118 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

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.

I understand the metaphor now so thanks for clarifying that.

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.

If someone won't acknoledge something the first few times it's likely they'll deny it every time they see it afterward. Many people here are convinced that Gaider is determined to dismiss this kind of criticism, anyway.

If you want my two cents on here I think people are focusing too much on mages. The Templars, while a smidge more reasonable with their key players, were still incredibly often subjected to insanity and stupidity in the same vein as mages because it made for an easier story to create. If nothing else, at least Mages and Templars were treated with virtually the same level of portrayal. At least DA2 wasn't entirely biased in that respect.

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.

You essentially said you don't think they care about criticism which they have demonstrated time and again they do.

If they didn't care about what fans thought about companion attire they wouldn't be changing it at all. They wouldn't be admitting the hurdles the dialogue wheel presents as it currently is.

Many fans, like me, understand many of the positions they've taken that don't completely kneel to the desires of fans. I understand that having unique and distinctive companions who need their own aesthetic flavor and style would be something the devs would want. I understand how a voiced protagonist would be engaging for some players and more fun to develop. I understand the conviniences the dialogue wheel presents.

They are listenting, but that doesn't mean they will disregard their vision and preferences to cater to fans without question. They can "get the message" but not completely agree with it.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 juin 2012 - 01:17 .

[LobselVith8]

Blacklash93 wrote...

You essentially said you don't think they care about criticism which they have demonstrated time and again they do.

They have demonstrated this by giving us more of Dragon Age II in Dragon Age III? I don't see why people who hated Dragon Age II would even purchase Dragon Age III, since it seems to be more of the same.

Blacklash93 wrote...

If they didn't care about what fans thought about companion attire they wouldn't be changing it at all. They wouldn't be admitting the hurdles the dialogue wheel presents as it currently is.

So keeping the dialogue wheel that many people hated shows they are listening to fans?

Blacklash93 wrote...

Many fans, like me, understand many of the positions they've taken that don't completely kneel to the desires of fans. I understand that having unique and distinctive companions who need their own aesthetic flavor and style would be something the devs would want. I understand how a voiced protagonist would be engaging for some players and more fun to develop. I understand the conviniences the dialogue wheel presents.

I understand you're a fan of Dragon Age II, and that you don't have a problem with the devs doing the same things that they did in Dragon Age II for the next installment of the series. The problem is, I'm not certain "many fans" agree with you, based on the sales of Dragon Age II in comparison to Origins.

Blacklash93 wrote...

They are listenting, but that doesn't mean they will disregard their vision and preferences to cater to fans without question. They can "get the message" but not completely agree with it.

I'm not certain it's financially sound to disregard the issues that fans had with elements that ruined the gameplay for them. But since we're getting so off-topic, I suppose we may as well agree to disagree.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Evil characters doesn't have to be crazy

Just look at Star Wars, Sith Lords are not crazy, even their evilness are exaggerated but they are cool, they have principle, they have their own philosophy, they have their code.

Palpatine is a politician, Dooku also a politician, Darth Vader is a commander, Revan is a politician and commander, and many more...these quality makes them loved, and legend. Even though they are bad guys, they are loved by fans

I hunger for intellect evil guys/girls, not just crazy like Joker or Ridler

That's why I loved the Arishok in DAII,despite me not being a big fan of the game itself.I really wished the Qunari were the main threat,instead of the lame Mage-Templar conflict...That's also why I thought Loghain was such a good villain,despite him getting paranoid over the Grey Wardens and making some questionable alliances and actions...in the end all he wanted was to protect his daugther and his country.

[LinksOcarina]

Well..no more zealot templars either then, like Otto Alrik, Metten, Varnel, and so forth. Or crazy religious nuts like Sister Petrice, or if you really want to go for it, argue that Grand Cleric Elthina was irresponsible as the head of the chantry and inaction served no purpose.

Glad we know that Gasgard is a reasonable mage, same with Alain and Emile De Launcet. And let's be honest, Grace is not an evil, crazy mage by any stretch of the word, she was just a desperate mage who was acting on info she had and from her feelings.

There are outlyers to any order that can tarnish a reputation of them, but I think too much stock is put into this idea of everyone being "bad." A game like Skyrim makes can look good in comparison because it gives no real context, nor tries to appeal to a certain set of natures, but also makes it very blatant that they don't care for storylines in the long run, as the stormcloak/legion sub-plot was a complete waste of time as a factional questline, and really did nothing because it makes no sense whatsoever for your character to join either side, especially when you learn that one side promotes xenophobia and racism, and the other allows slavery to continue.

And the fact that both leaders are manipulated by the Thalmor, making them not crazy, but greedy with borderline megalomania, but i'm getting ahead of myself....

Point is, plot snags occur and it seems like everyone is crazy, but welcome to fantasy writing 101. Dragon Age II is a dark game with grounded and real characters, but it contains a black and white disparity when regarding opponents for a scenario, which is normally not a problem because the plot supports it. But when you have Orsino suddenly do a heel turn it can destroy character...

Although Orsino is perhaps the only mage that went crazy, and should not have. Tahone, Quentin, Huon and Decimus are the exceptions to the rule, but then the same can be said about our templar friends above...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 01 juillet 2012 - 01:38 .

[thats1evildude]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Palpatine is a politician, Dooku also a politician, Darth Vader is a commander, Revan is a politician and commander, and many more...these quality makes them loved, and legend. Even though they are bad guys, they are loved by fans

I hunger for intellect evil guys/girls, not just crazy like Joker or Ridler

Not the best examples. Darth Vader killed flunkies for looking at him funny, and Emperor Palpatine is well-known for his "UUUUUUNLLLIMITED POWWWWWEEER!" moments. Dooku is quite a bit more reserved, but he still hams it up quite a bit in the Clone Wars series.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:21 .

[KAM12780]

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.

In DA:O, we learned that mages were in the circle because others feared that their magic was dangerous and they could be possessed by demons. Not because they simply go crazy. 

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
(like Grace thinking that a pro-mage apostate who has spoken out against Meredith publicly would be working with her).

Grace knows you killed Decimus on the behest of templars (her view), she got caught and you got rich (doesn't matter that they're unrelated), and that Meredith personally knows you're a apostate and still haven't brought you in.
It's a pretty easy assumtion to make that a pro-mage Hawke could be a traitor and since she hates Hawke with a passion it's one she's likely more than willing to use.

Above all. It's logical.

I get it that you don't like that you're essentially shut out of the uprising because of this and that's fine. But from Grace's perspective it's a very logical and sane assumtion to make that Hawke is anything but pro-mage, regardless of what he or she says. The evidence piles against you as they say.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

Above all, it's logical.

So the man who sided with Grace despite her lover being an asinine lunatic, and who killed an entire group of templars to protect the Starkhaven mages from being taken to the Circle of Kirkwall, is logically a traitor? No, I don't find that logical in the least.

I also don't think it makes sense for Decimus to be attacking Hawke because he thinks Hawke's moiety group are templars. Does Merrill look like a templar? She's Dalish; they are hunted by the templars. I have no interest in doing mental gymnastics to make sense of the mages behaving insane and acting irrationally.

[TEWR]

Blacklash93 wrote...

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.

See here

David Gaider wrote...

And I've been left with the impression that, had Tallis been a male character, there'd be far more swooning and talk of how he needs to return as a full romance, etc. etc., from... certain corners of the fanbase.

He doesn't apply it to everyone that's disappointed with or even hates Tallis -- indeed, I'm one of the people disappointed with Tallis, but that's got nothing to do with gender. Really, I'm not going to delve into this discussion other then linking to the post in question.

Suffice to say my reasons for being disappointed with Tallis and MotA stems from the horrific anti-Qunari ending. Male or female, my feelings on the matter wouldn't change in the slightest.

The anti-Qunari ending makes her seem more Sue-ish to me, because of how bad it is. I'm not going to call her a Mary Sue, but the anti-Qunari ending didn't help matters on that front because it makes her come across as one. Though I might call Tallis' portrayal in MotA Redemption Mary Sue, but I'm not sure. Again, this is a discussion I don't want to get in to. I'll discuss my hatred for the anti-Qunari ending, but I won't get in to Sue-ish debates so I'm going to stop here -- and considering I started it, that's probably a good thing

Really, I'm not even sure what Bioware was thinking for the anti-Qunari ending. It just boggles the mind as to how they thought that was actually acceptable for that mindset.

EDIT: Meant Redemption.

LobselVith8 wrote...

So the man who sided with Grace despite her lover being an asinine lunatic, and who killed an entire group of templars to protect the Starkhaven mages from being taken to the Circle of Kirkwall, is logically a traitor? No, I don't find that logical in the least.

Unfortunately talking to her in Act II has her thinking just that. She thinks you sold them out despite you helping them.

I'm not against Grace being a "villain" -- though one could question how villainous she'd actually be in this case -- for the reasons SirJK stated, but I do think Bioware mucked its portrayal up pretty bad.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Unfortunately talking to her in Act II has her thinking just that.

Which doesn't really make any sense, which seems to be the running theme with so many mages in this storyline.

Rather than making templars and mages one-dimensional, they could have made them more fleshed out, and allowed templars or mages to become allies or enemies depending on our allegiances. I don't see why a pro-mage Hawke should be fighting the mages any more than a pro-templar Hawke should be fighting templars.

[Halberd96]

They probably could have looked at The Witcher for inspiration in how to portray the Mages in DA 2.

From what I remember the Scoia'tel was done really well.

There were some parts of DA 2 where they went in the right direction with ideas too...

wasn't there a quest where the Qunari were harboring Circle mages or something? I remember nothing about the quest or quests but its a really cool concept.

Its also one of those things that even if you are pro-mage you might decide to be pro-templar just for that quest but then maybe by the end of the game you'll have decided to stick with the mages for good.

Instead of it just being made so that you make your character and at the very start of the game you have already decided that you want to do everything pro-mage or pro-templar or whatever.

Modifié par Halberd96, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:56 .

[Sarcastic Tasha]

Yeah I think too many of the mages were crazy. Tarohne really didn't need to be crazy. She had good reason to hate the Templars. Hawke was helping the Templars in that quest so it would make sense for Tarohne to attack and still be sane. Idunna is quite a good example of a mage villain that isn't crazy.

Grace being pissed off at Hawke no matter what was pretty naff. But I did have a bad feeling about her from the start so I wasn't really surprised she turned on Hawke.

I think the Qunari arc was done a lot better. I really ended up liking Sten in DA:O so I was expecting to like the Arishok, but I ended up really disliking him. Ketojan was the only Qunari I actually ended up liking in DA2. I liked the fact you can't save him. He wants to live by the Qun but the Qun demands his death. Hawke can try to convince him but as he says if you force choice it isn't a choice. I may not agree with Ketojan but I can see his point.

[Xenite]

It's funny how in DA2 a Mage sneezes and then turns into an abomination, they totally trivialized it.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which doesn't really make any sense, which seems to be the running theme with so many mages in this storyline.

Except you become rich and influental and she gets caught. It's almost as if you got paid to support her there and then fed the templars information. After all, who else knew where they went?

That you sold her out (or is an agent working for Meredith to infiltrate the mage underground) is a much more plausible asumtion than that the templars found their tracks with no phylacteries.... again.

From an ego perpective (which Grace has in no short supply) it works excellently too. If she got betrayed then getting caught again is not her fault. Admitting Hawke had nothing to do with it also means admitting that she's lousy at staying hidden. For someone that prides herself with escaping the templars that's not the easiest pill to swallow.

But the core of the matter boils down to that you're either a apostate sympathizer or a apostate yourself and you still get to walk around free and get rewarded for it with Meredith's awareness, whereas she loses everything.

However... the hook for her plot. Decimus himself, isn't exactly a convincing villain. And I'll readily admit that Grace herself could also have been presented better as well.

Rather than making templars and mages one-dimensional, they could have made them more fleshed out, and allowed templars or mages to become allies or enemies depending on our allegiances. I don't see why a pro-mage Hawke should be fighting the mages any more than a pro-templar Hawke should be fighting templars.

I can agree to this.

[Fallstar]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Evil characters doesn't have to be crazy

Just look at Star Wars, Sith Lords are not crazy, even their evilness are exaggerated but they are cool, they have principle, they have their own philosophy, they have their code.

Palpatine is a politician, Dooku also a politician, Darth Vader is a commander, Revan is a politician and commander, and many more...these quality makes them loved, and legend. Even though they are bad guys, they are loved by fans

I hunger for intellect evil guys/girls, not just crazy like Joker or Ridler

Well said. Having one or two antagonists who are just bat **** crazy is fine. But people who are 'on the other side' that you can relate to, understand their position and even empathize with will leave a far greater impression. Was there any antagonist in DA2 that even approached Loghain's level of complexity?

As for the people saying this is a repeat thread, there's no harm in getting the message across. Show us how the majority of mages act, and the majority of Templars, rather than making everyone into an extremist.  Let people act in a vaguely rational manner to achieve their goals, rather than mages going "yay demons :wizard:" and Templars who actually question the notion that removing even more of mage's liberties and backing them into a corner couldn't possibly go wrong.

[dunstan1993]

I sided with the Templars in DA2, my opinion definitely swayed when coming across all the crazy mages. The majority were deceptive, insane blood mages and I wasn't prepared to grant freedom to loose cannons. Even if that means siding with religious zealots (Not all of them, just adding emphasis), at least there'd be less civilian casualties and a bit of order in the long run.

If mages are shown to have more integrity, logic and rationality in DA3 along with less craziness, irresponsibility and forbidden magic then I might be swayed towards them.

But on the flip side if the Templars are shown to have minds of their own (Not just the Chantry's lapdogs) and they stopped being so damn oppressive, I'd be even more inclined to side with them in DA3.

It's going to be interesting to see what Bioware do in DA3 and I'm eager, yet patient.

[DPSSOC]

Blacklash93 wrote...

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.

If someone won't acknoledge something the first few times it's likely they'll deny it every time they see it afterward. Many people here are convinced that Gaider is determined to dismiss this kind of criticism, anyway.

Better to try with a high chance of failure than to do nothing with a certainty of failure.  Maybe the writers are set on their course and nothing will sway them.  Maybe Gaider isn't willing to consider the criticism.  Maybe threads like this are a waste of time, but maybe they're not so it's worth a shot.

Blacklash93 wrote...
If you want my two cents on here I think people are focusing too much on mages. The Templars, while a smidge more reasonable with their key players, were still incredibly often subjected to insanity and stupidity in the same vein as mages because it made for an easier story to create. If nothing else, at least Mages and Templars were treated with virtually the same level of portrayal. At least DA2 wasn't entirely biased in that respect.

That's actually a good point.  I guess people don't have as much of a problem with the Templars because 1) "Oh noes teh poor mages" and 2) the Templars doing bad things were clearly bad people.  You didn't, for example, have Thrask become some mage hating rapist out of nowhere.  All the bad Templars were rather clearly evil or unbalanced so their tipping over the edge into looneydom isn't a stretch while mages like Orsino and Grace (in certain playthroughs) going crazy evil seem to come out of nowhere.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[RampantAndroid]

dunstan1993 wrote...

I sided with the Templars in DA2, my opinion definitely swayed when coming across all the crazy mages. The majority were deceptive, insane blood mages and I wasn't prepared to grant freedom to loose cannons. Even if that means siding with religious zealots (Not all of them, just adding emphasis), at least there'd be less civilian casualties and a bit of order in the long run.

If mages are shown to have more integrity, logic and rationality in DA3 along with less craziness, irresponsibility and forbidden magic then I might be swayed towards them.

But on the flip side if the Templars are shown to have minds of their own (Not just the Chantry's lapdogs) and they stopped being so damn oppressive, I'd be even more inclined to side with them in DA3.

It's going to be interesting to see what Bioware do in DA3 and I'm eager, yet patient.

It doesn't help that you never really meet the non-insane ones, since they're all locked up.

[Heimdall]

Well, there was some explanation for the crazy mages in the weak veil of Kirkwall and the surrounding area.

Unfortunately they over did it. This part of DA2 reminds me of the recent Silent Hill Downpour in the sense that they got the general direction right, in SH's case I mean the town manifesting the protagonist's guilt, but utterly hamfisted it...

[Lotion Soronarr]

I like how your first sentance mentions have templars are alos caaricatures, but then you compeltely forget that point..even your thread title focuses on mages.


That point aside, BioWare failed ot make magic look dangerous. Why?
Because we kill mages and abominations left and right..easily.
Because we block magical attacks willy nilly - even blood magic.
There is no real feeling of danger.

Make an abomination that literaly destroyed a town/village in front of the player.
Give the player a feeling of helplesness - force him to run.
Have him become a puppet for a blood mage and do something horrible. SOMETHING.

[Arthur Cousland]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I like how your first sentance mentions have templars are alos caaricatures, but then you compeltely forget that point..even your thread title focuses on mages.


That point aside, BioWare failed ot make magic look dangerous. Why?
Because we kill mages and abominations left and right..easily.
Because we block magical attacks willy nilly - even blood magic.
There is no real feeling of danger.

Make an abomination that literaly destroyed a town/village in front of the player.
Give the player a feeling of helplesness - force him to run.
Have him become a puppet for a blood mage and do something horrible. SOMETHING.

There could have been more instances, like when Idunna tried to make Hawke cut their own throat.

[TEWR]

Sir JK wrote...

Except you become rich and influental and she gets caught. It's almost as if you got paid to support her there and then fed the templars information. After all, who else knew where they went?

Not Hawke. She never told him where they were going, aside from "away from Kirkwall". Which could mean any of the four winds.

And considering we can overhear that Meredith wasn't going to give up despite Thrask having stated to his superiors that the Starkhaven mages were killed -- save for Alain -- yet we're unable to actually attempt to clear up the situation with her makes the whole thing even more asenine.

And certainly, Hawke's expedition's success was the talk of Kirkwall. So it's not like he's getting paid to live the high life by Meredith herself so long as he's a Templar spy. Hell, it was the pro-mage Templar Thrask that was paying Hawke for that mission, not anyone else from the Templars.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:37 .