63 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Templars and mages are comparable (depending on the point of comparison) and I can compare them. And I will compare them in any way I see fit.

That's fine if you want to continue to be nonproductive, but if you'd like to continue the debate in any sort of constructive manner, talking about things that make sense would be a good start.

What you feel and what I feel and what Bob feels is not the same. If your criteria for bad writing is "I dont' like it" then we have nothing to talk about.

To reach this conclusion, you'd have to ignore everything I said in my previous post, which makes me wonder why I'm continuing.

[Plaintiff]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The fact that Decimus thought they were templars in the first place doesn't make it any less asinine.

Who else would charge through the caves, slaughtering mages as they went? Tax collectors?

I suppose you are arguing that a Dalish mage, a pants-less pirate, a hairy-chested dwarf, and a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos really come across as templars...

I said nothing of the kind, but don't let reality get in the way of burning down strawmen. It doesn't matter what they look like because Templars can wear disguises, or hire mercenaries, or have Circle mages cast spells of illusion.

If it's clear that at least some of Hawke's moiety crew are apostates - like Merrill - why attack them in the first place? And of course Hawke and his crew won't let themselves get killed.

Because they charged into his hiding place and killed the mages guarding the path! Decimus is defending himself, which, under the circumstances, is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't matter if he thinks Hawke and his friends are templars or not, because a smart mage would attack them on sight regardless.

Decimus acts that way so Hawke can hack and slash his way through the story, which is why the mages and templars that Hawke can fight are one-dimensional. Decimus is like virtually every other mage antagonist - an insane and stupid mage who makes no sense.

Except Decimus makes perfect sense. He is a desperate criminal on the run, and he behaves as a desperate criminal would. The fact that he is a mage changes nothing. If Decimus was a normal human, and Hawke was in the cave at the request of the Kirkwall Guard, the scenario would play out in an almost identical fashion. Decimus would assume (correctly) that Hawke was working for the guard, and he would attack Hawke because he doesn't want to go to prison or possibly be executed.

[LobselVith8]

Plaintiff wrote...

Who else would charge through the caves, slaughtering mages as they went?

Who would be stupid enough to attack complete strangers who look nothing like templars?

Plaintiff wrote...

I said nothing of the kind, but don't let reality get in the way of burning down strawmen.

The reality is that you're bending backwards to justify the absurdity of the insane and stupid mages like Decimus. Do you want me to apologize for pointing out how absurdly ridiculous Decimus thinking Hawke and his moiety crew being templars was? Is your line about disguises supposed to explain Varric, Isabela, Fenris, and Merrill being confused for templars?

Plaintiff wrote...

Because they charged into his hiding place and killed the mages guarding the path.

You mean Hawke and his moiety crew killed a plethora of mages in self-defense. I'm not going to excuse bad writing. I'm not going to come up with 1001 explanations for every mage antagonist being little more than a one-dimensional lunatic who attacks Hawke because resolving dilemmas with his intelligence isn't permitted in a hack and slash game.

No sensible or sane person would see a Dalish mage like Merrill and think, "Gee, that Dalish elf is clearly a templar," because their history makes makes them enemies - not allies. The templars hunt down Dalish mages. Seeing people who clearly couldn't be prison guards and thinking, "These people who couldn't possibly be prison guards must be prison guards" is exactly what we get from Dragon Age II.

I don't need templars or mages to be ridiculous cardboard cutouts; I would prefer them to be fleshed out, interesting, and not committing actions that make no sense.

[elfdwarf]

have anyone notice there no templar dwarves or elves in order.

[BKTZLNT]

Umm...has anyone considered that since the story is told from Varric's melodramatic perspective, maybe the personalities and character flaws are purposely exaggerated to reflect Varric's view of the two factions? That's how it comes off to me anyway

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
That's fine if you want to continue to be nonproductive, but if you'd like to continue the debate in any sort of constructive manner, talking about things that make sense would be a good start.
To reach this conclusion, you'd have to ignore everything I said in my previous post, which makes me wonder why I'm continuing.

Call me when you start being productive then.

I read very well everything you said and my conclusion stands. You are utterly convinced that one-dimensional writing is only bad if the character or factions you are interested in are badly written.

It doens't really matter if individual cahracters are written as moustache-twirling, puppy-kicking one-dimensional villans OR if an organization is written as moustache-twirling, puppy-kicking one-dimensional Evil Inc.
Both are equally bad.

Someone said that the ratio of mage/templar supporters is 80/20. If that is so, then Bio isn't doing a good enough job at creatying an cufficiently conflicting scenario.
However, at this point I don't know if it can be fixed. Most are so dug in that any evidence that goes contrary to their notions will be handwaved, rationalized or ignored - or called bad writing.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .

[nightscrawl]

BKTZLNT wrote...

Umm...has anyone considered that since the story is told from Varric's melodramatic perspective, maybe the personalities and character flaws are purposely exaggerated to reflect Varric's view of the two factions? That's how it comes off to me anyway

Yes, people have been suggesting that in threads about various topics since release. This argument can't be used for everything in this game. At some point, we need to accept that some of what we played was indeed true (most of the best stories have truth in them, after all), as far as divergent realities of individual player saves goes. If that is/was Bioware's planned excuse for any future content, then it's sad indeed. It means that every single second spent on DA2 was a waste of time, story wise, because it had no relevant meaning as the exaggerated tale of one of the PC's friends.

Here is a non-DA2 example: The Shawshank Redemption (I hope most have seen it, it's on TV almost every other day; someone at Turner networks' programming has a thing for that movie) film is told to us by the best friend of the main character. Are we supposed to doubt everything he says, especially regarding the end of the film pertaining to  his and Andy's location, simply because he is relating the story? No. This type of narration is a common story-telling device that has been used countless times in books, movies, and television, and unless there is a fourth wall type break, similar to Varric's awesome skillz at the start of Family Matter, we usually have no reason to doubt the narrator.

On the other hand, the unreliable narrator (as opposed to the other types) is also pretty common. The wiki page on this topic, including examples, is very interesting. Perhaps Bioware's ultimate point with DA2 was that almost everything you experienced didn't matter. The only relevant pieces of information is the climax of the game, including Anders's act, Meredith's insanity, and the eventual lead up to the mage/templar war, all of which are confirmed by Cassandra's feedback while she is talking to Varric, our unreliable narrator.

I don't know though... I find it kind of irritating. To go from DAO with epilogue slides (yes, I know, "rumor, supposition," etc) where most everything was wrapped up in a neat little package, to almost total uncertainty is not very appealing, even though it did have the desired effect on me of "need moar now!"

[Xilizhra]

Someone said that the ratio of mage/templar supporters is 80/20. If that is so, then Bio isn't doing a good enough job at creatying an cufficiently conflicting scenario.
However, at this point I don't know if it can be fixed. Most are so dug in that any evidence that goes contrary to their notions will be handwaved, rationalized or ignored - or called bad writing.

And what of Paragon/Renegade ratios; is their lopsidedness due only to bad writing? What about the number of players who preserve Andraste's ashes vs. the ones who defile them? Ultimately, the mages are just a cause more sympathetic and relatable to the inclinations of the playerbase. We live in societies that like freedom, by and large; few are authoritarian by nature.

[nightscrawl]

Xilizhra wrote...

Someone said that the ratio of mage/templar supporters is 80/20. If that is so, then Bio isn't doing a good enough job at creatying an cufficiently conflicting scenario.
However, at this point I don't know if it can be fixed. Most are so dug in that any evidence that goes contrary to their notions will be handwaved, rationalized or ignored - or called bad writing.

And what of Paragon/Renegade ratios; is their lopsidedness due only to bad writing? What about the number of players who preserve Andraste's ashes vs. the ones who defile them? Ultimately, the mages are just a cause more sympathetic and relatable to the inclinations of the playerbase. We live in societies that like freedom, by and large; few are authoritarian by nature.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if that ratio was mostly accurate, and for just those reasons. I've sided with the templars two times: the first was just to see it, and the second was because it was more fitting with my character in that play. I can't bring myself to do it three more times just for the achievement.

Even if I'm irritated at the mages, there is just a final line I can't cross. I can't see, even when I went into the Circle tower in DAO, killing ALL of the mages for the actions of a few, or even a majority of them. But that is your choice: kill them ALL, or side with them, so I choose to side with them.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 22 juillet 2012 - 12:59 .

[Mark of the Dragon]

How about we have some mages that are actually good in DA3. Seriously. my biggest problem with DA2 was every mage was either a blood mage or became an abomination. It was downright ridiculous. There were really no mages in the game that presented the good side for the mages.

[Xilizhra]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

How about we have some mages that are actually good in DA3. Seriously. my biggest problem with DA2 was every mage was either a blood mage or became an abomination. It was downright ridiculous. There were really no mages in the game that presented the good side for the mages.

For one thing, this requires you to see blood magic as inherently evil, which it isn't, and secondly, there were some that fit this criterion regardless.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

How about we have some mages that are actually good in DA3. Seriously. my biggest problem with DA2 was every mage was either a blood mage or became an abomination. It was downright ridiculous. There were really no mages in the game that presented the good side for the mages.

For one thing, this requires you to see blood magic as inherently evil, which it isn't, and secondly, there were some that fit this criterion regardless.

The only blood mage in the entire game that wasn't a crazy who summoned demons to kill everyone was Merill. So in DA2, it didn't exactly try to object to the whole "blood magic isn't evil" thing.

[Xilizhra]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

How about we have some mages that are actually good in DA3. Seriously. my biggest problem with DA2 was every mage was either a blood mage or became an abomination. It was downright ridiculous. There were really no mages in the game that presented the good side for the mages.

For one thing, this requires you to see blood magic as inherently evil, which it isn't, and secondly, there were some that fit this criterion regardless.

The only blood mage in the entire game that wasn't a crazy who summoned demons to kill everyone was Merill. So in DA2, it didn't exactly try to object to the whole "blood magic isn't evil" thing.

There's Alain. Also potentially Hawke. In addition to Jowan from the last game (who, while he had a tendency to make rather bad decisions, wasn't crazy or malicious).

[nightscrawl]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

How about we have some mages that are actually good in DA3. Seriously. my biggest problem with DA2 was every mage was either a blood mage or became an abomination. It was downright ridiculous. There were really no mages in the game that presented the good side for the mages.

Bethany, Ella, Emile de Launcet. I'll add Alain too since he did the right thing, even if he used blood magic.

And uh... yep that's it.


Here is DG about blood magic at PAX East...

Q: And just a slight lore question: with Jowan, and Merrill, and Hawke, and the Warden being able to be a Blood Mage as well, it seems to me that to be a Blood Mage you don't necessarily have to be corrupt. Is that true, or am I just imagining it? Like it seems like you could be a good person, yet still be a Blood Mage.

A David: It's not corruption in the way that the Blight is a corruption... A lot of it is opinion and fear, [of] the things that a Blood Mage is capable of. Which, as we're moving forward, we'd like to show that a little bit more, especially the mind control. And it is based on people who have that kind of power, the ability to influence other people's minds, the temptation to misuse it is a corruption. That kind of power is corrupting, right? That's the danger, not a physical "I suddenly turn to the dark side and my eyes have gone black" kind of corruption.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 22 juillet 2012 - 02:56 .