269 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

berelinde wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Given the extremely unorthodox methods of the new Divine as per Asunder, it isn't set in stone that any Seekers she picks would be "devout" Andrastians, but that in large part depends on one's definition.  Leliana, for example, believes very strongly in Andraste and the Maker, but by official Chantry doctrines, she's not devout at all, but a heretic.  There actually is a fair amount of leeway for imagining the sort of character that Divine Justinia V would hand pick as a trusted Seeker.

Regardless of the degree of orthodoxy of the Divine's choices, she is not going to select a non-believer as a Seeker. Leliana's ideas may be considered by some to be heretical, but there is no denying that she is a believer. Not every character in the game does believe in Andraste and the Maker. Aveline doesn't. Some characters I run will believe, but others will not. I cannot accept a background where that choice is made for me.

Well, I said I didn't agree that the Divine would only select someone who is a devout Andrastian--as in a diehard Chantry-doctrine-believer, not anything at all about a non-believer.  However, I do actually think it would be possible for Divine Justinia to pick someone who wasn't a real believer.  I could totally see Justinia seeking out someone like Aveline, for instance, because I see in Justinia someone who is less concerned about a person's specific religious beliefs and more with their desire to work for the common good.  I've read PLENTY of stories where a religious leader who was a strong believer themselves chose to work closely with someone who was openly opposed, even hostile to, the religious message, while still being a morally upstanding person said religious leader saw value within.

We have explictly seen that this is the sort of person Justinia is.  Part of her characterization is that she is a radical, after all, and she has been opposed because she goes out of her way to defy traditional Chantry dogma.  

[Silfren]

berelinde wrote...

Yes, of course the example above is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would design a game like that, let alone expect people to buy it. The point is not to sell the idea or even to compare bestiality to support of the chantry. Substitute any other noun you like and it will still read exactly the same. If you force a player to role-play a character who belongs to an organization where the members are identified by a set of beliefs, telling the player that the character doesn't actually have to embrace those beliefs is meaningless. What matters is the ability to choose the beliefs, ideology, sexual orientation, and other personality-defining traits that your character will possess and join an organization or faction that supports those beliefs accordingly.

What about a character who joins the Chantry specifically to tear it down?  Is the concept of a character going undercover in an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy the Chantry lost on you?   Or that of a character who simply loses faith?  The former is actually a common character archetype, and the second one is something that happens all the time, every day.  it's not ridiculous in the least that a Seeker character could become a totally different person and experience a radical turnaround in their beliefs. 

It remains to be seen how and even IF Bioware will handle choices in DA3, but for you to suggest that it's just not plausible to play a character who starts out religious but ultimately abandons those beliefs--or only claims them in order to play a role that hides their own, real motives, that's just you having an unfortunately limited understanding of character possibilities.

[berelinde]

Silfren wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Yes, of course the example above is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would design a game like that, let alone expect people to buy it. The point is not to sell the idea or even to compare bestiality to support of the chantry. Substitute any other noun you like and it will still read exactly the same. If you force a player to role-play a character who belongs to an organization where the members are identified by a set of beliefs, telling the player that the character doesn't actually have to embrace those beliefs is meaningless. What matters is the ability to choose the beliefs, ideology, sexual orientation, and other personality-defining traits that your character will possess and join an organization or faction that supports those beliefs accordingly.

What about a character who joins the Chantry specifically to tear it down?  Is the concept of a character going undercover in an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy the Chantry lost on you?   Or that of a character who simply loses faith?  The former is actually a common character archetype, and the second one is something that happens all the time, every day.  it's not ridiculous in the least that a Seeker character could become a totally different person and experience a radical turnaround in their beliefs. 

It remains to be seen how and even IF Bioware will handle choices in DA3, but for you to suggest that it's just not plausible to play a character who starts out religious but ultimately abandons those beliefs--or only claims them in order to play a role that hides their own, real motives, that's just you having an unfortunately limited understanding of character possibilities.

Personal insults? If that's what you've got, you must be running out of logical arguments.

At that point, you're just asking people to do mental gymnastics to justify something that is patently absurd. If you think that's OK, that's just you having an unfortunately limited understanding of player agency. Player agency is letting the player control their gaming experience as much as possible. Pre-defining the protagonist's beliefs and motivations takes even the most basic character traits out of the player's hands.

Ultimately, we want to play a game that is fun. Being forced to play a character with a fixed religion would be un-fun. Being forced to come up with implausible explanations for something that should never have happened anyway is even worse. I'd rather be forced to play a heterosexual male protagonist than be forced to play a religious one.

[Silfren]

berelinde wrote...

Silfren wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Yes, of course the example above is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would design a game like that, let alone expect people to buy it. The point is not to sell the idea or even to compare bestiality to support of the chantry. Substitute any other noun you like and it will still read exactly the same. If you force a player to role-play a character who belongs to an organization where the members are identified by a set of beliefs, telling the player that the character doesn't actually have to embrace those beliefs is meaningless. What matters is the ability to choose the beliefs, ideology, sexual orientation, and other personality-defining traits that your character will possess and join an organization or faction that supports those beliefs accordingly.

What about a character who joins the Chantry specifically to tear it down?  Is the concept of a character going undercover in an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy the Chantry lost on you?   Or that of a character who simply loses faith?  The former is actually a common character archetype, and the second one is something that happens all the time, every day.  it's not ridiculous in the least that a Seeker character could become a totally different person and experience a radical turnaround in their beliefs. 

It remains to be seen how and even IF Bioware will handle choices in DA3, but for you to suggest that it's just not plausible to play a character who starts out religious but ultimately abandons those beliefs--or only claims them in order to play a role that hides their own, real motives, that's just you having an unfortunately limited understanding of character possibilities.

Personal insults? If that's what you've got, you must be running out of logical arguments.

At that point, you're just asking people to do mental gymnastics to justify something that is patently absurd. If you think that's OK, that's just you having an unfortunately limited understanding of player agency. Player agency is letting the player control their gaming experience as much as possible. Pre-defining the protagonist's beliefs and motivations takes even the most basic character traits out of the player's hands.

Ultimately, we want to play a game that is fun. Being forced to play a character with a fixed religion would be un-fun. Being forced to come up with implausible explanations for something that should never have happened anyway is even worse. I'd rather be forced to play a heterosexual male protagonist than be forced to play a religious one.

I don't think I called you any names, so sorry but I'm not sure I can be accused of personal insults.  

Nothing I suggested requires extreme mental gymnastics of any sort.  It DOES require a person to expand their imagination and to allow for characters to be unique individuals who are affected by their environment and capable of changing over the course of a storyline.  There is nothing patently absurd about it at all.  

I think all this screaming about a Seeker is silly, since Bioware's word on the subject seems more indicative of a companion, not a PC, but even so, you are COMPLETELY ignoring that having a seeker background as your starting origin does NOT mean that you will have no possibility to flesh out why your character is a Seeker.  

It's possible  that if Bioware went that route, that the background would be heavily defined, sure.  HOWEVER, it is ALSO possible that Bioware could simply do something similar to Mass Effect, and offer Seeker as one possible background of several.  Even if it gave you only the Seeker as a background, it would STILL be possible for it to be a blank slate, so that YOU could decide how and why your character ended up that way.  

If you insist that there's just no way in hell, no way no how, that a Seeker could be an infiltrator working for the Chantry's demise, or could just be a close trusted personal friend of the Divine, someone Justinia felt she could trust implicitly irrespective of that person's beliefs...then yes, it is a failure of imagination on your part (there's a lot of that happening today).  None of those scenarios are at all implausible, much less absurd, given the story we've been presented thus far. 

[berelinde]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no objection to a Seeker background *as a choice* of more than one, nor do I have any objection to a Seeker specialization, which I feel would be much, much more appropriate. A Seeker companion is a given, and I'm all for that as well. I'm sure we'll be presented with a fairly well-balanced selection.

I only have strenuous objections to railroading the player into a single, unacceptable background.

Would you be in favor of forcing everyone to play a protagonist who was a defender of Andural's Reach? Because that would allow vastly more customization options and would be much more inclusive with regards to race, class, religion, and every other personality trait. If you say no, then you should understand my objections to being forced to play as a Seeker.

My imagination is just fine. It is accompanied by a strong understanding of the lore. My imagination is good enough, in fact, that I can imagine literally dozens of protagonist background that would be infinitely more fun to play. Just about any of them, really.

At this point, it is coming down to you saying "Oh, come on, there's nothing wrong with playing a zealot. After all, your character could be faking it." and me saying "No, there are much better ideas out there. Let's try one of those first." Repeating it a few more times will not change anybody's mind.

Modifié par berelinde, 28 juin 2012 - 09:13 .

[Silfren]

berelinde wrote...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no objection to a Seeker background *as a choice* of more than one, nor do I have any objection to a Seeker specialization, which I feel would be much, much more appropriate. A Seeker companion is a given, and I'm all for that as well. I'm sure we'll be presented with a fairly well-balanced selection.

I only have strenuous objections to railroading the player into a single, unacceptable background.

Would you be in favor of forcing everyone to play a protagonist who was a defender of Andural's Reach? Because that would allow vastly more customization options and would be much more inclusive with regards to race, class, religion, and every other personality trait. If you say no, then you should understand my objections to being forced to play as a Seeker.

My imagination is just fine. It is accompanied by a strong understanding of the lore. My imagination is good enough, in fact, that I can imagine literally dozens of protagonist background that would be infinitely more fun to play. Just about any of them, really.

At this point, it is coming down to you saying "Oh, come on, there's nothing wrong with playing a zealot. After all, your character could be faking it." and me saying "No, there are much better ideas out there. Let's try one of those first." Repeating it a few more times will not change anybody's mind.

I would happily play any protagonist Bioware offered in DA3, and decide whether I liked it after playing the game and seeing how Bioware handled the issue of player agency.  I wouldn't scream and rail about it before hand.

Now, I am NOT saiyng there's nothing wrong with playing a zealot.  You're just putting words in my mouth here, because I've said nothing even remotely close to that.  I am specifically saying that there is no reason to assume that a Seeker would have to default as a zealot.  I AM saying that the character of Justinia has been written such that it is completely believeable that she would appoint someone as a Seeker because of their loyalty to HER, irrespective of their beliefs.  I AM saying that it is conceivable that Justinia might see a person, using Aveline as an example again, as being ideal for her purposes as a secret agent because they believe in her CAUSE even if they are not religious.  I AM saying that a character could start out as a zealot, but become more moderate over time, or even lose faith completely.  I AM saying that a character could be a double-agent acting to destroy the Chantry.  All of these are possibilities on how to play a Seeker, and they would all work within the confines of the existing lore.  If Bioware provided Seeker as a background but left it largely undefined, all these possibilties are workable.  Your assertion that the characterization of a Seeker as an unchanging zealot is the only one that would be possible...it is simply not true. 

You insist that a Seeker character can ONLY be a zealot, and apparently can only STAY a zealot, and I am saying that this is a limitation YOU impose without due cause.  The lore we have on the world itself allows for various ways of playing a Seeker, as does the characterization of the woman who would appoint the Seeker.  

[berelinde]

Fine, let's play the game as something else, if it's all the same to you.

My stance is unchanged. Interpret that however you want. You won't be the first person to be wrong.

BioWare has come under a lot of fire recently for railroading. Starting off the next game with a heavy dose of it would not go over well.

[Melca36]

berelinde wrote...

Fine, let's play the game as something else, if it's all the same to you.

My stance is unchanged. Interpret that however you want. You won't be the first person to be wrong.

BioWare has come under a lot of fire recently for railroading. Starting off the next game with a heavy dose of it would not go over well.

They want the game to sell so I don't think we will be forced to play as a Seeker.

It could be a choice to be play but not the only choice.

[berelinde]

Melca36 wrote...

It could be a choice to be play but not the only choice.

Exactly.

Buying games is a voluntary activity. People aren't going to shell out $60+ for a game they have reservations about. I don't need to apply a cheese grater to my elbow to know that I won't enjoy it.

Edit: Yeah, I know. People do buy games they are ultimately dissatisfied with, but not repeatedly. To a certain extent, BioWare, like every other company, relies on repeat business.

Edit 2: Have you ever noticed how the most appropriate comments or whatever come to you when you are least able to do anything about it? Case in point: I work long hours as a chemist (an occupation where, as everyone knows, intelligence is completely unnecessary<_<). On the way home from work, during a 45-mile drive, a thought occurred. There was no rush. It didn't have much competition. One or two people in this thread have said that players who do not want their characters to be Seekers should exercise their imagination, but given the obviously superior intellectual faculties of those who propose this and the obviously inferior faculties of those who oppose, a more workable solution might be in order. The solution is the soul of elegant simplicty. Those who want their characters to be Seekers should imagine it. By pretending that their characters are Seekers depite the canon background provided, the cogniscenti may get the game they want without inflicting the mental anguish of thought on those plebians who prefer cardigans to straightjackets. Problem solved! Everybody gets the game they want. After all, imagination works both ways, does it not?

Modifié par berelinde, 29 juin 2012 - 02:43 .

[TheShadowWolf911]

Faerunner wrote...

As long as the Seeker can be of different races (elf, dwarf, kossith), then I'll be happy.

If we have to get saddled with another human protagonist again because of "story," I quit.

this, i can live with being a seeker if i can be a Kossith seeker.

heck it wouldn't be that hard, Kossith turn Tal Vashoth all the time so it's not impossible one would join the Chantry, Varric is a shining exmaple of a Dwarf who believes in the Maker (Surface Dwarves basically), and City Elves seem to also believe in the Maker as often as not.

i don't see how this would be that difficult to write.

[berelinde]

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

[Tommyspa]

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

[Melca36]

Tommyspa wrote...

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

Its called concept art. That does not mean you will see it in the game.

Hvae you seen the original concepts for Zevran and such?

[Melca36]

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

I think people need to come to terms with the realization that we will likely being playing a human in the next game.

Considering the statistics they had for how many people actually played the other races, you'd think they would have accepted it by now.

[Melca36]

berelinde wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

It could be a choice to be play but not the only choice.

Exactly.

Buying games is a voluntary activity. People aren't going to shell out $60+ for a game they have reservations about. I don't need to apply a cheese grater to my elbow to know that I won't enjoy it.

Edit: Yeah, I know. People do buy games they are ultimately dissatisfied with, but not repeatedly. To a certain extent, BioWare, like every other company, relies on repeat business.

Edit 2: Have you ever noticed how the most appropriate comments or whatever come to you when you are least able to do anything about it? Case in point: I work long hours as a chemist (an occupation where, as everyone knows, intelligence is completely unnecessary<_<). On the way home from work, during a 45-mile drive, a thought occurred. There was no rush. It didn't have much competition. One or two people in this thread have said that players who do not want their characters to be Seekers should exercise their imagination, but given the obviously superior intellectual faculties of those who propose this and the obviously inferior faculties of those who oppose, a more workable solution might be in order. The solution is the soul of elegant simplicty. Those who want their characters to be Seekers should imagine it. By pretending that their characters are Seekers depite the canon background provided, the cogniscenti may get the game they want without inflicting the mental anguish of thought on those plebians who prefer cardigans to straightjackets. Problem solved! Everybody gets the game they want. After all, imagination works both ways, does it not?

I don't care how much imagaination I would have to employ, playing a Seeker is simply something I am not interested in.   Its the same way I can't enjoy Sebastian. When you deal with zealots in your real life, its not something you want to deal with in a game.  People play games as an escape. Even if my Seeker did a 100% complete turnaround, I still would NOT want to play one and I would be upset if Bioware went that route.

I have faith that they know they'd lose half og their audience if they went this route. Given the fact DA:2 only sold half of what Origins sold as well as the recent ME3 backlash, I don't think they would do this.

[Tommyspa]

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

Its called concept art. That does not mean you will see it in the game.

Hvae you seen the original concepts for Zevran and such?

The correct assumption for the point your making is not that the seeker kossith is impossible, but it will not look like that. Last time I checked Zevran was still in the game.

[Hayllee]

I really, really don't like the Chantry the more I play the series. So, ah, I'd prefer not.

[berelinde]

Melca36 wrote...

I don't care how much imagaination I would have to employ, playing a Seeker is simply something I am not interested in.   Its the same way I can't enjoy Sebastian. When you deal with zealots in your real life, its not something you want to deal with in a game.  People play games as an escape. Even if my Seeker did a 100% complete turnaround, I still would NOT want to play one and I would be upset if Bioware went that route.

I have faith that they know they'd lose half og their audience if they went this route. Given the fact DA:2 only sold half of what Origins sold as well as the recent ME3 backlash, I don't think they would do this.

I know. Imagination alone is not enough to make playing a Seeker acceptable. That was kind of the point. If you read up a bit, you'll see a few posts that patronizingly suggest that it would be, however. When somebody tells you "be flexible," what they usually mean is "do it my way". No. Not going to happen.

And you have identified the reason BioWare won't go this route. The public outcry against forcing Hawke to be human was bad enough. Restricting player options even further would be disastrous.

It's pointless to argue about it anyway. The plot for the next thing is already in place. The protagonist is decided. John Epler tweeted that he is already working on cinematics for the dialogue that is already being written.

[Melca36]

berelinde wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

I don't care how much imagaination I would have to employ, playing a Seeker is simply something I am not interested in.   Its the same way I can't enjoy Sebastian. When you deal with zealots in your real life, its not something you want to deal with in a game.  People play games as an escape. Even if my Seeker did a 100% complete turnaround, I still would NOT want to play one and I would be upset if Bioware went that route.

I have faith that they know they'd lose half og their audience if they went this route. Given the fact DA:2 only sold half of what Origins sold as well as the recent ME3 backlash, I don't think they would do this.

I know. Imagination alone is not enough to make playing a Seeker acceptable. That was kind of the point. If you read up a bit, you'll see a few posts that patronizingly suggest that it would be, however. When somebody tells you "be flexible," what they usually mean is "do it my way". No. Not going to happen.

And you have identified the reason BioWare won't go this route. The public outcry against forcing Hawke to be human was bad enough. Restricting player options even further would be disastrous.

It's pointless to argue about it anyway. The plot for the next thing is already in place. The protagonist is decided. John Epler tweeted that he is already working on cinematics for the dialogue that is already being written.

Thats true. I follow him on Twitter as well.

As long as I  still have the choice to play a female character as well as a male.

Alot of people have the "My way" attitude here, sadly.   

And I suspect when the first official game announcement arrives, theres going to be alot complaining too.

[Melca36]

Tommyspa wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

Its called concept art. That does not mean you will see it in the game.

Hvae you seen the original concepts for Zevran and such?

The correct assumption for the point your making is not that the seeker kossith is impossible, but it will not look like that. Last time I checked Zevran was still in the game.

As long as I am NOT forced to play one...I don't care.

[Tommyspa]

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

Its called concept art. That does not mean you will see it in the game.

Hvae you seen the original concepts for Zevran and such?

The correct assumption for the point your making is not that the seeker kossith is impossible, but it will not look like that. Last time I checked Zevran was still in the game.

As long as I am NOT forced to play one...I don't care.

Playing as a mage doesn't stop me from being pro-circle and pro-templar. Why is this "forcably" different?

[Melca36]

Tommyspa wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

berelinde wrote...

How many kossith chantry dudes have you seen? Who knows? Maybe Orlais is crawling with them, but I'll put my money on it being a "humans only" gig.

You mean this?

Its called concept art. That does not mean you will see it in the game.

Hvae you seen the original concepts for Zevran and such?

The correct assumption for the point your making is not that the seeker kossith is impossible, but it will not look like that. Last time I checked Zevran was still in the game.

As long as I am NOT forced to play one...I don't care.

Playing as a mage doesn't stop me from being pro-circle and pro-templar. Why is this "forcably" different?

It will be different if thats the ONLY choice we are allowed to play. When we played Hawke...we had the choice of Mage, Warrior, Rogue and we could chose to side with Orsino or Meredith.

If they only go one choice to play a seeker, that takes away more choices.   I want the choice to be mage, Commoner or Seeker.  I do NOT want one role forced upon me. For $60 I WANT the choice to play the class I want.

They also want the game to sell so I don't expect them to do this.  I have no problem with a seeker companion however.

Modifié par Melca36, 29 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[Vox Draco]

Well, every good Bioware-character needs a firtting name/role s/he is adressed with in conversations...no matter if its enemies, allies, lovers, friends

Bhaalspawn
Warden
Commander Shepard
Hawke

"So Seeker, you have come here to fight?"
"So you are the Seeker everyone talks about in town? I thought you were taller"
"Seeker, I love you, and I will always stay true to you, to the bitter end!"
"Come here, Seeker! I will paint the walls with your blood!"
"So, Seeker, what do you think about my new dress? Do you like it?"

Except for the love-lines it works fine, I think!

[Melca36]

Vox Draco wrote...

Well, every good Bioware-character needs a firtting name/role s/he is adressed with in conversations...no matter if its enemies, allies, lovers, friends

Bhaalspawn
Warden
Commander Shepard
Hawke

"So Seeker, you have come here to fight?"
"So you are the Seeker everyone talks about in town? I thought you were taller"
"Seeker, I love you, and I will always stay true to you, to the bitter end!"
"Come here, Seeker! I will paint the walls with your blood!"
"So, Seeker, what do you think about my new dress? Do you like it?"

Except for the love-lines it works fine, I think!

Ugh.  That actually makes me want to play a seeker even less.

I didn't mind Hawke so I hope its somthing like that.

[LobselVith8]

Tommyspa wrote...

Playing as a mage doesn't stop me from pro-Circle and pro-templar.

Which means your character is a Loyalist. What makes being a Seeker different is that the character would be a member of a religious organization, and not everyone likes or supports the Chantry of Andraste. It would be akin to forcing your protagonist to be a Libertarian if you wanted to be a Loyalist. Considering how some players dislike the Chantry, forcing the protagonist to be a Seeker would be the wrong move.