634 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 

NOPE

An antagonist can be any threat or obstacle in a protagonist's path. 

You read it did you? People are antagonists. Obstacles are just obstacles.
If you want to really play semantics, then check the etymology.

Otherwise, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Reading comprehension problems?  Or are you just being dishonest?

<sigh>    Fine.  I'll copy and paste

From the link:

The antagonist may also represent a major threat or obstacle to the main character by their very existence, without necessarily deliberately targeting him or her.

Example:  Asteroid heading towards earth.  Protagonists  (scientists, the military, NASA) are the protagonists tasked with stopping this threat before it destroys earth.

Or, more relevantly,  The Blight and the wardens are tasked with stopping it....

[TheMufflon]

slimgrin wrote...

Maybe we should all do an epic Witcher VS. DA larp battle. That will settle this, lol.

"Lightningbolt! Lightningbolt!"

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Attempts to play junior psychologist aside, I will address this point.

My analysis was based on your rhetoric, not your psychological motivations.  So... wrong.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

Bioware games have a lot of immaturity for one reason or the other, but that does not mean that they can't be enjoyed. I don't enjoy them becaues I have low tolerance for childishness pretending to be serious, but that's just me.

None of which you've been able to demonstrate because your definition of immaturity seems to be some combination of "convenience" and "I didn't like it."

By those standards, the whole history of media is open to being labeled immature.

KnightofPhoenix wrote.. 

But when Bioware is telling me "rise to power", and failing miserably at having it, then it's not a question of subjectivity. They failed to provide what they said they will.

That's a marketing complaint, and I'm right there with you.  BioWare's marketing is terrible.  That doesn't have anything to do with the actual game though, at no point does Varric break the fourth wall and promise your character will rise to power.

KnightofPhoenix wrote..  

When Bioware is saying "we are going to investigate the origins of a conflict", and then being ridiculous, childish and simplsitic about it while other games surpass it in almost every way, then they failed to provide what they said they will.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.  You've failed to adaquetely even define this so-called ridiculously childish simplicity let alone effectively demonstrate how it is everpresent to a game-defining extent in Dragon Age 2.  

At best you've cherry picked a couple of unneccessary plot devices and decided they bring the whole game down.

KnightofPhoenix wrote..  

When you claim that the whole game was about deconstructing Hawke's percieved greatness, and then making him become champion purely thanks to his mass murdering capabilities and worse of all, have Cassandra come to the conclusion that the idiot who couldn't do anything to prevent the disaster in Kirkwall could now for some reason *save all of Thedas* and then embarks on a hero worship quest, then it failed miserably.

Are you taking issue with my claim that DA2 was deconstructing Hawke's greatness and the myth-arc in fantasy games?  Or are you criticizing the nature of one of the potential "true stories" as being wholly unsatisfying?  Are you denying the power of myth and public opinion when it comes to Hawke, considering the story everyone knows is completely different from the one we get to see?

KnightofPhoenix wrote..   

Bioware is not incompetent for not doing what I like (though creating mature and complex stories requires a lot more work and thought). Bioware is incompetent these days for failing to do what they claim they want to do. 
I love DA:O, ME1, KOTOR and Jade Empire, because they are well executed.

Each of the games you list does something - and at least one huge thing, usually - poorly.  And they weren't made in 10 months.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[Megaton_Hope]

One could consider the Blight (which is to say the Archdemon) an antagonist. Either the Wardens or the Blight will succeed in achieving their goals.

An inert lump of rock is not an antagonist. A rock does not have goals. It is a rock. Projecting goals onto a rock is not very productive.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
Reading comprehension problems?  Or are you just being dishonest?

<sigh>    Fine.  I'll copy and paste

From the link:

The antagonist may also represent a major threat or obstacle to the main character by their very existence, without necessarily deliberately targeting him or her.

Example:  Asteroid heading towards earth.  Protagonists  (scientists, the military, NASA) are the protagonists tasked with stopping this threat before it destroys earth.

Or, more relevantly,  The Blight and the wardens are tasked with stopping it....

No I just read that to mean that, say North Korea invades the US as is seemingly popular in stupid games these days, and you play a resistance fighter. North Korea isn't here to kill you personally, but it threatens you because it's invading your country.

In any case we're going into pointless semantics.

Even if the asteroid is an antagonist, ignoring all that makes it utterly different from darkspawn. In such a game, the focus will be entirely on how to stop it, and we see how humans react to it. If the Blight was supposed to be this kind of threat, then the emphasis should have been on preparing for war. It failed to do that properly.

Now Origins did a lot of things right however, hence why I love it. Companions, certain issues like Orzammar, great characters like Loghain, Eamon, Avernus...etc. But, to return to my main point, its basic premise of "save the world from big bad evil dragon" is immature.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[slimgrin]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


The comparison I made was Bioware and CDPR's handling of a conflict. One could feel that Bioware's handling is more epic, or more interesting. But one cannot argue that CDPR's way is not more mature, complex and multi-faceted.

Epic is an overused term. Nowadays, a bowl of corn flakes can be epic. 

I like(d) Bioware's games for the characters and gameplay, never for the lore or the story. They rehash the same Campbellian forumula for every game, a formula that was tired before they even got a hold of it. The Reapers, the Darkspawn, tigers. Oh my.  

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
None of which you've been able to demonstrate because your definition of immaturity seems to be some combination of "convenience" and "I didn't like it."

By those standards, the whole history of media is open to being labeled immature.

You failed to understand the demonstration.

And yes most of media is immature. A lot of it is fun and entertaining, but immature nonetheless.

That's a marketing complaint, and I'm right there with you.  BioWare's marketing is terrible.  That doesn't have anything to do with the actual game though, at no point does Varric break the fourth wall and promise your character will rise to power.

Varric asks Hawke what he wants to do. Hawke can say he wants to go into politics.
The Arishok asks Hawke what he thinks of the cesspool. Hawke can say that he has an opportunity to accumulate power.

So wrong.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.  You've failed to adaquetely even define this so-called ridiculously childish simplicity let alone effectively demonstrate how it is everpresent to a game-defining extent in Dragon Age 2. 

I have. You ignored it.

We can play this game the whole day you know.

Are you taking issue with my claim that DA2 was deconstructing Hawke's greatness and the myth-arc in fantasy games?

When Cassandra comes to the conclusion that Hawke is needed to save Thedas, then such a claim is wrong and contradicted.

The concept, had it actually been done properly, is great.

Each of the games you list does something - and at least one huge thing, usually - poorly.  And they weren't made in 10 months.

Of course they do. DA2 does almost everything poorly.
Maybe with more time, they might have made it better. Who knows. Maybe the whole Teir in the Veil thing was a poor excuse thrown at the last minute because they realized how ridiculous their story was. Maybe the sword idol would have been explored better.

I don't know what would have been. All I know is that what I got, while great in concept, was executed immaturely. More than Bioware's usual.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:18 .

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You failed to understand the demonstration.

Nice try.  But no.  

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

Varric asks Hawke what he wants to do. Hawke can say he wants to go into politics.
The Arishok asks Hawke what he thinks of the cesspool. Hawke can say that he has an opportunity to accumulate power.

So wrong.

"Wants to" and "opportunity to" does not equal gets.  Anders and Meredith conspire to completely ruins those plans. 

You know, gang aft agley and all that.  If the story is a deconstruction, and the point is that Hawke was overcome by events and just as much a victim of circumstance as anyone else in Kirkwall, then his/her failure to achieve real power is par for the course and not some unfortunate anomaly or unfulfilled promise.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  

I have. You ignored it.

We can play this game the whole day you know.

No, I directly addressed it and said your justifications were either flimsy, self-serving, baseless, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

That's not the same.  You like to assume your arguments possess inherent value, they do not.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

When Cassandra comes to the conclusion that Hawke is needed to save Thedas, then such a claim is wrong and contradicted.

Partially.  But Cassandra isn't the narrator.  

But then, I think that was meant to be followed up on in the cancelled expansion.  We'll never know.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  

Maybe the whole Teir in the Veil thing was a poor excuse thrown at the last minute because they realized how ridiculous their story was. Maybe the sword idol would have been explored better.

I don't understand the importance you attach to those things.

It'd be like if I said I couldn't stand TW2 because Dandelion's voice and character drove me nuts.  While that's true, it's not really that big of a deal.  You roll your eyes and move on.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 08:24 .

[Seboist]

slimgrin wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


The comparison I made was Bioware and CDPR's handling of a conflict. One could feel that Bioware's handling is more epic, or more interesting. But one cannot argue that CDPR's way is not more mature, complex and multi-faceted.

Epic is an overused term. Nowadays, a bowl of corn flakes can be epic. 

I like(d) Bioware's games for the characters and gameplay, never for the lore or the story. They rehash the same Campbellian forumula for every game, a formula that was tired before they even got a hold of it. The Reapers, the Darkspawn, tigers. Oh my.  

It was similar with me with DA:O as well. I played through that game for the few interesting characters such as Morrigan,Loghain and Alistair. The main story failed to captivate me for even a moment.

Withith the ME series I was in it for setting, characters (like TIM...sigh) and the premise of a "choose your own adventure" mechanic(yeah i know...).  Much like the Archdemon, the Ninja Gaiden endboss-esque Reapers never interested me at all.

Then the realization of how inept Bioware's writing came in and I saw how you have a fighting game series like Blazblue having better cohesion and planning than ME and how the crucible makes the Triforce plot in Zelda look like a literary masterpiece.

Edit: I should add that Space Terminator, Starchild and Frankenmom all made me feel embarassed to be a gamer.

Modifié par Seboist, 12 mai 2012 - 08:26 .

[AlanC9]

Hmmm.... KoP, if you had a definition of maturity/immaturity I must have missed it. Can we rewind to that for a second?

(goes back to munching popcorn)

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mai 2012 - 08:24 .

[TheMufflon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmmm.... KoP, if you had a definition of maturity/immaturity I must have missed it. Can we rewind to that for a second?

Aside from their strict biological definitions, those words are at best vague and subjective, and at worst completely empty. Something which can also be said of arguments making use of either.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 12 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[mupp3tz]

I actually feel a little bit bad for the development team working on Dragon Age III. The disappointment throughout their last couple of games has reached a high point with Mass Effect 3, with a lot of people losing faith in the company. In a way, I almost don't think it's possible for them to "redeem" (read: win over) some of the fan base... even if they did make a great game, people will be coming into the experience jaded and critical.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"Wants to" and "opportunity to" does not equal gets.  Anders and Meredith conspire to completely ruins those plans.

The problem is we are never given the opportunity to try.

No, I directly addressed it and said your justifications were either flimsy, self-serving, baseless, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

No you failed to demonstrate how and why.
Fun isn't it.

I don't understand the importance you attach to those things.

Because they are an integral part of the plot and they dictate the story.

Plus they are way too many. JAde Empire's Lotus assassins were portrayed idiotically, but I ignored it because the game does a lot of things right.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:39 .

[Persephone]

Yrkoon wrote...

I suspect that in the eyes of say, a die-hard  Witcher 2 fan, anything that isn't "politics" is, therefore, childish BS? Am I getting close?

I don't mean this disparragingly. Political intrigue, when done right (and TW2 does it better than any RPG I've ever played) IS terrific. Mature. Thought provoking. All those things. But High fantasy isn't any less mature simply because it concerns itself with supernatural things, like magic, dragons, dwarves and  hero squads instead of the politics of men.

We rarely agree on anything, but I completely agree with this.

Some of the world's greatest writing had little to no politics in it.

Bronte, Austen, du Maurier, Pushkin....

And when it comes to political intrigue, Tolstoi and Marlowe as well as Shakespeare reduce the Witcher Series to a nice, if heavy handed and juvenile effort. Its biggest problem being the utter lack continuity and radical switches in characters. A direct comparison? Philippa Eilhart, the series' greatest schemer on the female front has nothing to hold up against the likes of Lady Macbeth, Hamlet's scheming, murderous mother or even Anne Boleyn. Triss pales compared to Natasha or even Ophelia. And Radovid, though competent and interesting, is just....ok...compared to Henry V, the refreshingly pragmatic Henry VII. Or Tolstoi's portrayal of his hero in the deliciously complex "War And Peace", Pierre, it reduces Geralt of Rivia's whole story to a cliche riddled fairy tale. And give me a realistic, multi-faceted character like Anna Karenina over any of the caricatures of "bad" girls in BOTH DAO and TW1&2.

I LOVE the Witcher series. But the way it's put on a pedestal is getting ridiculous.

[Lenimph]

I'm just going to put this here for reference:

Dictionary.com
ma·ture   [muh-toor, -tyoor, -choor, -chur] Show IPA adjective, ma·tur·er, ma·tur·est, verb, ma·tured, ma·tur·ing.
adjective
1.
complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms: a mature rose bush.
2.
ripe, as fruit, or fully aged, as cheese or wine.
3.
fully developed in body or mind, as a person: a mature woman.
4.
pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance; fruit with a mature softness.
5.
completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind: mature plans.

[slimgrin]

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

I suspect that in the eyes of say, a die-hard  Witcher 2 fan, anything that isn't "politics" is, therefore, childish BS? Am I getting close?

I don't mean this disparragingly. Political intrigue, when done right (and TW2 does it better than any RPG I've ever played) IS terrific. Mature. Thought provoking. All those things. But High fantasy isn't any less mature simply because it concerns itself with supernatural things, like magic, dragons, dwarves and  hero squads instead of the politics of men.

We rarely agree on anything, but I completely agree with this.

Some of the world's greatest writing had little to no politics in it.

Bronte, Austen, du Maurier, Pushkin....

And when it comes to political intrigue, Tolstoi and Marlowe as well as Shakespeare reduce the Witcher Series to a nice, if heavy handed and juvenile effort. Its biggest problem being the utter lack continuity and radical switches in characters. A direct comparison? Philippa Eilhart, the series' greatest schemer on the female front has nothing to hold up against the likes of Lady Macbeth, Hamlet's scheming, murderous mother or even Anne Boleyn. Triss pales compared to Natasha or even Ophelia. And Radovid, though competent and interesting, is just....ok...compared to Henry V, the refreshingly pragmatic Henry VII. Or Tolstoi's portrayal of his hero in the deliciously complex "War And Peace", Pierre, it reduces Geralt of Rivia's whole story to a cliche riddled fairy tale. And give me a realistic, multi-faceted character like Anna Karenina over any of the caricatures of "bad" girls in BOTH DAO and TW1&2.

I LOVE the Witcher series. But the way it's put on a pedestal is getting ridiculous.

Lord, now this is a pointless excercise. Please don't construct artisitc hierarchies. No one is trying to place the Witcher above Faust. 

@Yrkoon. You should read Tom Bissel's article on TW2. It's as snarky and as trite as your take is. But then he only played the game for 6 hrs.

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 mai 2012 - 08:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...

I'm just going to put this here for reference:

Dictionary.com
ma·ture   [muh-toor, -tyoor, -choor, -chur] Show IPA adjective, ma·tur·er, ma·tur·est, verb, ma·tured, ma·tur·ing.
adjective
1.
complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms: a mature rose bush.
2.
ripe, as fruit, or fully aged, as cheese or wine.
3.
fully developed in body or mind, as a person: a mature woman.
4.
pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance; fruit with a mature softness.
5.
completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind: mature plans.

Indeed.

A story of the Good vs the faceless mindless big bad Evil that wants to destroy the world, having no intelligence, complexity and nuance in its very design, with simplistic bipolar dichotomies, stripping the story of its humanity replacing them with motivationless monsters in lieu of a conflict actually being developped, is immature.

It's fine to enjoy immaturity. I enjoyed playing Prototype. I sometimes load up GTAIV to kill things for no reason, or even make Niko Bellic die in horrific accidents.
It's fun. But it's immature nonetheless.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

slimgrin wrote...
Lord now this is a pointless escercise. Please don't construct artisitc hierarchies. No one is trying to place the Witcher above Faust. 

You must have missed the part where I said that the Witcher is God given, the messiah of literrature.

Because that's totally what I was saying.

[mupp3tz]

Agree on the point about politics not being a necessary ingredient to craft a great story. Although in RPGs, I feel like there is a tendency to include a bit of it to support the whole "hero saving x" and "fraction A vs. fraction B" mentality that we often see. Even though a game doesn't create a very convincing or intriguing political background, I can still find a game to be enjoyable or great once I overlook that aspect in favor of other things that are done well. I understand that it's not the easiest thing in the world to try and make the player feel as motivated or affected by game politics to the level you want, so I usually don't find it to be that big of a deal.

Edit: What you deem "mature" or "immature" is subjective.  What a thirty year old considers mature may not necessarily be what an older or younger person believes it to be.  I think it's kind of stupid to argue superiority on semantics.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 12 mai 2012 - 08:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No you failed to demonstrate how and why.
Fun isn't it.

If I say your terminology is shallow and meaningless, and you fail to dispute this adaquetely, there's nothing further for me to demonstrate.  The terminology remains shallow and meaningless, a stand-in for subjective dislike and nothing more.

I'm not going to engage in further discussion when its pointlessness is further obfuscated by someone framing their arguments around vague, self-serving language and refusing to budge from it when challenged.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed.

Pretty sure by quoting and agreeing with Lenimph's post you've missed the point of it entirely.  But I'm just guessing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 08:54 .

[Mr.House]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

I'm just going to put this here for reference:

Dictionary.com
ma·ture   [muh-toor, -tyoor, -choor, -chur] Show IPA adjective, ma·tur·er, ma·tur·est, verb, ma·tured, ma·tur·ing.
adjective
1.
complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms: a mature rose bush.
2.
ripe, as fruit, or fully aged, as cheese or wine.
3.
fully developed in body or mind, as a person: a mature woman.
4.
pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance; fruit with a mature softness.
5.
completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind: mature plans.

Indeed.

A story of the Good vs the faceless mindless big bad Evil that wants to destroy the world, having no intelligence, complexity and nuance in its very design, with simplistic bipolar dichotomies, stripping the story of its humanity replacing them with motivationless monsters in lieu of a conflict actually being developped, is immature.

What the...

[Addai]

Yrkoon wrote...

2)  There's no big evil in the game?    <sigh>  and here we go with the semantics crap again.  I'd call Letho the game's antagonist.  The fact that   "he's a cool guy once you get to know him", does not change the fact that He's the one that set  the entire game's plot in motion... with a MURDER,   He's the one that Geralt is tasked to deal with, and he's the one that must be faced down before the game ends.

Letho is not a "big bad evil."  He's a fallible human, albeit highly competent one and with Witcher gifts, and he has motivations you can understand and explore.  You get to talk to him.  He has sympathetic angles.

The words "mature- immature" are getting thrown around and people are taking them personally.  Rather I would say that Letho represents a nuanced, complex antagonist, much as Loghain did.  The theme of mages in society started out being interesting in Origins, but by DA2 it was a hysterical, overblown farce.  The same theme in the Witcher games is treated with much more complexity.  Complexity is not always good- it can lead to a mess- but I think the execution of TW2's story was excellent.  It's an intelligent story that rewards thinking about it and replaying it from different approaches.  IMO the only way you can enjoy DA2's story is if you don't think about it very hard.

    You mean, They kill mindless, faceless, motivationless,  monsters for money.   ( snap!)  

You must not have played much of either Witcher game if you think Sapkowski's monsters are all faceless, mindless and motivationless.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 mai 2012 - 08:59 .

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Indeed.

A story of the Good vs the faceless mindless big bad Evil that wants to destroy the world, having no intelligence, complexity and nuance in its very design, with simplistic bipolar dichotomies, stripping the story of its humanity replacing them with motivationless monsters in lieu of a conflict actually being developped, is immature.

It's fine to enjoy immaturity.

Thank you for letting us know it's fine to enjoy it, and for so properly enlightening us as to what is and what isn't mature.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed.

Pretty sure by quoting and agreeing with Lenimph's post you've missed the point of it entirely.  But I'm just guessing.

Notice the bolded part.

Helps to read carefully.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Notice the bolded part.

Helps to read carefully.

If you thought anything in that definition supported your argument, you bolded the wrong part.

Zjarcal wrote...

Thank you for letting us know it's fine to enjoy it, and for so properly enlightening us as to what is and what isn't mature.

KoP has the most refined tastes on the forum.  You can tell because Xanatos is his avatar.  Only the best people appreciate Xanatos.

Addai67 wrote...

 IMO the only way you can enjoy DA2's story is if you don't think about it very hard.

Gee what have I been doing with all this thinking.  Good thing Addai is here to tell me I must not have been doing it right. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 09:00 .