151 réponses à ce sujet

[d4eaming]

Neo from The Matrix is a classic messiah figure.

The Warden and Hawke are not. Full stop.

[AstraDrakkar]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Messianic figure

Often in games and stories, the hero is a promised one, being waited for a long time, there is a prophecy, being told in a dream, the one who bring balance to the world, the one who have a mission to be fulfilled, defeating the greatest evil, the one who unite the land, the hero of everyone...

DA:O is actually a messianic type of a game/story but the protagonist/main character never know he/she is actually a Messiah, because there is no prophecy or something anywhere mentioned in the game/story, but what he/she do is actually what a Messiah character do...that is the key success of DA:O

The player feel being an important person, feel being chosen by God, the feeling no matter what the player belief, even for an atheist, so that motivate the player to move character against all odd, and at the end with dramatic scene it is rewarding

In DA:2, the base story is not messianic story, although Hawke is considered a Hero but it is not messianic type of a hero. Hawke is just a person who involve in problems and solve it. Hawke have no mission to be fulfilled, have no motivation to move on, everything that Hawke do is just handling a problem even it is not his/her problem at all. So the player don't have such feeling of being important.

DA2 does give some feeling of a"heroism" to Hawke, but it is not strong enough to make the player remember Hawke. The ending also not rewarding, although it look grand with effects but the feeling of fighting a mega threat to everyone is not there, Meredith is just a crazy woman who go nut.

Why people of religion love their prophets such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha (peace be upon all them)...it is because these people are Messiahs...their life story include many things...suffering, struggle, joy...everything that touch the peoples up to today...

So if want a hero to be remembered, the hero must have a Messiah characteristic...look at other example...such as Luke Skywalker, even Darth Vader (dark messiah-type)...Spiderman, Superman and any other superheroes of western comic...they all are Messianic types of heroes.

I may not agree with all of your opinions Nizaris1, but I do this one. I prefer playing a messianic type of hero myself, and Hawke just didn't fit the bill for me. Anders got to be a the Messiah in that game.........

[upsettingshorts]

The Warden wasn't a messianic hero in any sense of the word beyond Nizaris own stubborn and self-serving definition. The Warden was whatever you wanted them to be.

Hawke was the hero of legend who, it turns out, wasn't the legendary hero at all. He was who you wanted him/her to be. That was the point of Dragon Age 2. If your argument against DA2's story is Hawke wasn't heroic enough, you missed it.

Not to mention Anders wasn't a messiah either, there's one messiah in Dragon Age and it is Andraste.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:34 .

[d4eaming]

Anders is not a messiah in any sense O_o. He wasn't a prophesied hero come to save the world, he was a freedom fighter or terrorist depending on your outlook. Hawke was definitely not a messiah, and ultimately his story was about a random guy who just happened to be there when things went down and NOT be the big savior. He's not even close to the Warden in that regard, and the Warden is also not a messiah. I don't get where this argument is even coming from.

[Dabrikishaw]

Anders would be more of a Dark Messiah.

[Maria Caliban]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

There are no bad tropes or ideas in writing or storytelling of any kind, just bad implementation. A Deus ex Machina isn't bad in-and-of itself; nor is the McGuffin, Red Herring, or any other trope or idiom. Good writing can make these things happen very well and be epic moments we remember.

Yep.

ET and Toy Story both use Deus ex Machina to resolve a major conflict, but it's almost never commented on because we know those are good stories and DEM is supposedly something only bad ones do.

[Shaun the Crazy One]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

First off, the narrative climax of Mass Effect 3 was when the Combined Fleet jumped into Earth orbit and engaged the Reapers.  Everything following, especially once the ground forces have landed, is part of the resolution.  

Mass Effect 1: Driving the Mako through the Conduit, the thing both Shepard and Saren had been looking for the whole game.  The arrival at the Citadel begins the resolution.

Mass Effect 2:  Going through the Omega 4 relay and crash landing on the Collector Base.  Getting there had been your goal the whole game.  Once the crew starts to figure out what to do next, the resolution begins.

DA Origins:   The Landsmeet.  If you're going to be critical of any recent BioWare game's climax, I'd start here.  "The whole game builds spectacularly to that moment" is, in my view, at best debatable.  In my view, DA:O had several mini-arcs - some related, some not - each with their own climax.  Three of the four preliminary stages to the Landsmeet quite literally had nothing at all to do with it.  In terms of an overall narrative, it's pretty weak.  But this strikes me as part of the design that offered more player agency.  You could invent the overall narrative if you wanted and the game did not get in your way by having one of its own.  Mine is certainly far different from Nizaris.  So your mileage may vary.

Dragon Age 2:  Anders blows up the Chantry.  Since one of the games principle themes was the nature of escalation in the buildup to conflict, violence, and war... this is appropriate.  The war starts there, and Anders intentionally escalated the violence to a point where nothing else could happen.  The resolution is determining how the first battle of that war plays out.

Where exactly the climax occurs is not quite so important as the way in which it is resolved, and the resolution may not happen all at once.  In ME3 I don't really consider the fighting on the streets of London to be part of the climax, because while fun, it does nothing to resolve the conflict of the main plot.  We're simply present with obstacles we have to overcome as we progress toward the beam, where the final resolution will take place.

As DAO had two antagonists, it stands to reason that it would also have two separate conflicts and therefor two climaxes.  Arguably all the games in the Mass Effect series did as well but both conflicts were resolved at the same time or in rapid succession.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
...Deus ex machinas can be a lazy way to solve a problem, but it's totally
possible to write a good use of it.  The episode of LOST appropriately
titled, "Deus Ex Machina" is a recent example of this.  This is what a deus ex machina looks like:  **Image Removed**

...

The Catalyst, the child - his physical being and a concept of importance to Shepard, and the options to both Destroy and Control the Reapers have been present through at least Mass Effect 3.  Shepard himself is a product of Synthesis at the hands of Cerberus.  These are matters of fact and not really open to interpretation.  That the specific nature of the Catalyst - the star child - was unexpected does not mean the importance of it as a Plot Device was never established, or that it being the solution came out of thin air.

By definition, something we learn about in the beginning of the story (From Liara on Mars) cannot be a deus ex machina when it resolves the plot at the end of the story.

When people criticize the ending in this manner, or using these terms, I can only suppose they really mean to say that they did not like and/or did not anticipate the resolution of this mystery:  What does the Catalyst even do?  

It's fine to not like the answer, but it's not a deus ex machina. 

It's possible that a Deus Ex Machina plot device can be used to reenforce the story rather than undermine it, but while there may be examples of this in films and novels, I can't see being effective in a game without a radical change to mechanics.  Too much of traditional RPG mechanics are about the progression of the protagonist(s) and positive reinforcement of the player, both of which are undermined by an ending that renders all of that meaningless.  So while not impossible, you would be creating an entirely different game.

That said "The Catalyst" is an example of Deus Ex Machina, because while the Crucible is introduced early on, The Catalyst, The Citadel, goes from being a location, to a god like being at the very end of the story, making it both literally and figuratively a "God from the Machine".  OK, so could be I'm taking to many liberties with the definition here, but for certain ME3 suffered from having too many plot elements and too great a conflict to tie up in a single ending.

[Swagger7]

Nizaris1 wrote...


Again you bring up the "prophecy" part while i repeatably saying it doesn't have to be need a prophecy

Yes, you continue to repeatedly misuse the word Messianic.  It does not mean what you seem to think it means.

[Quirkylilela]

First of all the super heroes you listed are no more messiahs/messiah like than mages in dragon age advanced humans that(atleast in ferelden and orlais) are often hated and oppressed for how they were born. Many super human series even deal with laws which go from things like registration to forced recruitment into government run intelligence/military/police services similar to the Mage Circles.

Secondly I just looked up a dozen definitions of messiah and messianic and they all contained words like awaited, prophecised and anticipated so your definition is wrong.

Finally your use of I Am Legend as a messiah like character is laughable since the book it's based on has him executed for crimes against the vampires. Then in the movie(after they turned them more into zombies than vampires) they used the cure ending where he killed himself instead of the ending where he realized they just wanted the female vampire-zombie hybrid he'd been experimenting on and then once they get her they leave him alone.

[Quirkylilela]

The warden wasn't a messiah he/she was just one of many who could have killed the arch demon. Jesus wasn't believed to be the messiah cause all of gods other kids died he was the messiah because it was foretold that he was cause that's what messiah means a foretold/prophecised/anticipated/awaited savior. I'd like to point out that many of the examples used perhaps even the warden himself if you played a Mage or one of the other races was hated thus your very own definition rules them all out.

[Quirkylilela]

You don't understand what we're talking about the warden has no messiah characteristic because a messiah characteristic requires some kind of anticipation or prophecy about this persons deeds. Saving the world doesn't mean you're even remotely messianic it just means you're a hero there is no debating this these are facts.

[Swagger7]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Again, you guys don't understand what i am talking about

I am not talking about The warden is a Messiah or not, i am talking about a hero that have a messiah characteristic, quality, a Messiah-like

I know my English is bad, but to make me like a fool as if i don't understand what "Messiah" means is cheap. I am a Muslim, i know what Messiah means...and maybe i know about Messiah more than you guys do

Now i am done.

Even in the bit you cut & pasted it says "promised prophet".  I'm not trying to make fun of your English, but sometimes you need to learn to accept correction when you get a word wrong. 

[esper]

I am thinking that perhaps Nizaris is going for tvtropes definition of the Messiah. Ie... the ultimate idealistic hero type.
That said, the warden is still not the Messiah type characther (though they can be played close to it), neither is Spiderman or Batmann. Supermann could perhaps be... if you strech the definition enough. Harry Potter is not the mesiah either, he is the chosen one, but is not idealistic enough himself to be the actual messiah type, nor does he love or is loved by everyone.

[esper]

Nizaris1 wrote...

A Messiah doesn't a;ways loved by everyone

Jesus was not loved, he only have 12 deisciple, one of them betray him remember? Then he got crucified according to Christians...according to Muslims he ascended to Heaven

Prophet Muhammad also not loved, he got cast out from Makkah, alienated, his followers tortured, then they all have to going for the hijrah/exodus to Madinah

peace upon both

i don't know what "Messiah" imagery in you guys mind...

It is you that are confused. Either you have a Messiah as in an actual Messiah as Jesus ie. The proficied savior. That is one characther type. The only thing that is demanded from them is that they are the proficied savior.

Also you have the character type that is 'the messiah' in all else than proficy. As in they are the ulitimate idealistic hero. These character have a spefic personality and that is their idealism. These character are 100 hundred percent devoted to bring ideals to frutation and those ideals are often love, friendship, peace and hope. These characters are called the messiah, not because they are an actual messiah, but my guess is that tvtropes have named them such because the characthers and the narrative still treats them as a savior. 

The warden, spiderman, batman, Harry Potter and so forth are simply not idealistic enough to fill the last criteria (aIthough the warden can be played close). A hundred procent diplomatic Hawke can come close, but the narrative doesn't accept her messiah status and deconstruct it.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hawke was the hero of legend who, it turns out, wasn't the legendary hero at all. He was who you wanted him/her to be. That was the point of Dragon Age 2. If your argument against DA2's story is Hawke wasn't heroic enough, you missed it.

Which is why the game ends with Cassandra going "*Squee* Hawke is the most heroicist person ever and can fix everything!"?

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hawke was the hero of legend who, it turns out, wasn't the legendary hero at all. He was who you wanted him/her to be. That was the point of Dragon Age 2. If your argument against DA2's story is Hawke wasn't heroic enough, you missed it.

Which is why the game ends with Cassandra going "*Squee* Hawke is the most heroicist person ever and can fix everything!"?

Cassandra is a hero seeker. Seriously, it is an established character trait by now. She is desperate and clings onto some legend like king from da:o.

First she thinks that Hawke was an apostate mage who went to Kirkwall to purposely usurp the chantry. Then we find out in the ending that despite thinking that they still went looking for Hawke thinking they could fix it all (despite you know thinking that Hawke planned it in the first place). Then in my playthrough it got even more aburd due to the fact that Hawke was a 100 procent promage, ran off with Anders and not all that sad about the war. I don't know what Cassandra planned to do if she found Hawke other than fight for her life.

The rumor was that bioware had originally intended for Varric and Hawke to meet up at the ending. Which further stressed under the fact that Cassandra did not have a very good idea and was just desperate for some hero to come and fix the chantrys mess.