEED not be immature, no, and I never said that was the case. However, typically cartoons ARE immature IMO. The anime style of animation featured in DA2, which features over-the-top, ridiculously exagerated action in addition to the neoteny that is seemingly inherant to the art style, is most certainly an example of this, whereas the animation and art style of DAO is not. Can cartoons deal with mature themes? Absolutely, yes. Can they do so without undermining the gravity of that theme? That's much more dependent on whether the artist makes an effort to respect the intelligence and experience of the audience, and to provide an internally consistent framework for the world they're trying to create. If the world itself does not hold up to the internally consistent test, then it fails to make itself believable, and /that/ undermines how succesfully it can engage the emotions of the audience.
I woud agree that internal consistency is needed. I disagree that DA2 fails at providing that.
I know that steel swords and armor are heavy because I can pick them up and feel it for myself in the real world. And while I am no Olympian, I know darned well that you cannot leap across the room in a single bound while wearing full plate armor. And neither can you wield a heavy DH sword like a fly-swatter. These things have mass and inertia. These are not unfamiliar concepts for human beings on planet earth. So when a cartoon shows that kind of thing then it needs to provide some internally consistent rationalization for this supernatural ability, or it only suceeds in disrespecting the first-hand experience of its audience in aspects of life that are very familiar.
I bolded the key words in your statement. Thedas is not planet earth and there is no guarantee that our laws of physics would apply. In Thedas, it is possible to make a sword that is constantly on fire, so no, I
don't think it's a stretch to say that they could make large broadswords that are light enough to allow you to jump in the air while swinging them over your head.
Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound, but this ability is explicitly explained by his extraterrestrial origins. That's fine, IMO, as the authors have made the effort to provide an internally consistent rationale for the otherwise-ridiculous ability. Conjuring animals out of thin air, as you mentioned, is not possible either, but in this case the mage and the world of Thedas have an explained ability (magic) that is an internally consistent rationalization for the phenomenon. IMO, as long as there is some kind of in-world justification that is internally consistent, it is reasonable for creators of fictional worlds to expect the audience to suspend their disbelief. When fiction writers decide to handwave that responsibility they have only demonstrated to me that they simply don't care enough to respect their audience or the importance of the story they're trying to tell.
The abilities I listed are specific to
non-mage classes. Summoning wild animals out of thin air is a talent of the Ranger specialization, available only to Rogues.
Origins offers no in-world justification for this, or the Bard specialization, or the rest of the outlandish abilities that ara available to non-mages, with the possible exception of the Templar specialization. But so far to my knowledge, nobody has complained.
DA2, by contrast, features ordinary humans doing super-human feats of acrobatics during combat, while wearing heavy plate armor etc, without any in-world justification at all. DAO featured ordinary humans wearing the same kind of gear but with a much more believable ability to move as if the real world physics we experience on a daily basis also apply in Ferelden.
In a game, you have to allow for a certain amount of gameplay/story segregation. According to the Bioware developers, several of the changes made for DA2 are things they wanted to include in Origins, but didn't have the technological capabilities to fit in. Combat could be one of those, but I'll admit I've seen nobody confirm such.
Nevertheless, Bioware made it clear that they wanted to take the Dragon Age series in a different direction prior to the game's release, so all arguments about inconsistency are somewhat moot. As long as the series maintains a certain level of consistency from this point on, I submit that there's no problem.
DA2's style is a surrender of substance to style: a style dictated by the anime art direction and obvious homage to jrpgs that also like to pretend that physics don't exist during combat. DA2 doesn't even bother to explain why the ordinary humans in Kirkwall can ignore the constraints of inertia or gravity during combat. DAO's was, at the least, more believable and needed no in-world explanation as it meshed more closely with our own real world experience with gravity and inertia. Moreover, even if the devs had provided some kind of justification for the new abilities, it would not be internally consistent with the experience we got in DAO.
Internal justification isn't required, though, because devs gave us fair warning that such changes were going to be made. It was announced in the forums, it was in the ads, it was in the demo.
If they always wanted to include these things in the series, but were unable to in Origins, then it's not an issue of internal consistency, it's an issue of technological limitations.
So what, I imagine you saying, it's just a game...not a reality simulator with magic added!
Well, that's the problem right there. If "it's just a game" is being thrust in my face every time I enter combat, it destroys immersion and jerks you out of the story. Why should I care about the moral dilemas presented to me if I encounter them immediately following a blatant reminder that this is 'just a game'? Why care about the fate of a companion when the game is screaming out 'they're not real' every few seconds?
I can't answer that question for you, I'm capable of being immersed while knowing it's "just a game" and the outlandish combat doesn't affect my gaming experience even slightly, although it certainly affects how I view Origins, which now seems unbearably slow in comparison.
I'm capable of caring about characters while knowing they're not real. I am constantly aware of their status as fictional characters, but that doesn't make me like them any less.
Your attitude is one I find all over the forums, and I must say that it perplexes me. It suggests that "immersion" equates to delusion. That if the game doesn't somehow trick you into believing that it's actually
real, it's failed. Whether that's how you meant it or not, I don't see how anyone can find Origins a more immersive experience when, as I said, it defies physics repeatedly, and I don't see how anyone can dislike DA2 on those terms when the changes its made to combat are
less absurd overall than the elements that already existed prior.
Modifié par Plaintiff, 04 décembre 2011 - 01:17 .
Retour en haut
