390 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I believe it's perfectly reasonable for a Circle mage to not believe in the Maker (hell, even a human noble could avoid doing that), and desire an option for such in DA3. Though being a Dalish wouldn't be horrible.

It's also reasonable for an apostate to not believe in the docturine of an anti-mage religion.

True, but I think a Circle origin is more likely for the Inquisitor than a lifelong apostate.

[LobselVith8]

AlienWolf728 wrote...

As Gaider said in another thread, asking "I wish to announce myself as an atheist" quickly develops into "I want to go on a crusade against all religion".

If my apostate Hawke had confided to his lover Merrill that he didn't believe in the Maker or a higher power, it doesn't mean he's going to go to war against all religion everywhere.

[CELL55]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not against belief specifically; my aim is to annihilate the templars and break the power of the Chantry forever.

But that is such a large goal that it would pretty much have to be the focus of an entire game. And an entire mainstream game devoted to the destruction of a fictional religion does not seem...likely. At all.

It would also have to allow for people who DIDN'T want the destruction of the Chantry, either because they like the Chantry or because they don't care enough to hate it. And then the game could not be all about the destruction of the Chantry as that would severely limit the amount of roleplaying someone could do.

And while you may or may not feel that the Chantry is a wholy evil organization, there are plenty of people who don't, and thus would not be enticed by the prospect of spending a whole game bringing it crashing down.

The other option is for Bioware to start portraying the Chantry as unrepentently evil so that no one can doubt it, but since that would clash so strongly with previous portrayals of them, I do not think that that is going to happen.

[Xilizhra]

It would also have to allow for people who DIDN'T want the destruction of the Chantry, either because they like the Chantry or because they don't care enough to hate it. And then the game could not be all about the destruction of the Chantry as that would severely limit the amount of roleplaying someone could do.

I'm not trying to destroy the Chantry per se, but break their power over mages forever. Which is most of their actual political power, really.

And while you may or may not feel that the Chantry is a wholy evil organization, there are plenty of people who don't, and thus would not be enticed by the prospect of spending a whole game bringing it crashing down.

The Chantry is now completely toothless; with its army gone, all it can really do is plead feebly while the sharks slowly tear it down. Exalted Marches won't get anywhere when the host country is in a civil war.

The other option is for Bioware to start portraying the Chantry as unrepentently evil so that no one can doubt it, but since that would clash so strongly with previous portrayals of them, I do not think that that is going to happen.

All that really needs to be done is portray the templars that way, which is pretty consistent with the previous games, spend time fighting them, and then have the choice to rebuild the Chantry or just leave it lying there.

[Dragoonlordz]

Swagger7 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Except you've encoutered at least two gods in the history of the Elder Scrolls.  Talos gives you his "lucky coin" in Morrowind, and Akatosh beats the tar out of Mehrunes Dagon.  Clearly, the gods of the Elder Scrolls actually exist within the canon of the series.

I never played Morrowind. I tried and it gave me migranes so I stopped. Skyrim on the other hand did not. The question was asked about Skyrim, as a game I played I explained what I did in that and how my character interacted and viewed the world. You will also find more detail about it from me further down the thread from the one you quoted.

Those weren't Daedra though, they were the "gods", the Nine Divines.  Throughout human history most religions have had gods which the believed were far weaker than the various monotheistic religions of today claim regarding their own gods.  Saying that they aren't gods because they don't seem so to you just confuses the issue by replacing a legit definition with your own.

There is nothing illegitimate about whether or not my character believed they are gods or not, whether wished to worship or follow those creatures others labelled gods. Your confusing the issue. I do not care whether you call them gods, whether the people in the world call them gods, what matters to me is that "me" the player and "my" character get to decide who I worship and who I do not, who I am critical of and who I am not. Being able to express and show that I neither support or like their gods, their idiology or their organisations whether it is the Qun or the Chantry. The Templars or the Mages.

DAO handled it very well, DA2 not so much due to the framed narrative, lack of choice impact and outcome plus bad player agency with an example of it here when if you recall they gave you three options, two regarding picking sides in that and one to stay neutral of which my character was through the entire game up till that point where my character morphed into Bioware's character by way of if picked neutral even though choice was offered they repeated a prior sentence that already heard before they listed the choices...then gave you the very same choices again with the middle neutral one no longer present. That was not the only time they did that, it does not fill me with confidence for the next game.

Now you can assume that they will allow such to happen in DA3 but rather than assume it does I would rather voice here and now that it would increase my enjoyment of the game if handled it as well as DAO, even better if possible would be fine. I do not want to assume will be done well, I would rather ask that it is done well. Player freedom is very important in games, player agency too. It is also better to ask for something before it is released than complain about it after. By all means make some of my companions supporters of the Chantry, some of the Qun etc but just do not force my character to support their organisations and idiologies or believe in their gods. Leave that choice up to me.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra, your suggestions are horrible and I hope to god no one from BioWare ever listens to you.. ever.. EVER.

You want the Templars/Chantry to get the Cerberus treatment, which is pretty much the worst idea in the history of mankind.

[HK-90210]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra, your suggestions are horrible and I hope to god no one from BioWare ever listens to you.. ever.. EVER.

You want the Templars/Chantry to get the Cerberus treatment, which is pretty much the worst idea in the history of mankind.

I don't know, Fox still cancelled Firefly......

Modifié par CastonFolarus, 30 septembre 2012 - 04:37 .

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra, your suggestions are horrible and I hope to god no one from BioWare ever listens to you.. ever.. EVER.

You want the Templars/Chantry to get the Cerberus treatment, which is pretty much the worst idea in the history of mankind.

You heard it here first, folks: Templars losing is the worst idea ever created. I'm honored, really, although I'm pretty sure they already got the Cerberus treatment in Asunder. Given the whole "villains of the book, with the only sympathetic templar defecting from the Order" thing.

[Macross]

The Edge wrote...

Macross wrote...

The Edge wrote...

I would say leave the critique on religion out of it. I don't believe that the video game industry is ready to handle the subtleties of the arguement (in most cases).

See, I disagree, The Video Game industry (or any real creative art's based industry) will never truely be ready to tackle and issue until they start tackling it and some game companies have (Dues Ex Human Revoultion looked brillantly at the concept of Trans-Humanism and the concept of being natural vs making ourselves better while 10 years earlier the first Dues Ex looked amanzingly at the threat of Terrorism in turning a state into a pseudo fasicstic place).

With the way DA has gone about religion, I don't think there is a gaming series out there that could potenial look at Religion as well as Dragon Age could, so it would be a great step for Bioware to actually explore the issue.

I guess that games like DA have the potential of making huge steps forward in terms of story and allusion; with that said, I think that things like religious debate require the same narrative care that Deus Ex had with it's themes.

Saying the video game industry isn't ready may be a broad stroke because, as you have shown, other games have addressed big issues with class. Given DA2's argueably rushed story, I'm just unsure if Bioware could treat the subject with the same amount of care. (As a world building device, Bioware does a great job craftingThedas with it's religious themes; as the focal point of the plot, I'm not so sure at this point...)

I can understand your concern and I somewhat agree with it. The amazing thing about DA2 was how it handled it's characters and I think, if you want to handle big thematic issues like Religion, for Bioware to do it properly they need to bring it down to a more personal level. Instead of exploring Religion via just the big conflicts (the big conflicts should more be a back drop rather than an actual device for exploring issues), they need to explore them via the characters. For example, if they do have Cassandra, Cullen and say a Qunari as NPC party memembers, then you could do a lot of interesting things with each indidvidual religion as well as te the clash of relgious ideology between those three (Cassandra/Cullen and the Qunari as an exploration of the Chantry and the Qun while Cassandra and Cullen as explorations of differing ideologies within the Chantry/Andrastian faith) .

Although the important thing about this is not to loose the character's in their faiths, make them people with faith rather then religion through people (although the way they handled Isabella- not making her a character just defined by sex but also far more- and Fenris-not just 'oh wow is me, I was a slave'- gives me a lot of faith in this matter). Actually, this somewhat makes me interested to see if Sebastian and Tallis had any interaction in Mark of the Assasin, I doubt it but it'd be interesting to see how those two interact. 

[Nomen Mendax]

Macross wrote...

Apples and Oranges mate. ...

No they don't.

[addiction21]

I would like to keep the real world baggage out of this fantasy world thank you very much.

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Macross wrote...

Apples and Oranges mate. ...

No they don't.

What now? Sure you will prolly just say its photoshop or something

[CELL55]

I'm not trying to destroy the Chantry per se, but break their power over mages forever. Which is most of their actual political power, really.

So long as you have followers, you have political power. That isn't just going to go away just because the mages are gone. Remember that the Chantry existed just fine before the Circles were made a part of it, if memory serves me. What is going to happen? Without the mages skills and enchantments, the Chantry is going to be hurting economically. Not enough to collapse it, I think, but it will certainly have to 'tighten its belt', so to speak. Also mages will start showing up in more conflicts between rivaling nations. Before, mages couldn't fight in a war without the consent of the Chantry, so we can expect to see more mages fighting in conflicts that the Chantry would not normally authorize their use in.

The Chantry is now completely toothless; with its army gone, all it can really do is plead feebly while the sharks slowly tear it down. Exalted Marches won't get anywhere when the host country is in a civil war.

Plenty of real-world religions do just fine without massive armies enforcing their will. There aren't exactly a whole lot of people seeking the destruction of the Chantry in-universe. With the high amount of loyal devotees, I seriously doubt that they are completely defenseless. Keep in mind that the Exalted Marches were not just Templars vs. whoever, but rather People and Countries that support the Chantry vs. Whoever.

All that really needs to be done is portray the templars that way, which is pretty consistent with the previous games, spend time fighting them, and then have the choice to rebuild the Chantry or just leave it lying there.

I certainly think that you are right here: the Templars becoming a distinct faction from the Chantry as of Asunder. I think that this would also entail a split between Templar forces between those loyal to the Chantry and those loyal to the goal of restraining mages. Whether this split will be addressed in DA3, or to what extent it will be, remains to be seen.

[Xilizhra]

So long as you have followers, you have political power. That isn't just going to go away just because the mages are gone. Remember that the Chantry existed just fine before the Circles were made a part of it, if memory serves me. What is going to happen? Without the mages skills and enchantments, the Chantry is going to be hurting economically. Not enough to collapse it, I think, but it will certainly have to 'tighten its belt', so to speak. Also mages will start showing up in more conflicts between rivaling nations. Before, mages couldn't fight in a war without the consent of the Chantry, so we can expect to see more mages fighting in conflicts that the Chantry would not normally authorize their use in.

Varric mentions that the Chantry's already collapsed, and if parts of the leak are right, the Chantry's leadership has been blown up already.

Plenty of real-world religions do just fine without massive armies enforcing their will. There aren't exactly a whole lot of people seeking the destruction of the Chantry in-universe. With the high amount of loyal devotees, I seriously doubt that they are completely defenseless. Keep in mind that the Exalted Marches were not just Templars vs. whoever, but rather People and Countries that support the Chantry vs. Whoever.

And again, I don't need to destroy the Chantry itself, just ensure they never conquer mages again.

[ElitePinecone]

Xilizhra, have you seen the marketing survey plot summary?

I think you'd like the direction the Chantry is taking there. If nothing else it does seem to suggest that player actions could have some influence on the future of the organisation, if it even still exists as a functioning force.

(I have to agree though that turning an ambiguous faction into one opposed to the player purely on the grounds of 'being evil' is an awful idea - it turned Cerberus from a political group with extreme methods that some players even agreed with into laughably incompetent goons acting incredibly stupidly. The politics was stripped back and the nuances of their position were lost in favour of B-grade writing about utilising an enemy's power.)

[Xilizhra]

(I have to agree though that turning an ambiguous faction into one opposed to the player purely on the grounds of 'being evil' is an awful idea - it turned Cerberus from a political group with extreme methods that some players even agreed with into laughably incompetent goons acting incredibly stupidly. The politics was stripped back and the nuances of their position were lost in favour of B-grade writing about utilising an enemy's power.)

Meh. All that changed was Cerberus doing to the player what they'd been doing to everyone else; it looked bad because they no longer had to fake justification. TIM's morality didn't change at all, just his effectiveness, and that was a result of indoctrination.

Xilizhra, have you seen the marketing survey plot summary?

I think you'd like the direction the Chantry is taking there. If nothing else it does seem to suggest that player actions could have some influence on the future of the organisation, if it even still exists as a functioning force.

Not directly, though I've heard secondhand information. What about it exactly do you mean?

[ElitePinecone]

Aside from the Chantry leadership being 'decimated' (which I'm sure was being used erroneously, but it's a marketing survey), it seems to suggest that whatever force attacked the peace conference has an interest in keeping the chaos going. It has a stake in all the big conflicts in Thedas (the Orlesian civil war, the Templar split, the mages, the Chantry sectarianism, perhaps even Tevinter), and works behind the scenes to engineer division and disorder. It benefits this mysterious force if Thedas is on the brink of about a billion internecine wars.

If that means that the Inquisitor has to meddle in these conflicts - and it seems it does, since we get references to armies, intrigue, politics and diplomacy - there's great scope there for us to influence their outcomes. Backing the Empress or the Duke, the mages or the Seekers (or none, or both, or the Templars - who knows). Point being: there's a lot of opportunities here to get involved at a high level with what happens in some of the major conflicts, and I really doubt Bioware would be introducing all these story elements and narrative choices (spying, warfare, personal contacts, politics, etc) just to railroad everyone into a status quo resolution of this brewing confrontation.

If the idea is to revert back to an Origins-esque format of gathering armies via supporting one of two warring factions (or possibly getting them to make peace, who knows), it does stand to reason that supporting Fiona's mages against the Chantry, Templars and Seekers could be an option.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...
As Gaider said in another thread, asking "I wish to announce myself as an atheist" quickly develops into "I want to go on a crusade against all religion".

As Gaider rather badly misunderstood in the other thread. I don't need to go on a crusade against all religion; neither the Creators nor the Stone have done anything bad to me, only the Maker.

So basicly you want to go on a crusade? <_<

And why not? It's okay when the Chantry does it.

[Xilizhra]

What I'm worried about is the idea that all of the wars will be shown to be wrong, with the "right" outcome defeating said mysterious force and introducing compromises everywhere.

[Plaintiff]

It would suck pretty hard if the entire game wound up just resetting Thedas to the status quo, and nothing ever got properly resolved.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 septembre 2012 - 05:41 .

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

And why not? It's okay when the Chantry does it.

Considering it's major argument why Chantry is "evil", adopting the same approach isn't "okay" but rather renders you just as "evil" as the organization you claim should be stopped due to its "evilness".

(generic 'you')

[Dragoonlordz]

Xilizhra wrote...

What I'm worried about is the idea that all of the wars will be shown to be wrong, with the "right" outcome defeating said mysterious force and introducing compromises everywhere.

My personal issue or concern really is three fold. The player freedom, agency and character immersion based on past experience and knowledge from previous characters and lore. I did ask David and he did reply saying it is a valid point but not one that can be addressed at this stage, so I will wait till more information is released. I can understand his stance at the moment but atleast I know my concern has been made known via here and twitter. On which note I will bow out of this discussion and come back when more is known.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 05:49 .

[CELL55]

Xilizhra wrote...


Varric mentions that the Chantry's already collapsed, and if parts of the leak are right, the Chantry's leadership has been blown up already.

I'm pretty sure he's just snarking at Cassandra when he says that. He does that sometimes. 

Actually, after DA2 and Asunder, then Chantry could be in a lot of different levels of functionality, and until we are given any official word on the state of things, it all comes down to speculation to some extent, I think.

[ElitePinecone]

Xilizhra wrote...

What I'm worried about is the idea that all of the wars will be shown to be wrong, with the "right" outcome defeating said mysterious force and introducing compromises everywhere.

I suppose that's a question of the protagonist's priorities - in Origins we were a Warden, and the focus is on ending the Blight. As the Inquisitor, despite any hypothetical possible background choices, the focus seems to be very clearly on finding out who/what the Big Bad is, and ending its threat. The Inquisitor can't just drop everything to crusade against the Chantry for 40 hours (even assuming there was enough unique content), because our role is to investigate and destroy a larger threat.

It's where the sovereignty of the player to roleplay intersects with the authority of the developers to *make* the player character do certain things. Shepard couldn't resign from the Alliance and dance away their life in shady bars because the story necessitated that we be at the very least focused on the mission. 

I'd tend to think compromises won't necessarily be forced on the player, but at some point the overarching plot has to supercede the smaller ones in terms of how much time and attention the game gives it - if only because that's the way the developers planned it. Solving the mage-templar conflict might not be the focus of the game - and I hope we get a variety of options and outcomes as to how we solve it - but I'd think at the very least it'll be there as a major part of it.

The right outcome is very obviously defeating the mysterious force threatening Thedas, because that's what the protagonist's mission is and what the game *only* allows it to be. I doubt it'll lead to mandatory outcomes for the other plots, but we'll have to wait and see.

[ElitePinecone]

Plaintiff wrote...

It would suck pretty hard if the entire game wound up just resetting Thedas to the status quo, and nothing ever got properly resolved.

Definitely.

I'm hoping for many branching quest outcomes.