118 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

In Dragon Age II, all but two of the mage antagonists were insane. For a storyline that was supposed to focus on the dichotomy between mages and templars, mages were pretty much insane buffoons who never acted in a rational manner while templars were sadists, coupled with some rapists. Rather than prove us with a thought-provoking look at the schism between the people who agree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and the people who disagree with them, we were given characters that were flat. Mages, for instance, were pretty much insane lunatics instead of three-dimensional characters. Witcher 2 and Skyrim did the opposite, and presented factions with characters who aren't one-note imbeciles, and I wonder if future Dragon Age games will follow their example by depicting both factions with intelligent, fleshed out characters who act rationally, or if we will endure more of the same asinine characters in the future.

During the storyline of Dragon Age II, we dealt with a plethora of insane mages - to the point where the issue has made into a joke in the DLC for Dragon Age II. Decimus was insane - thinking that characters like Merrill, Fenris, and Varric were templars. Grace was insane and sought revenge against Hawke even if he (or she) helped her. Tahrone looked like a strung-out drug addict, and was a raving mad lunatic who I doubt any rational person who follow. Orsino lost his mind, and turned into a recycled GoA Harvester.

I know GavrielKay and others have suggested that this was done to show that mages are dangerous, but I think that depicting mages in such a manner was ridiculous - are we supposed to be afraid that magic is dangerous, because Dragon Age II makes it seem as though we need to be afraid that free mages will become one-dimensional caricatures who will act illogically, and do stupid things because the Plot dictates. Hawke's story showcased a lack of effort into depicting mages (and even templars) as three-dimensional characters by depicting them as insane lunatics who didn't act in a rational manner. Decimus shouldn't think that a Dalish elf, a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos, or a bare-chested dwarf are templars. Grace shouldn't seek revenge against a man who helped her escape from the templars. Tahrone could have been a rational leader who simply sought to cross moral lines to tear down the templars. Orsino didn't have to have a relationship with (another insane mage) Quentin (which has never been explained as to how the two met, or why Orsino would care about experiments that seem to serve no logical or practical purpose), and he didn't have to go insane.

Fallout: New Vegas had the Courier deal with factions led by people who provided explanations and rationales for why they sought particular goals. Skyrim had the Stormcloaks and Legion as flawed groups lead by imperfect men, but never tried to depict either side as one-dimensional, even if you opposed that group and their respective leader. In fact, Tullius and Ulfric never lose their sanity or dignity even when you directly oppose them, and I wish such a route had been taken with Meredith and Orsino, because seeing them lose their minds and turn into monsters simply took me out of the story. If my protagonist opposes the mages or the templars, their leader should be able to maintain their dignity and sanity. They shouldn't be villified simply for being an antagonist.

Are we going to deal with more poorly written mages in Dragon Age III, who are mere caricatures in a poor effort to convey that mages are dangerous by having us deal with mentally deranged lunatics? Because the idea that mentally unstable people = magic is inherently dangerous simply doesn't work. I don't see the need to mentally unbalanced mages rather than an engaging look at three-dimensional mages and templars who have philosophical differences about how to best handle the issue of magic.

[Arthur Cousland]

I agree. DA2 was full of "crazy" blood mages, and it got old, as many apostates simply want to be free from the chantry and not go on killing rampages. It was obvious that the writers were trying to push the player towards pro-templar.

In Origins, magic was feared because of it's destructive power, and risk of demon posession. In DA2, it was all about blood magic, and the evil mages controlling others.

DA2 was a rushed game, and that included the writing.

Hopefully DA3 has more Irving/Malcom Hawke and less Tahrone/Quentin.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 29 juin 2012 - 04:12 .

[thats1evildude]

Isn't this a repeat of other threads you've done?

Will mages continue to be depicted as insane and stupid in DLC?

Doesn't making all the mages insane make the mage debate pointless?

Jesus, the titles are so close it could be a dance mix. I feel like I'm in the ninth circle of Hell sometimes, but instead of rats chewing out my eyes for all eternity, I'm treated to never-ending mage debates that never go anywhere.

I've even made that joke before. And I'll probably make it again. Because that's what Hell is: endless repetition.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 29 juin 2012 - 04:23 .

[TEWR]

thats1evildude wrote...

Isn't this a repeat of other threads you've done?

Just about every thread in the main DAII subsections are repeats of older threads. There's nothing wrong with talking about this again, because it's true.

Arthur Cousland wrote...

...less Tahrone/Quentin.

Funnily enough, those are two out of three Mages in DAII that I personally felt comfortable with being insane and crazy. The other being Huon.

For me, less Decimus/Grace/Harvestino out of nowhere.

Tarohne and Quentin were, IMO, fine for the story. Not as well done as they could've been, but they were ones I felt the story really needed for the main quests to display.

I mean... every main quest in DAII that dealt with Mages and Templars had the major Mages go insane to drive the plot forward.

Decimus? Insane and unnecessary.
Tarohne? Insane, but necessary.
Quentin? Insane, but necessary.
Grace? Insane and unnecessary.
Orsino? Insane and unnecessary.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 juin 2012 - 04:23 .

[berelinde]

I would like to think that the devs are aware that portraying every character as a caricature in extremes was probably not the best idea ever. That said, it doesn't hurt to say it again. Just in case.

[Arthur Cousland]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Isn't this a repeat of other threads you've done?

Just about every thread in the main DAII subsections are repeats of older threads. There's nothing wrong with talking about this again, because it's true.

Arthur Cousland wrote...

...less Tahrone/Quentin.

Funnily enough, those are two out of three Mages in DAII that I personally felt comfortable with being insane and crazy. The other being Huon.

For me, less Decimus/Grace/Harvestino out of nowhere.

Tarohne and Quentin were, IMO, fine for the story. Not as well done as they could've been, but they were ones I felt the story really needed for the main quests to display.

I mean... every main quest in DAII that dealt with Mages and Templars had the major Mages go insane to drive the plot forward.

Decimus? Insane and unnecessary.
Tarohne? Insane, but necessary.
Quentin? Insane, but necessary.
Grace? Insane and unnecessary.
Orsino? Insane and unnecessary.

Good points.
Tarohne's plot had an effect on Meredith, with her own templars being posessed by demons.  She wanted to drive the knight commander crazy, and that she did.

It would have been nice if DA2 didn't have an outbreak of crazy blood mages, as if it was some kind of roach infestation. 

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 29 juin 2012 - 05:08 .

[Wulfram]

To be fair, mages going crazy is why they're locked up, so crazy mages need to be present somewhat. It's a fundamental part of the setting.

Could do with being less ubiquitous than DA2 though, yes. Though the fact that most of the sane mages aren't locked up by the Templars any more should help.

[Sir JK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Grace? Insane and unnecessary.

I disagree with this. Grace is neither insane nor unnessecary. Her plot is a bit crudely put forward (and the hook is unfortunately Decimus, who is a cartoon villain) but ultimately her plot is about a mage driven by a very human flaw.

Grace hates Hawke. Hawke killed Decimus and when everything went downwards for her everything went better for Hawke. She is forced to run and hide, Hawke becomes rich. She is brought back into the circle and Hawke "gains allies among the templars". Hawke is the personification of everything that is wrong with her life. A scapegoat.

Even a mage Hawke gains personal audiences with Meredith. From Grace's point of view it's a very easy assumtion to make that Hawke works for Meredith. It's wrong (in most cases), yes. But not a great leap of faith if you don't have detailed accounts of everything Hawke does (which Grace does not).

Yes, Grace's plot is a bit clumsily handled. Yes, like so many others we see too little of her and get very little to relate to. But ultimately, I think Grace is at the very least a mage villain with a decent idea behind her.
She's not insanse, merely driven by a passionate hatred.
And she's not unnesseccary, because she represents another aspect of the mage desire for freedom. Namely that perhaps not all mages fight for freedom in order to acquire equal rights. That not all of them have benevolent goals. That just because you symapthise with someone does not mean they cannot oppose you for personal reasons. That not everything is about the mage vs. templar struggle.

I want to see more mages like Grace. Driven more by emotion than logic. Fighting for freedom out of jealousy, greed, fear, hatred, prejudice and/or arrogance. Ones that are equally likely to turn to infighting within their own faction. Willing to backstab their own for their own goals.

But I think that it's very important that the mage villains we see are relatable. The insane mages cannot be related to and thus at best they come across as cartoon villains. If we are to buy into that mages are dangerous, then we must also be presented with mages that become dangerous through relatable or even sympathetic means. That become terrible monsters through actions that we can understand why they took, or even better, we'd probably take in their shoes ourselves. Insane characters are nothing wrong as such, but they aren't really convincing if they're the only ones about.

[DeathScepter]

Given the nature of Kirkwall, everyone is nuts due to blood magic ritual did by the Tervinters. Yes I blame them. For they made the Veil thin, I mean very thin. Thin Veil, Blood Magic Ritual, and Demons will produce Crazy people. Not Reasonable people.

[TonberryFeye]

Nizaris1 wrote...

It is not like in DA:O...of course we must choose Bhelen or Harrowmont, but we can debate about these two character. Bhelen is ruthless but dinamic, Harrowmont seems to be goodies but conservative. there is an intellectual challenge when want to make decision.

Let's not forget what is truly great about this...

Bhelen is closer to being the villain of the two. This is especially clear when you look into what he does (much more lying, more bribery, more threats... not to mention he murders Harrowmont if he becomes king, or attempts to slaughter everyone if he loses).

However, he is the right choice to be king. Under Harrowmont, Orzammar clings to tradition, closes its doors to the surface and retreats in fear from the slowly encroaching darkness. In effect, by placing Harrowmont on the throne you doom Orzammar to a slow, lingering death.

With Bhelen on the throne, the Casteless gain the chance to redeem themselves through military service, causing a surge in deep roads excursions and the reclamation of lost Thaigs. Combine that with greater surface trade and it's clear that Orzammar is going to do well.

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

To be fair, mages going crazy is why they're locked up, so crazy mages need to be present somewhat. It's a fundamental part of the setting.

Could do with being less ubiquitous than DA2 though, yes. Though the fact that most of the sane mages aren't locked up by the Templars any more should help.

Origins never addressed it as "mages going crazy," and even the craziness in Dragon Age II is blamed on the Tevinter Hellmouth via the Band of Three, which doesn't excuse that the mage antagonists are one-note and often illogical. Why would Grace think a pro-mage, apostate Hawke who publicly condemned Meredith is against mages? It made no sense, but that's because the story railroaded Hawke and others, even if the motivation made no sense. Orsino dealing with Quentin made little sense as well - since the experiments are pointless, and it only served for the GoA skin of the Harvester to be recycled as a boss battle.

Tahrone, Quentin and Huon are problematic because they simply add to the plethora of insane and stupid mages. I think three-dimensional mages would have been better. Opportunities to allow Hawke to really side with the mages, or against them. As it is, it simply forces Hawke into fights, and prevents us from having any meaningful choices when we are consistently pitted against irrational lunatics.

[LolaLei]

Agreed. With the exception of one or two Mage and Templar NPC's, most of them were portrayed as caricature without giving a reason why they're bat sh!t insane.

[Blacklash93]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Just about every thread in the main DAII subsections are repeats of older threads. There's nothing wrong with talking about this again, because it's true.

The writers have acknoledged this, among other things, time and time again for the past year so they've clearly gotten the message. I don't think these discussions are any more than fodder at this point. Almost everyone is in agreement that DA2 didn't do the best job portraying these factions to say the least.

That said people can knock themselves out about this and I really don't have a place to object. It's not like anyone has to look at these threads.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 29 juin 2012 - 10:16 .

[DPSSOC]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Just about every thread in the main DAII subsections are repeats of older threads. There's nothing wrong with talking about this again, because it's true.

The writers have acknoledged this, among other things, time and time again for the past year so they've clearly gotten the message.

Never assume people have gotten the message until you've branded it into their foreheads.  The problem is the writers may have acknowledged that making all the mages cartoonish caricatures wasn't a good idea, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again.  Writing insane characters is easier, because nothing they do has to make sense, it's not supposed to, and you don't have to worry about things like motivation, rationale, goals or any of those other pesky things.  Writing meaningful antagonists with understandable motivations, goals, and methods takes time, and given the painfully short production periods EA gives that's time the writers don't always have.

What I would have liked to see is a mage antagonist (or heck any antagonist) with a line.  Just give us a mage who hates the Templars and and everything they stand for, but give him some boundaries, a sense of principle. that keeps him from being a raving lunatic out to hurt people.  You don't have to make him deep, or coflicted, or complicated, just make him human.

[TEWR]

Sir JK wrote...

I disagree with this.

Well, truth be told I'm not actually against her being a villain for the reasons you stated. In some of my discussions with other posters -- mostly through PM -- I put forth a way the quest could've been better handled to actually make sense due to Grace's emotions on the matter.

So I'm not against it in principle. Just it being forced on us every damn time, because the writers didn't make an effort to really give it its due -- because as you said, it stems back to Decimus.

So when I say it's unnecessary, I don't mean it shouldn't ever happen. I mean that it should be given its due to actually make sense in the future and that the way it happened in-game is unnecessary. Conceptually, it's great. But in practice based on DAII, it's not.

Connor felt more fleshed out then Grace and Decimus, where emotions were still the driving force behind Connor's actions. Different circumstances, but Connor was done better then Grace or Decimus were.

Along with her apparently being an Abomination -- something I think happened prior to the quest's beginning.

I mean, that just sort of kills her motivations and being a character one could relate to or like, if it was all just a Demon's ploy based off of Grace's original feelings. So her being/becoming an Abomination was IMO unnecessary.

And the quest itself makes no sense from the perspective of a consistently pro-mage Hawke.

1) I can denounce Meredith and tell her that she needs to step down. I can agree with Orsino for that matter.

2) I can talk to Thrask, who flat out states that he knows I support the First Enchanter.

3) When I do end up doing this quest, a bunch of Templars and Mages say "We know you're spying for Orsino!" like that's a bad thing. It isn't. The man who is against Meredith sends out the Champion who is also against Meredith to ascertain the truth of why the Mages are going out at night. How is that a bad thing?

4) I go to the Wounded Coast and suddenly Thrask thinks I'm supporting Meredith, for no reason whatsoever.

Bah. It's as if the writers took a downward spiral into the jaws of oblivion where any semblance of a plot was deemed unimportant.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 juin 2012 - 08:09 .

[Sir JK]

I absolutely agree that it was completely unneccessary to make her an abomination. The game would have benefitted a great deal from tossing those on us a great deal less, but especially in her case. I do think the plot works equally well (if not even better) for apostate Hawkes however, but other than that I absolutely agree with you.

[Plaintiff]

Oh joy. I was wondering when you'd make another one of these.

I think several of the most prominent mage characters in DA2 were perfectly sane. Not only is their train of logic quite reasonable and easy to follow, I think they also have the moral highground.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2012 - 09:39 .

[LobselVith8]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The writers have acknoledged this, among other things, time and time again for the past year so they've clearly gotten the message. I don't think these discussions are any more than fodder at this point. Almost everyone is in agreement that DA2 didn't do the best job portraying these factions to say the least.

That said people can knock themselves out about this and I really don't have a place to object. It's not like anyone has to look at these threads.

Actually, I recall bringing up this issue, and reading David Gaider state that the mages weren't insane and stupid. I also recall the plethora of people having issue with Tallis being simplified by Gaider into hating her because she's a woman.

I don't think the developers really gotten the message when people have taken issue with aspects of Dragon Age II. That said, I don't imagine they care, either. I'm simply wondering aloud about this issue because Dragon Age III seems to be adopting a lot of Dragon Age II - the voiced protagonist, the paraphrasing, the auto-dialogue, the dialogue wheel, the companions having their own attire, ect. If so much is going to remain the same as Dragon Age II, I'm wondering if the depiction of mages will follow suit.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 30 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[Blacklash93]

DPSSOC wrote...
Never assume people have gotten the message until you've branded it into their foreheads.  The problem is the writers may have acknowledged that making all the mages cartoonish caricatures wasn't a good idea, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again.  Writing insane characters is easier, because nothing they do has to make sense, it's not supposed to, and you don't have to worry about things like motivation, rationale, goals or any of those other pesky things.  Writing meaningful antagonists with understandable motivations, goals, and methods takes time, and given the painfully short production periods EA gives that's time the writers don't always have.

What I would have liked to see is a mage antagonist (or heck any antagonist) with a line.  Just give us a mage who hates the Templars and and everything they stand for, but give him some boundaries, a sense of principle. that keeps him from being a raving lunatic out to hurt people.  You don't have to make him deep, or coflicted, or complicated, just make him human.

Branded it into their foreheads? That doesn't make sense. The only way to ever know what I think that metaphor means is for them to change for the next installment. If they're going to do it again or even haven't listened, what makes anyone think that'll change with more threads like this?

And for the last paragraph: Anders. The most he's ever done in his control was kill the Grand Cleric and a few Templars. The Chantry is closed at night and the debris were thrown way outside the city so there was no collateral damage. Otherwise he was a selfless healer as far as his actions went.

Actually, I recall bringing up this issue, and reading David Gaider state that the mages weren't insane and stupid. I also recall the plethora of people having issue with Tallis being simplified by Gaider into hating her because she's a woman.

I don't think the developers really gotten the message when people have taken issue with aspects of Dragon Age II. That said, I don't imagine they care, either. I'm simply wondering aloud about this issue because Dragon Age III seems to be adopting a lot of Dragon Age II - the voiced protagonist, the paraphrasing, the auto-dialogue, the dialogue wheel, the companions having their own attire, ect. If so much is going to remain the same as Dragon Age II, I'm wondering if the depiction of mages will follow suit.

I definitely know he regretted how Orsino turned out and wished he could have done more with him so he didn't come off as insane and stuipid. I believe he also said something to the same effect with other mages. The most I think he's ever said is that "insane and stupid" was never the intention of the writing team.

I'd also like to see a link about Tallis. I can understand why people might not like her character, but having "issue" with her? Yeah she was nerdbait for obvious reasons, but she was leaps and bounds ahead of the likes of Diana Allers in ME3.

They have recieved many of the criticisms of DA2 and have outright said they're working address many of them. They said they'll slow down the combat, though not bring it back to Origins' level. They said recycled areas will not happen again. They said we'll get our proactive protagonist back. Also I know they at least said auto-dialogue will never be brought into the degree of ME3. And they've proposed and shared multiple solutions to the issues with companion armor; Mike Laidlaw made an entire thread for it once. Do research before you diminish the efforts they've made to reach out to and reassure us.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 juin 2012 - 12:19 .

[DPSSOC]

Blacklash93 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Never assume people have gotten the message until you've branded it into their foreheads.  The problem is the writers may have acknowledged that making all the mages cartoonish caricatures wasn't a good idea, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again.  Writing insane characters is easier, because nothing they do has to make sense, it's not supposed to, and you don't have to worry about things like motivation, rationale, goals or any of those other pesky things.  Writing meaningful antagonists with understandable motivations, goals, and methods takes time, and given the painfully short production periods EA gives that's time the writers don't always have.

What I would have liked to see is a mage antagonist (or heck any antagonist) with a line.  Just give us a mage who hates the Templars and and everything they stand for, but give him some boundaries, a sense of principle. that keeps him from being a raving lunatic out to hurt people.  You don't have to make him deep, or coflicted, or complicated, just make him human.

Branded it into their foreheads? That doesn't make sense.

It forces them to be reminded of the message everytime they look in the mirror'; in other words the only way to be sure someoe gets the message is to regularly restate it.

Blacklash93 wrote...
If they're going to do it again or even haven't listened, what makes anyone think that'll change with more threads like this?

I dunno, maybe part of that constant reminder thing I pointed out, or maybe because the think that if they show Bioware that, after all this time, this is still somethig that bothers people, they'll be more likely to listen.

Blacklash93 wrote...
And for the last paragraph: Anders. The most he's ever done in his control was kill the Grand Cleric and a few Templars. The Chantry is closed at night and the debris were thrown way outside the city so there was no collateral damage. Otherwise he was a selfless healer as far as his actions went.

And I was thinking that the whole way through that paragraph, sadly Anders isn't an antagonist.  Which actually could have made for an awesome game, having Anders being a third antagonist that we can side with throughout the game rather than a Companion. 

Modifié par DPSSOC, 30 juin 2012 - 12:25 .

[LobselVith8]

Plaintiff wrote...

Oh joy. I was wondering when you'd make another one of these.

I think several of the most prominent mage characters in DA2 were perfectly sane. Not only is their train of logic quite reasonable and easy to follow, I think they also have the moral highground.

I think Merrill is the exception. Anders' symbiosis with Justice is divisive for fans, along with his actions. The issue, for me, are mages like Decimus, Grace, Tahrone, Quentin, Huon, and Orsino, who are or become insane and stupid because the Plot Dictates. For a storyline about the dichotomy between mages and templars, I expected to see the New Vegas or Skyrim type of scenes where different people would show or tell you about the pros and cons of each group, rather than dealing with cartoonish foes who are more appropriate for Batman '66.

The plot railroads us, and the insane mages prevent us from dealing with sane mages who could provide us with a myriad of POVs about the mage issue. As it stands, all we really do is hack and slash our way through the narrative.

[LobselVith8]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I believe he also said something to the effect with other mages.

When I specifically brought this up in another thread, he said the mages weren't insane or stupid, which is ridiculous when you consider Decimus, Grace, and the plethora of other mages who are certainly insane and acting in a foolish manner (like Grace thinking that a pro-mage apostate who has spoken out against Meredith publicly would be working with her).

Blacklash93 wrote...

I can understand why people might not like her character, but having "issue" with her?

Some people didn't like her, but the idea that Gaider's response is that people didn't like her because she was a woman is a bit much.

Blacklash93 wrote...

Do research before you diminish the efforts they've made to reach out and reassure us.

Simply because I don't share your point of view doesn't mean that I'm not aware that Mike Laidlaw made a "Thank You" thread, or the companion armor "compromise" that is basically keeping us from having any genuine control over it. The paraphrases, the dialogue wheel, and the auto-lines will remain - those aren't aspects that make me happy in the least. I pointed out to Gaider that those aspects can hinder our ability to have agency over the protagonist, and to know what the protagonist will say, and be admitted that it's an issue. However, it's the path they are heading towards. Simply because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should assume that I'm not aware of the issues, or what the developers have said.