96 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

Dhiro wrote...
I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure how that falls under bad storytelling.

Because terrorist acts in general are cheap ways to draw attention to a cause. It's no less cheap in a video game.

[Dhiro]

Monica21 wrote...

Dhiro wrote...
I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure how that falls under bad storytelling.

Because terrorist acts in general are cheap ways to draw attention to a cause. It's no less cheap in a video game.

Very well. However, I thought it was perfectly fitting for Anders' character in DA II. It certainly didn't came out of nowhere, to me.

[Renmiri1]

Ignore the OP.

Bring back Anders and many like him ^^

[Monica21]

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

[Dirgegun]

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

Thankyou for your correction of little wording mistakes, it's much appriciated. As is the ignoring of my main point that the other characters shouldn't get away scott free either. 

I never said Anders should get away with what he did, just pointing that out. Again.

Also Sebastian intention isn't to 'send troops because there's going to be a war anyway'. He makes it very clear his decision to take an entire country/city-state/whatever to war is revenge fueled only.

Modifié par Dirgegun, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:51 .

[SgtElias]

Monica21 wrote...

Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on.

I always had the impression that Sebastian would send troops because he was hyper-pissed at Anders, and for basically no other reason. He always struck me as someone who sort of did things spur-of-the-moment when the notion seized him.

I admit, however, that I've never seen an ending where Sebastian was left in my party, because I always spared Anders. Does he still say he's going to send troops to Kirkwall, regardless of Anders' fate?

As to the topic at hand, I loved Anders. He was my favorite companion ever since Awakening, and I loved his downward spiral in Dragon Age 2. However, I agree he should probably not be back in anything other than a cameo capacity.

Modifié par SgtElias, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Dirgegun]

Dirgegun wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

Thankyou for your correction of little wording mistakes, it's much appriciated. As is the ignoring of my main point that the other characters shouldn't get away scott free either. 

I never said Anders should get away with what he did, just pointing that out. Again.

Also Sebastian intention isn't to 'send troops because there's going to be a war anyway'. He makes it very clear his decision to take an entire country/city-state/whatever to war is revenge fueled only.

Actually, I'm sorry for how this could sound like a bit of an attitude. I meant it to come across as more playful sarcasm, but re-reading it... 

Ugh.

Saying that, I do think you could have been a bit politer and understanding of the base point I was trying to make? Rather than nitpick at language use. Anders is a terroist, and people are allowed to hate the character because of his actions. His actions are more major than what the others did as well. I just think the "what the others did is totally okay, and there's no problem here" thing is wrong as well.

I consider bad decisions that lead to large scale murder, and genocide bad, anyway.

Saying that I don't hate any of the characters. I can understand where all of them were coming from if I look at it from a story writer perspective (all of my different Hawkes think differently, so there are companions they sympathise with more than others), and the way Anders was handled makes me think he was mentally ill/suffering from clinical depression at the time of his decision... not to mention the whole possession thing.
 
So all the characters have their personal stories/reasons, and it's up to the individual person to decide if that at least explains their actions.

Modifié par Dirgegun, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:10 .

[Dirgegun]

SgtElias wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on.

I always had the impression that Sebastian would send troops because he was hyper-pissed at Anders, and for basically no other reason. He always struck me as someone who sort of did things spur-of-the-moment when the notion seized him.

I admit, however, that I've never seen an ending where Sebastian was left in my party, because I always spared Anders. Does he still say he's going to send troops to Kirkwall, regardless of Anders' fate?

As to the topic at hand, I loved Anders. He was my favorite companion ever since Awakening, and I loved his downward spiral in Dragon Age 2. However, I agree he should probably not be back in anything other than a cameo capacity.

Sebastain doesn't threaten all out war if you kill Anders.

[SgtElias]

Dirgegun wrote...

Sebastain doesn't threaten all out war if you kill Anders.

Well, okay, that sort of makes me think (again) that he's reacting based on what his emotions are telling him to do at the time. If he'd done it no matter what, I'd agree that he was doing it simply to "choose sides." But reclaiming his birthright (which he'd been complaining about for my entire game) simply to order soldiers into Kirkwall based on what Anders alone did is . . .

Anyway, it didn't sound to me like he was "taking sides."

Thanks for clearing that up for me! I was trying to find a video of Sebastian's reaction to Anders' death on youtube, but I couldn't seem to locate one.

Edited: Basically I agree with what you said earlier, but hadn't noticed until now that you'd said it.

Modifié par SgtElias, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .

[Mummy22kids]

I find friend Anders to be annoying and I usually kill him at the end, However I always feel sorry for rival Anders. When Justice takes him over and he blanks out then admits that he needs to stop Justice's plans but is,in the end, unable to do so- well I just can't hate him for it. Then I forgive him, I do sometimes kill him anyway but as a mercy killing. I don't really like whiny characters but I wouldn't mind one like rival Anders or hardened Alistair- one who starts whiny but grows up a bit.

[holdenagincourt]

garrusfan1 wrote...

holdenagincourt wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

please don't bring him back or someone like him.

don't make someone like him for either side.

What does "someone like him" even mean?

How he was so whiny and never talked about anything else

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

A whiney little **** who does nothing but complain about EVERYTHING the entire game.

I guess I can see where you guys are coming from. I don't mind whinging most of the time, since I find it endearing when done a certain way, but the repetitiveness did become too much after a while. He's the kind of wet blanket that you kind of just want to troll for fun (and I rarely feel like that about people, so he definitely gets points for testing my patience).

I wish there had been more opportunities for him to be humorous in DA2, because those rare moments when he was were fun.

[Dave of Canada]

Flanders.

"Hi-diddly-do, templarino. I've just blown up your chantry, hope you don't mind!"

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:17 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Well, he WAS possessed by an increasingly hostile and rage-filled spirit, so I can kinda his crazy sh!t.

[Hey]

I liked the Anders character arc. Especially at the end where we had to make that uhh. decision. Thought that was pretty cool. More stuff like that would be welcomed by me.

[Adanu]

Anders was the first mage to get fed up with the circles and DO something about it that actually had lasting consequences. That is how revolutions are started. What Anders did was start a revolution, nothing more.

And yes, I did spare ANders and I'd love to have him in DA3.

Modifié par Adanu, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:42 .

[FINE HERE]

Yeah, I'm not really interested in seeing HipsterAnders...

[BouncyFrag]

Agreed. We can only hope that Hawke put him down for good which would be an improvement over the the Warden's inability to kill Leliana even though her head and body could be in two different places. I'm hoping for less whiny companions overall for the game.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 08 octobre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Chipaway111]

Out of all of them, Anders probably has the most cringe worthy romance it all seemed like it was trying to be an Edward and Bella style angst-tastic thing. I hated it. That's just me though, no one was forcing me to romance him after all but I did it so I wouldn't have 20 playthroughs with a romanced Fenris.

I just wished he would've complained about something different for a change. Anything. A whiny character I don't mind because I think they can be a lot of fun, if done properly. Finn from the Origins DLC Witch Hunt made me laugh but I can't decide if that's just who Anders is as a character or the writer couldn't think of anything else to make him talk about.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I'm done with Anders. He's dead in one game and alive in another, but one way or another I've played with that character to completion.

But as for characters like him? Polarizing, opinionated characters who (gasp) DON'T agree with everything the PC does? Bring it on. Those kinds of characters are what make the games fun, even when I want to hurl them out a window.

[Monica21]

Dirgegun wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

Thankyou for your correction of little wording mistakes, it's much appriciated. As is the ignoring of my main point that the other characters shouldn't get away scott free either. 

I never said Anders should get away with what he did, just pointing that out. Again.

Also Sebastian intention isn't to 'send troops because there's going to be a war anyway'. He makes it very clear his decision to take an entire country/city-state/whatever to war is revenge fueled only.

Actually, I'm sorry for how this could sound like a bit of an attitude. I meant it to come across as more playful sarcasm, but re-reading it... 

Ugh.

Saying that, I do think you could have been a bit politer and understanding of the base point I was trying to make? Rather than nitpick at language use. Anders is a terroist, and people are allowed to hate the character because of his actions. His actions are more major than what the others did as well. I just think the "what the others did is totally okay, and there's no problem here" thing is wrong as well.

I consider bad decisions that lead to large scale murder, and genocide bad, anyway.

Saying that I don't hate any of the characters. I can understand where all of them were coming from if I look at it from a story writer perspective (all of my different Hawkes think differently, so there are companions they sympathise with more than others), and the way Anders was handled makes me think he was mentally ill/suffering from clinical depression at the time of his decision... not to mention the whole possession thing.
 
So all the characters have their personal stories/reasons, and it's up to the individual person to decide if that at least explains their actions.

I understand the point you're making and I mostly agree with it, but I wasn't sure how to make the case last night. The point I'm making is that not all killing is the same, which you agree with.

The only thing I know how to do is draw real life parallels. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. sent a giant army to take the country back and stabilize the region. The U.S. killed a lot of innocents. One could easily consider that a "just" war, as just as a war can be I guess. What do we have that mirrors Anders actions? Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City bombing, the attacks on the embassies in Kenya in Nairobi, the USS Cole, and twice at the World Trade Center. My point is it's been done in real life far more than I'd ever like to see.

So, I can look past the cartoonish violence of Isabela's misinterpreted holy book because she didn't know what it would lead to. I can look past Sebastian's empty threat, because he still has to take back Starkhaven before he can even think about sending an army against Kirkwall. I like video games because they take me out of my world and give me a new one. DA2 had fake guardsmen that only appeared at night and dropped from the sky to attack me and my party. It's a bit silly, really. And then, near the end of the game, is this horrible reminder of reality that I use video games to escape from. The dev team wants to find a way to start a war between the mages and templars? Fine. Find another way.

[mrs_anomaly]

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

Thankyou for your correction of little wording mistakes, it's much appriciated. As is the ignoring of my main point that the other characters shouldn't get away scott free either. 

I never said Anders should get away with what he did, just pointing that out. Again.

Also Sebastian intention isn't to 'send troops because there's going to be a war anyway'. He makes it very clear his decision to take an entire country/city-state/whatever to war is revenge fueled only.

Actually, I'm sorry for how this could sound like a bit of an attitude. I meant it to come across as more playful sarcasm, but re-reading it... 

Ugh.

Saying that, I do think you could have been a bit politer and understanding of the base point I was trying to make? Rather than nitpick at language use. Anders is a terroist, and people are allowed to hate the character because of his actions. His actions are more major than what the others did as well. I just think the "what the others did is totally okay, and there's no problem here" thing is wrong as well.

I consider bad decisions that lead to large scale murder, and genocide bad, anyway.

Saying that I don't hate any of the characters. I can understand where all of them were coming from if I look at it from a story writer perspective (all of my different Hawkes think differently, so there are companions they sympathise with more than others), and the way Anders was handled makes me think he was mentally ill/suffering from clinical depression at the time of his decision... not to mention the whole possession thing.
 
So all the characters have their personal stories/reasons, and it's up to the individual person to decide if that at least explains their actions.

I understand the point you're making and I mostly agree with it, but I wasn't sure how to make the case last night. The point I'm making is that not all killing is the same, which you agree with.

The only thing I know how to do is draw real life parallels. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. sent a giant army to take the country back and stabilize the region. The U.S. killed a lot of innocents. One could easily consider that a "just" war, as just as a war can be I guess. What do we have that mirrors Anders actions? Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City bombing, the attacks on the embassies in Kenya in Nairobi, the USS Cole, and twice at the World Trade Center. My point is it's been done in real life far more than I'd ever like to see.

So, I can look past the cartoonish violence of Isabela's misinterpreted holy book because she didn't know what it would lead to. I can look past Sebastian's empty threat, because he still has to take back Starkhaven before he can even think about sending an army against Kirkwall. I like video games because they take me out of my world and give me a new one. DA2 had fake guardsmen that only appeared at night and dropped from the sky to attack me and my party. It's a bit silly, really. And then, near the end of the game, is this horrible reminder of reality that I use video games to escape from. The dev team wants to find a way to start a war between the mages and templars? Fine. Find another way.

I think the way the "war" is started between the Templars and Mages is completely fine. Of course I'd never ever rationalize terrorist acts in real life. But given the context of the Templars and Mages an act of terrorism is a natural progression in the story- clearly the Templars absolutely oppressed the Mages. When you completely oppress a certain group of people..you're going to have a bad time. 

[Dirgegun]

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Dirgegun wrote...
I know what terroism is, thankyou, but what I meant is that I hear absolutely no one else calling murderer on the others. Anders is a little different, yes, but that doesn't mean the other characters are innocent little children that shouldn't be questioned on what they have done.

Common sense suggests that Isabela should've KNOWN what taking the book would have done. Just as Sebastain should KNOW what damage can come from going to war with an entire country over one man's actions, especially when a country-to-country conflict wasn't the intention behind the attack and his country has nothing to do with it.

Do I say we shouldn't judge Anders on what he did? No, I don't. But I don't think the other characters should get away with their bollocks scott free, either.

Anders is not "a little" different. Isabela's intention is not to start a war. Sebastian will send troops because he knows there's going to be war anyway, the only difference is who's side he's on. (And Kirkwall is a city-state and not a country.)

Yourwelcomeverymuch.

Thankyou for your correction of little wording mistakes, it's much appriciated. As is the ignoring of my main point that the other characters shouldn't get away scott free either. 

I never said Anders should get away with what he did, just pointing that out. Again.

Also Sebastian intention isn't to 'send troops because there's going to be a war anyway'. He makes it very clear his decision to take an entire country/city-state/whatever to war is revenge fueled only.

Actually, I'm sorry for how this could sound like a bit of an attitude. I meant it to come across as more playful sarcasm, but re-reading it... 

Ugh.

Saying that, I do think you could have been a bit politer and understanding of the base point I was trying to make? Rather than nitpick at language use. Anders is a terroist, and people are allowed to hate the character because of his actions. His actions are more major than what the others did as well. I just think the "what the others did is totally okay, and there's no problem here" thing is wrong as well.

I consider bad decisions that lead to large scale murder, and genocide bad, anyway.

Saying that I don't hate any of the characters. I can understand where all of them were coming from if I look at it from a story writer perspective (all of my different Hawkes think differently, so there are companions they sympathise with more than others), and the way Anders was handled makes me think he was mentally ill/suffering from clinical depression at the time of his decision... not to mention the whole possession thing.
 
So all the characters have their personal stories/reasons, and it's up to the individual person to decide if that at least explains their actions.

I understand the point you're making and I mostly agree with it, but I wasn't sure how to make the case last night. The point I'm making is that not all killing is the same, which you agree with.

The only thing I know how to do is draw real life parallels. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. sent a giant army to take the country back and stabilize the region. The U.S. killed a lot of innocents. One could easily consider that a "just" war, as just as a war can be I guess. What do we have that mirrors Anders actions? Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City bombing, the attacks on the embassies in Kenya in Nairobi, the USS Cole, and twice at the World Trade Center. My point is it's been done in real life far more than I'd ever like to see.

So, I can look past the cartoonish violence of Isabela's misinterpreted holy book because she didn't know what it would lead to. I can look past Sebastian's empty threat, because he still has to take back Starkhaven before he can even think about sending an army against Kirkwall. I like video games because they take me out of my world and give me a new one. DA2 had fake guardsmen that only appeared at night and dropped from the sky to attack me and my party. It's a bit silly, really. And then, near the end of the game, is this horrible reminder of reality that I use video games to escape from. The dev team wants to find a way to start a war between the mages and templars? Fine. Find another way.

True, true. Though what Anders did, to me, seemed... natural following what was built up. Even if it is uncomfortable and a terrible thing, because of how close to home it is, especially to some people.

My honest apologies for any upset the discussion might have caused, and I didn't mean to seem as full of attitude as I might have! I should have caught that as I typed rather than after the fact.

Modifié par Dirgegun, 08 octobre 2012 - 12:33 .