854 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Nizaris1 wrote...

I am saying that there is a conspiracy...

Dragon Age 4: The Da Vinci Code.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Heimdall]

Nizaris1 wrote...

really, i am not interested in DA anymore, if everything in DA:O have no meaning, then DA is dead.

i don't loose anything

For the love of...

How did DA:O have no meaning?

[upsettingshorts]

I guess I just don't understand such complaints.

As a student of history, everything I learn can be distilled into different people doing different things in different times and different places that make different impacts on people and events.  Sometimes there's a direct, traceable continuity, but most of the time there isn't.  

Dragon Age lets us play out the history of Thedas, I never got the impression it was ever about doing anything else. From this perspective, there's no thematic inconsistency at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[lv12medic]

Now now, everyone seems to be arguing about what Dragon Age is about. It's a large combination of things really. In mathematical terms we would call this a Linear Combination:

a*A + b*B + c*C +d*D + e*E + g*G +...

Where the capital letters denote the different themes in Dragon Age while the smaller case letters denote the relative weight of these themes in each game. Obviously D=Darkspawn and in DA:O d was very large while in DA2 d was smaller.

You will notice that I skipped F. Because I think we can all agree that F stands for Fenris. and we all know f=0.

Modifié par lv12medic, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I am saying that there is a conspiracy...

Dragon Age 4: The Da Vinci Code.

They secretly control everything.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

After all that, my head now hurts.

[addiction21]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

After all that, my head now hurts.

My belly hurts but thats from laughing so hard for so long.

[esper]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I guess I just don't understand such complaints.

As a student of history, everything I learn can be distilled into different people doing different things in different times and different places that make different impacts on people and events.  Sometimes there's a direct, traceable continuity, but most of the time there isn't.  

Dragon Age lets us play out the history of Thedas, I never got the impression it was ever about doing anything else. From this perspective, there's no thematic inconsistency at all.

Considering that we where told that this is what dragon age was about from the get go...

Nobody can fault you from reaching that conclusion.

[upsettingshorts]

esper wrote...

Considering that we where told that this is what dragon age was about from the get go...

Nobody can fault you from reaching that conclusion.

Well I didn't actually follow Origins'development all that closely at the time.  Almost  everything I know of it now I learned later.

In fact, for a while I expected the stuff in the trailer that turned out to be Ostagar would actually be the climax and not the beginning, and thought DA:O would be about - in some way - preparing that fort for the big attack.

Needless to say, while I had been playing BioWare games for a long time, I had not yet at that point really stepped into what any of us might consider "fandom" and as such didn't follow pre-release stuff too closely.  

So if I arrived at that conclusion, it's partly from knowledge gained since, and partly from the general impression I got from playing Origins the first time without it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[henkez3]

Basically Nizaris is saying that anyone who had a different outcome in DA:O than him/her then that person played the game the wrong way.

I think this entire argument and thread should now be closed.

[DarkSpiral]

esper wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I guess I just don't understand such complaints.

As a student of history, everything I learn can be distilled into different people doing different things in different times and different places that make different impacts on people and events.  Sometimes there's a direct, traceable continuity, but most of the time there isn't.  

Dragon Age lets us play out the history of Thedas, I never got the impression it was ever about doing anything else. From this perspective, there's no thematic inconsistency at all.

Considering that we where told that this is what dragon age was about from the get go...

Nobody can fault you from reaching that conclusion.

Hah!

Now I suddenyl recall the sheer volume of outragfe that hit the forums when it was announed the Warden would not be the protagonist n DA2.  Despite all the writing on the wall, people didn't want to believe it, or accept it when it was made officical.  And now I see some people (Nizaris) STILL haven't accepted it.

Its great that you love DA:O, Niz.  It is!  But don't let the fact that the sequels of the series don't follow the exact same protagoist prevent your from enjoying a new story.

[esper]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

esper wrote...

Considering that we where told that this is what dragon age was about from the get go...

Nobody can fault you from reaching that conclusion.

Well I didn't actually follow Origins'development all that closely at the time.  Almost  everything I know of it now I learned later.

In fact, for a while I expected the stuff in the trailer that turned out to be Ostagar would actually be the climax and not the beginning, and thought DA:O would be about - in some way - preparing that fort for the big attack.

Needless to say, while I had been playing BioWare games for a long time, I had not yet at that point really stepped into what any of us might consider "fandom" and as such didn't follow pre-release stuff too closely.  

So if I arrived at that conclusion, it's partly from knowledge gained since, and partly from the general impression I got from playing Origins the first time without it.

And it is at this point I am beginning to think that I have played too much games, I first joined these forums at da2 so I wasn't prior to any information either for da:o, but I saw how Ostagar would end from the minute I met Cailan.

Loghain just made it so much more obvious.

[esper]

DarkSpiral wrote...

esper wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I guess I just don't understand such complaints.

As a student of history, everything I learn can be distilled into different people doing different things in different times and different places that make different impacts on people and events.  Sometimes there's a direct, traceable continuity, but most of the time there isn't.  

Dragon Age lets us play out the history of Thedas, I never got the impression it was ever about doing anything else. From this perspective, there's no thematic inconsistency at all.

Considering that we where told that this is what dragon age was about from the get go...

Nobody can fault you from reaching that conclusion.

Hah!

Now I suddenyl recall the sheer volume of outragfe that hit the forums when it was announed the Warden would not be the protagonist n DA2.  Despite all the writing on the wall, people didn't want to believe it, or accept it when it was made officical.  And now I see some people (Nizaris) STILL haven't accepted it.

Its great that you love DA:O, Niz.  It is!  But don't let the fact that the sequels of the series don't follow the exact same protagoist prevent your from enjoying a new story.

But Nizaris don't just want the exact same protagonist, she also want the exact same story because she want the same enemy, and with the same enemy the chances are that the story would not evolve very much.

[ScotGaymer]

Personally I think at this point Nizaris is just trolling.

I mean honestly, he/she can't honestly think that Bioware has some sort of conspiracy going on to prevent him/her from enjoying any future DA game?

Seriously?

Trolls. They be trolling.

[AlexanderCousland]

@Thematic inconsistency

I the sequel wasnt named Dragon Age 2, I wouldnt know it was a sequel.

In fact, if they named it Mages Vs. Templars and I probably would have played the game thinking that the Darkspawn are just bioware's version of PUDDIES ripped straight from the Power Rangers series. No...seriously.

*Who is the champion of kirkwall?*

Yea...who is that twit?..and why is he/she important?. WHY!
Why am I playing this game. What is my motivation. If everything that ive done has already occured, then what the hell man?

Why is I consoling/encouraging/scolding my compainons and helping the considered Main Plot quests? Why are they off doing things that I have to fix...I dont want to fix their mess, Id rather fix kirkwall. Instead of Anders blowing up the Chantry, Why couldnt Hawke? Instead of Isabela stealing a relic, why couldnt Hawke? Instead of Merril fixing a eluvian, Why couldn't hawke?
The whole point of that playthrough was stupid. Im not a therapist.

"The champion of kirkwall was at the heart of the events that changed the world"

Yea..hmmph. and He/She didnt do a damned thing about it except pick a side.


and I fully understand that some people prefer a game where there isnt some ultimate evil, but Origins had that, and most people here were drawn to the series because of it.

Ive heard, " I like something more Political"

Hmm. me too. but what the hell was political about DA2?

[nightscrawl]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Can i just ask something?

When was it determined what sex Nizaris was?

If I feel the need to use a gender specific pronoun in a post I will look at the person's profile. Sometimes this is stated and sometimes not, as in my case. Nizaris does state she is female on her BSN profile. In a game like WoW I will just go with what the person's character is unless it's confirmed otherwise.

English is sadly lacking with gender neutral pronouns. I dislike using "they" because that is plural. When writing about Hawke I will use "she" sometimes, because that is what I primarily play as. Most of the time I will just stick to Hawke unless it gets too repetitive.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

No matter what, the fact is Anders is a GREY WARDEN, most people see him just a mage, but he is not, he is forever a GREY WARDEN

The Grey Wardens and Anders himself would both disagree, probably emphatically.

This is true. However, I would argue that the very nature of the joining ritual means that you are a Warden for life, even if you are not a formal or recognized member of the order. Alistair the Wandering Drunk in DA2 is still a Grey Warden as well, whether he wants to be one or not.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Gee, whatever will Thedas do when the Warden dies?  S/he's the only one capable of anything!

Lol...

Modifié par nightscrawl, 04 décembre 2012 - 06:11 .

[AlexanderCousland]

@upsettingshorts

Id much rather have The Hero of Fereldan/ Vanquisher of the blight

Then champion of some small city, who is known for killing the Arishok.

Archdemon>Arishok.

[upsettingshorts]

FreshIstay wrote...

@upsettingshorts

Id much rather have The Hero of Fereldan/ Vanquisher of the blight

Then champion of some small city, who is known for killing the Arishok.

Archdemon>Arishok.

I'd much rather have a different protagonist each time, especially if one of the options for the first one is for them to die in a heroic act of sacrifice.

But really, comparing the relative accomplishments of Hawke and The Warden is akin to flying a big "I didn't understand the point of Dragon Age 2 or don't care" flag.

nightscrawl wrote...

This is true. However, I would argue that the very nature of the joining ritual means that you are a Warden for life, even if you are not a formal or recognized member of the order. Alistair the Wandering Drunk in DA2 is still a Grey Warden as well, whether he wants to be one or not.

That mises the reason for the distinction though:

If Anders doesn't consder himself a Grey Warden, and the Grey Warden' don't consider him one, than his actions can hardly be counted as evidence of a shift in Warden policy.  Perhaps it is a PR blow, but it doesn't follow that other Wardens will look at Anders and see a guide for future actions.  More like an extremely public embarrassment.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[AlexanderCousland]

@upsettingshorts


Highlighting things that ****** me of about DA2 does not mean i didnt understand or dont care. Lol.

My only PC is my Warden and he's been left on a cliffhanger. Hawke to, but to me, Hawkes just a glorified companion. Id rather not go through different stories being left to wonder what the hell happend to my last guy....everytime.

However, since you seem to have a profound understanding of DA2 would you care to enlighten me?

[upsettingshorts]

FreshIstay wrote...

My only PC is my Warden and he's been left on a cliffhanger. Hawke to, but to me, Hawkes just a glorified companion. Id rather not go through different stories being left to wonder what the hell happend to my last guy....everytime.

So you'd rather BioWare lock-in a fate for your protagonist?  I'm sure that would go over well here.

People were generally okay with the ambiguity at the end of DA:O's various expansions, it wasn't until Cassandra/Leliana in DA2 says that the Warden "disappeared" that people started getting upset, because that rules out a lot of endstate scenarios like "my Warden is King of Ferelden."

FreshIstay wrote...

Highlighting things that ****** me of about DA2 does not mean i didnt understand or dont care. Lol.

However, since you seem to have a profound understanding of DA2 would you care to enlighten me? 

It's not that hard.  Cassandra thought Hawke was a "big deal" like the Warden, but he wasn't, it's a deconstruction of all the tired fantasy hero tropes that games like Origins rely on.  In Thedas the Warden is a big deal, but in the fantasy RPG genre, s/he simply one of the many heroes who preserved the status quo from monsters war some threat.  

Among game protagonists, Hawke stands out more by personally mattering less, and the status quo does not survive the events of the game.  This distinction is deliberate, it wasn't an accident.

If your response is: "Well, I like my protagonist mattering more even if it's what happens in every fantasy game ever."  Then that's fine.  But DA2 wasn't doing that.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[DarkSpiral]

Edit: Nevermind.  Shorts answered my question before I ever posted it.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 04 décembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[Urzon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I am saying that there is a conspiracy...

Dragon Age 4: The Genitivi Code.

Fixed.

[Kidd]

FreshIstay wrote...

@upsettingshorts

Id much rather have The Hero of Fereldan/ Vanquisher of the blight

Then champion of some small city, who is known for killing the Arishok.

Archdemon>Arishok.

Doesn't it feel kind of silly that one, single person spearheaded so much? It's already getting a little ridiculous at the end of Awakening to me. Is my character truly mortal if they can save the day so many times and get out of so many difficult pinches all in a row?

Now I'm picturing a protagonist that has to die at the end of DA3. Damn you, David Gaider. You're rubbing off. 

[NasreddinHodja]

FreshIstay wrote...

@Thematic inconsistency

I the sequel wasnt named Dragon Age 2, I wouldnt know it was a sequel.

In fact, if they named it Mages Vs. Templars and I probably would have played the game thinking that the Darkspawn are just bioware's version of PUDDIES ripped straight from the Power Rangers series. No...seriously.

*Who is the champion of kirkwall?*

Yea...who is that twit?..and why is he/she important?. WHY!
Why am I playing this game. What is my motivation. If everything that ive done has already occured, then what the hell man?

Why is I consoling/encouraging/scolding my compainons and helping the considered Main Plot quests? Why are they off doing things that I have to fix...I dont want to fix their mess, Id rather fix kirkwall. Instead of Anders blowing up the Chantry, Why couldnt Hawke? Instead of Isabela stealing a relic, why couldnt Hawke? Instead of Merril fixing a eluvian, Why couldn't hawke?
The whole point of that playthrough was stupid. Im not a therapist.

"The champion of kirkwall was at the heart of the events that changed the world"

Yea..hmmph. and He/She didnt do a damned thing about it except pick a side.


and I fully understand that some people prefer a game where there isnt some ultimate evil, but Origins had that, and most people here were drawn to the series because of it.

Ive heard, " I like something more Political"

Hmm. me too. but what the hell was political about DA2?

The sequel was named "Dragon Age 2" because it happened in the same universe as the first "Dragon Age." Heck, even the title itself is self-explanatory.  The franchise is "Dragon Age" and it's about what happens in Thedas during the Age of the Dragon.  It is not titled "The Grey Wardens" like that game "Witcher." So this alone should clue us to the fact that the common theme of the franchise is the setting.  

"Who is the Champion of Kirkwall?"  That's is the central question of the second game.  And through you playing it, you get to define him/her.  A nice guy siding with the Templars?  A mean girl siding with the mages?  What are the Champion's motivations?  The death of a mother at the hands of a Blood Mage?  A desire to protect an apostate sister?  The beautiful thing about RPG's is that you get to decide those yourself.

It's funny that you should assume most people were drawn to the Dragon Age world because of the Warden/Darkspawn conflict; it certainly wasn't what brought me in.  It's the sidestories:  dwarven politics, the fate of the elves, the traitor who thinks he's doing what is best, and yes, the mages locked up in their tower.  These are the aspects of the world that convinced me to stay with the franchise.  And most of my friends who also played Dragon Age agree that these were the strong points of the game.  The Blight is just a plot device I suffered through just so I could experience all these *other* things.

[nightscrawl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That mises the reason for the distinction though:

If Anders doesn't consder himself a Grey Warden, and the Grey Warden' don't consider him one, than his actions can hardly be counted as evidence of a shift in Warden policy.  Perhaps it is a PR blow, but it doesn't follow that other Wardens will look at Anders and see a guide for future actions.  More like an extremely public embarrassment.

I wasn't really thinking of it along those lines, but fair point. Also, I'm not really sure how much of a PR blow Anders's actions really were, for the Wardens. Even though you do have someone like Cassandra using a term like "that Warden Anders," I think that most people (in Thedas) will just think of him as another crazy/dangerous mage. I actually think it would be interesting if the Wardens had trouble recruiting after this incident, or if they were given the cold shoulder by some of the more pious nobles.

I was really glad to have some more Warden content with the Legacy DLC. I'm hoping that DA3 will have a little more of that, perhaps as side quest material or further DLC. It would be nice to take a break from the mage/templar issues for a bit, as it was with the Qunari content in DA2.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Doesn't it feel kind of silly that one, single person spearheaded so much? It's already getting a little ridiculous at the end of Awakening to me. Is my character truly mortal if they can save the day so many times and get out of so many difficult pinches all in a row?

I've felt this too on occasion. Even though Hawke was also a badass, it made me appreciate her flawed nature. Hawke is really good at killing people/creatures, not at solving problems. Sometimes, like with the Arishok, killing someone did solve a problem, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 04 décembre 2012 - 10:09 .