236 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Gratuitous violence? I'd like to see you justify that.

In contrast to Dragon Age where people explode when poked by daggers, decapitations, crushed, frozen, and shattered i find myself intrigued now.

In all of those instances, Hawke is defending himself. It's not the same situation at all. And blood is not required in order for violence to be gratuitous.

Prolonged montages of child slaughter are gratuitous. Drowning someone with wine is gratuitous. Decapitating a horse because its rider lost a tournament is gratuitous. I don't give a **** if stuff like that "really happened" or "makes sense in context".

It makes me feel ill when I watch it and if that's "dark and mature" storytelling, then I want no part of it.

I don't get it. The plethora of death dealt by Hawks hand does not affect you in anyway but your "gratuitous" examples make you throw up? Do you know why you feel this way? Hawk is a one man decapitating, freezing, incinerating exploding montage of death all by himself. Its almost as if when given any context to a violent act you react like a human being as opposed to a mindless automaton.

Sooner or later gaming will devote it's effort areas of experience in addition to refining ways of killing things. (see games like tomb raider or LA Noir). Think about it. The only thing that has changed between Baldurs Gate and DAO is the"prettiness" of the combat mechanics.

Animating the experience removes me from it to a certain degree.

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

As it was, I found several of Lara's up-close death scenes when I screwed up to be unduly distressing. Watching her being choked to death by Vladimir made me very uncomfortable, and so did watching her get impaled on spikes when sliding down rapids.

Context matters a lot. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston kills to protect himself, his family, and good people that he meets. He kills animals for the same reasons, or to obtain things he needs to survive. He does not take pleasure in the act of killing, nor does he prolong the suffering of those he has to kill. And in duels and bounty hunts and the like, there is always the option to be merciful. He can shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand, or hogtie a criminal and take them to jail.

Conversely, Grand Theft Auto, made by the same company, with many of the same gameplay elements as Red Dead and L.A. Noire, encourages you, requires you even, to hurt and even kill innocent people. That bothers me immensely, so I don't play it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mars 2013 - 05:13 .

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...



Animating the experience removes me from it to a certain degree.

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

As it was, I found several of Lara's up-close death scenes when I screwed up to be unduly distressing. Watching her being choked to death by Vladimir made me very uncomfortable, and so did watching her get impaled on spikes when sliding down rapids.

Context matters a lot. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston kills to protect himself, his family, and good people that he meets. He kills animals for the same reasons, or to obtain things he needs to survive. He does not take pleasure in the act of killing, nor does he prolong the suffering of those he has to kill. And in duels and bounty hunts and the like, there is always the option to be merciful. He can shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand, or hogtie a criminal and take them to jail.

Conversely, Grand Theft Auto, made by the same company, with many of the same gameplay elements as Red Dead and L.A. Noire, encourages you, requires you even, to hurt and even kill innocent people. That bothers me immensely, so I don't play it.

Yes self defence is indeed a justification for violence but not for emotional detachment. The reason you are dettached is because you are used to mowing down faceless mooks. However, when confronted with a situation that has context with relatable characters such as Lara, you have a visceral emotional reaction.

Modifié par daaaav, 14 mars 2013 - 05:26 .

[Xilizhra]

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

Well, that depends on the Hawke. Those who sided with the templars at the end, for instance, would do anyone from Martin's series proud.

[The Hierophant]

Xilizhra wrote...

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

Well, that depends on the Hawke. Those who sided with the templars at the end, for instance, would do anyone from Martin's series proud.

Are you insinuating that all of Martin's characters like to kill for the sake of doing so? Given your stance on Templars are you seriously writing off all of Martin's characters like the moustache twirling one dimensional antagonists who plague the DA series in an effort to gratify, and placate the majority of the fandom?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 14 mars 2013 - 05:57 .

[Gyrefalcon]

Here I thought you meant having Bioware do the George R.R. Martin tales. That would be cool. Otherwise, I originally thought that Dragon Age WAS the video game Martin said was being produced. (My mistake.) But I loved them all the same. And Dragon Age: Origins has the potential for your character, your love interest, or another Grey Warden to die at the end. It depends on if you wanted to really kill off the demon or let it get turned into a "human". And I use that term loosely.

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



Animating the experience removes me from it to a certain degree.

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

As it was, I found several of Lara's up-close death scenes when I screwed up to be unduly distressing. Watching her being choked to death by Vladimir made me very uncomfortable, and so did watching her get impaled on spikes when sliding down rapids.

Context matters a lot. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston kills to protect himself, his family, and good people that he meets. He kills animals for the same reasons, or to obtain things he needs to survive. He does not take pleasure in the act of killing, nor does he prolong the suffering of those he has to kill. And in duels and bounty hunts and the like, there is always the option to be merciful. He can shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand, or hogtie a criminal and take them to jail.

Conversely, Grand Theft Auto, made by the same company, with many of the same gameplay elements as Red Dead and L.A. Noire, encourages you, requires you even, to hurt and even kill innocent people. That bothers me immensely, so I don't play it.

Yes self defence is indeed a justification for violence but not for emotional detachment. The reason you are dettached is because you are used to mowing down faceless mooks. However, when confronted with a situation that has context with relatable characters such as Lara, you have a visceral emotional reaction.

Well, in regards to Game of Thrones, it doesn't help that all the "relatable" characters are doomed.

People defend the violence and overt sexuality as being "realisitc", but I don't see what's realistic about a world where every half-decent member of the cast is from the Stark family, and everyone else is a depraved lunatic.

Nor is there any realism in immature brats like Joffrey, Cersei and Littlefinger managing to hold onto any measure of political power for more than five minutes.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mars 2013 - 05:54 .

[Degs29]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
I wanna see Red Wedding-ish plot twist. It would be so much fun if one wrong choice result in your companion dying helplessly as opposed to you killing your companion as in DA:O(Leliana in sacred ash mission).

You mean like your sister in DA2?  I guess that took two wrong choices....

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



Animating the experience removes me from it to a certain degree.

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

As it was, I found several of Lara's up-close death scenes when I screwed up to be unduly distressing. Watching her being choked to death by Vladimir made me very uncomfortable, and so did watching her get impaled on spikes when sliding down rapids.

Context matters a lot. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston kills to protect himself, his family, and good people that he meets. He kills animals for the same reasons, or to obtain things he needs to survive. He does not take pleasure in the act of killing, nor does he prolong the suffering of those he has to kill. And in duels and bounty hunts and the like, there is always the option to be merciful. He can shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand, or hogtie a criminal and take them to jail.

Conversely, Grand Theft Auto, made by the same company, with many of the same gameplay elements as Red Dead and L.A. Noire, encourages you, requires you even, to hurt and even kill innocent people. That bothers me immensely, so I don't play it.

Yes self defence is indeed a justification for violence but not for emotional detachment. The reason you are dettached is because you are used to mowing down faceless mooks. However, when confronted with a situation that has context with relatable characters such as Lara, you have a visceral emotional reaction.

Well, in regards to Game of Thrones, it doesn't help that all the "relatable" characters are doomed.

People defend the violence and overt sexuality as being "realisitc", but I don't see what's realistic about a world where every half-decent member of the cast is from the Stark family, and everyone else is a depraved lunatic.

I feel that your missing the point a little. The body count of Dragon Age is orders of magnitude greater than Game of Thrones yet you are horrified at the violence in Game of Thrones and NOT dragon age because it happens to characters you can come to care about. Why is Dragon age then more realistic to you?

I also wish we wouldn't lump sex and violence in with each other since they are not fundamentally the same. No one would argue that sexuality doesn't have a dark side but that is the result of violence and exploitation. Not sexuality itself.

[SgtElias]

The Hierophant wrote...

Are you insinuating that all of Martin's characters like to kill for the sake of doing so? Given your stance on Templars are you seriously writing off all of Martin's characters like the moustache twirling one dimensional antagonists who plague the DA series in an effort to gratify, and placate the majority of the fandom?

Well, to be fair, I do feel some characters are there for the sole purpose of making the audience hate them (Joffrey, Gregor Clegane, and Ramsey Snow spring to mind).

. . . but it just feels so good to hate them.

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...
I feel that your missing the point a little. The body count of Dragon Age is orders of magnitude greater than Game of Thrones yet you are horrified at the violence in Game of Thrones and NOT dragon age because it happens to characters you can come to care about. Why is Dragon age then more realistic to you?

I didn't say that I thought Dragon Age was more realistic. My position has always been that it's more palatable.

Other people are saying Game of Thrones is "realistic", and that "realism = good", and therefore Bioware should emulate it, because that would be more realistic. I strongly dispute the notion that Game of Thrones is realistic, but I don't think that Dragon Age is more realistic, and I don't think it should try to be more realistic than it is already. Especially not if realism entails emulating Game of Thrones.

I also wish we wouldn't lump sex and violence in with each other since they are not fundamentally the same. No one would argue that sexuality doesn't have a dark side but that is the result of violence and exploitation. Not sexuality itself.

I did not mean to suggest that displays of sex and displays of violence are morally equivalent. I only equate them in the sense that Game of Thrones uses both gratuitously.

We don't need to see nude women grinding on each other in the background of all of Littlefinger's monologues. We also don't need several minutes of watching a woman wail and plead in vain for her infant child's life. Both instances go well beyond establishing setting/character and into shallow "shock" territory.

Once you establish that Joffrey is a vile sadist, or that Theon is promiscuous, or that every second female character is a prostitute, that information stays with the viewer. It doesn't need to be shown over and over again. By that point you're just showing it for the sake of being shocking, or titillating, with little in the way of actual narrative purpose.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 mars 2013 - 06:22 .

[The Hierophant]

SgtElias wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Are you insinuating that all of Martin's characters like to kill for the sake of doing so? Given your stance on Templars are you seriously writing off all of Martin's characters like the moustache twirling one dimensional antagonists who plague the DA series in an effort to gratify, and placate the majority of the fandom?

Well, to be fair, I do feel some characters are there for the sole purpose of making the audience hate them (Joffrey, Gregor Clegane, and Ramsey Snow spring to mind).

. . . but it just feels so good to hate them.

There'll be douchebags in any story regardless, but the comment i responded to said that anyone of Martin's characters are comparable to Templar supporters, who by  Xil's reasoning make Danarius look tame in comparison...lol

[SgtElias]

The Hierophant wrote...

There'll be douchebags in any story regardless, but the comment i responded to said that anyone of Martin's characters are comparable to Templar supporters, who by  Xil's reasoning make Danarius look tame in comparison...lol

I think she meant that choosing to side with the templars and slaughter the entire Kirkwall cirlce, despite none of them haing any part in Anders' actions, was a decision that could be seen as just as cruel and unjust as many decisions made my the antagonists in Game of Thrones.

[The Hierophant]

SgtElias wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

There'll be douchebags in any story regardless, but the comment i responded to said that anyone of Martin's characters are comparable to Templar supporters, who by  Xil's reasoning make Danarius look tame in comparison...lol

I think she meant that choosing to side with the templars and slaughter the entire Kirkwall cirlce, despite none of them haing any part in Anders' actions, was a decision that could be seen as just as cruel and unjust as many decisions made my the antagonists in Game of Thrones.

Xil posted "anyone" of Martin's character's would be prould of Templar supporting Hawke, though. Wouldn't that mean that Eddard and the Stark children, Aemon, Brynden Rivers etc. would be included along with secondary characters who've yet to do anything negative? 

[SgtElias]

The Hierophant wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

I think she meant that choosing to side with the templars and slaughter the entire Kirkwall cirlce, despite none of them haing any part in Anders' actions, was a decision that could be seen as just as cruel and unjust as many decisions made my the antagonists in Game of Thrones.

Xil posted "anyone" of Martin's character's would be prould of Templar supporting Hawke, though. Wouldn't that mean that Eddard and the Stark children, Aemon, Brynden Rivers etc. would be included along with secondary characters who've yet to do anything negative? 

I admit, I took "anyone" to be an exaggeration.

But it's silly for me to try and tell you what someone else meant; mostly I was pointing out initially that some of Game of Thrones villains were, erm, of the mustach-twirling variety.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Hierophant wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Who wants to see A Song of Ice and Fire style storytelling?

Well, I found the first book so morbidly depressing I never bothered with the rest.

So, no.

Read MBoTF.(no snark, only shameless promotion)

Only if it's not morbidly depressing.

[DarthLaxian]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
I wanna see Red Wedding-ish plot twist. It would be so much fun if one wrong choice result in your companion dying helplessly as opposed to you killing your companion as in DA:O(Leliana in sacred ash mission).

I don't think most gamers share this sentiment but I love storytelling when it is OUT of my control; not in terms of choices given but in terms of events that unfold after you make your decision. I love unpredictable choices such as deciding to save the innocent unexpectely costing you your friend's life or making ballsy decisions(spitting in your torturer's face for one ) permanantly damaging your character's abilty by little amount.

I've always felt Bioware games give players too much leeway in fighting through hardships. Whatever options you choose, you prevail. However mercyful, ruthless or dumb you act you win most fights. I hope DA3 developed some sense of realism over the last two games. I love dying due to bad choices.

well - nice ideas, but:

please don't - i hate being unable to at least keep my team alive.

as for story telling that is out of the players hand - no i do not like that one either because it is a game, no interactive movie, where you make a choice and then you can't even mitigate the consequences/prepare enough before so that there is not much in the way of consequences...it is just bad story telling in a computer game, if you have something like that IMHO...

greetings LAX
ps: i love Game of Thrones by the way (i got the first 5 books) but while the story works well here (also IMHO to many important characters die - i mean the writer takes so much time to flesh out his characters and then he just kills some of them off?...i don't get it, that is like an artist painting this incredible painting then setting it on fire after showing the world how great it is/was)

[Kingthlayer]

I agree. I never felt like their was many consequences for making IMO bad decisions in BioWare games. An example I like to use is the final mission of Mass Effect 1. Saving the council is a bad decision, but their is no consequence to doing so. Instead of having a bunch of nameless Alliance soldiers dying, Hackett should have died. Maybe even Anderson at the time.

[HolyAvenger]

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...
Saving the council is a bad decision.

Why?

[Rawgrim]

Xilizhra wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, I'd rather launch a copy of DAI into the sun than see Martinian crap ooze over into other series that I like.

You mean how the gray wardens are very much based on the night`s watch?

Right, because my Warden was a celibate male who could never do anything away from one geographic spot... wait.

The devs said they drew alot of inspiration from A song of Ice and Fire, when creating the DA universe....

The Night`s watch arn`t celibate either. Lord Commander Mormonts says it flat out that he knows alot of the NW runs off to the nearby villages to have sex with ****s and whatsnot.

The NW oath, and the gray warden one is practically intentical. as well.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



Animating the experience removes me from it to a certain degree.

Plus, again, in Tomb Raider and L.A. Noire respectively, Lara and Cole, like Hawke, are doing what they have to in order to survive, they are defending themselves and others. They are not doling out wanton cruelty to children and animals with glee.

As it was, I found several of Lara's up-close death scenes when I screwed up to be unduly distressing. Watching her being choked to death by Vladimir made me very uncomfortable, and so did watching her get impaled on spikes when sliding down rapids.

Context matters a lot. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. John Marston kills to protect himself, his family, and good people that he meets. He kills animals for the same reasons, or to obtain things he needs to survive. He does not take pleasure in the act of killing, nor does he prolong the suffering of those he has to kill. And in duels and bounty hunts and the like, there is always the option to be merciful. He can shoot the gun out of his opponent's hand, or hogtie a criminal and take them to jail.

Conversely, Grand Theft Auto, made by the same company, with many of the same gameplay elements as Red Dead and L.A. Noire, encourages you, requires you even, to hurt and even kill innocent people. That bothers me immensely, so I don't play it.

Yes self defence is indeed a justification for violence but not for emotional detachment. The reason you are dettached is because you are used to mowing down faceless mooks. However, when confronted with a situation that has context with relatable characters such as Lara, you have a visceral emotional reaction.

Well, in regards to Game of Thrones, it doesn't help that all the "relatable" characters are doomed.

People defend the violence and overt sexuality as being "realisitc", but I don't see what's realistic about a world where every half-decent member of the cast is from the Stark family, and everyone else is a depraved lunatic.

Nor is there any realism in immature brats like Joffrey, Cersei and Littlefinger managing to hold onto any measure of political power for more than five minutes.

I wouldn`t call Jorah Mormont, Jeor Mormont, Sam Tarly, Dolorus Ed, Tyrion Lannister, Barristan Selmy, Asha Greyjoy, most of the Martells, Loras Tyrell and the rest of the Tyrells, Osha, Jeyne Westerling, Varys, Brienne of Tarth, and tons more depraved lunatics, though.

Our own history is riddled with immature brats having political power. In season 2 you start seeing Joffrey and Cercei losing more and more too. I don`t think its too spoilerish to say they lose alot more, alot quicker.

As for Littlefinger - he is pretty much the banker of the kingdom, and a very good one at that. he has some immature traits too, but mostly he is just very effective at what he does.

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, I'd rather launch a copy of DAI into the sun than see Martinian crap ooze over into other series that I like.

You mean how the gray wardens are very much based on the night`s watch?

Right, because my Warden was a celibate male who could never do anything away from one geographic spot... wait.

The devs said they drew alot of inspiration from A song of Ice and Fire, when creating the DA universe....

The Night`s watch arn`t celibate either. Lord Commander Mormonts says it flat out that he knows alot of the NW runs off to the nearby villages to have sex with ****s and whatsnot.

The NW oath, and the gray warden one is practically intentical. as well.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

vs.

"Join us, brothers and sisters. Join us in the shadows where we stand vigilant. Join us as we carry the duty that can not be forsworn. And should you perish, know that your sacrifice will not be forgotten. And that one day we shall join you." 

Perhaps you meant nearly identical in spirit, but otherwise, the two oaths aren't even remotely similar.   For that matter, I'm not sure if the Grey Warden saying is truly an sworn oath so much as just a traditional part of the ceremony. 

That said, I think there's a bit too much emphasis placed on DA's relationship to ASoIaF.  The concept of a brotherhood that forswears lands, family, and titles in order to guard the world against a mysterious threat is not original to Martin.  Inspiration is always a component of stories, because no story is ever written in a vacuum.  But "inspired by" is not quite the same thing as "based on." 

In fact, I've read no fewer than five fantasies in the past month that all have very similar mage/holy knight themes, one in particular that featured a female mage who became a holy figure in later centuries, with a war being fought over whether she should be considered an exceptionally powerful mage or a god incarnate (sound familiar), and clashes between mages and knights of a worldwide established religious order who think mages should either be corralled under its church's heel or exterminated outright.  The similarities are impossible to ignore. 

Modifié par Silfren, 14 mars 2013 - 01:03 .

[Rawgrim]

The Hierophant wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

There'll be douchebags in any story regardless, but the comment i responded to said that anyone of Martin's characters are comparable to Templar supporters, who by  Xil's reasoning make Danarius look tame in comparison...lol

I think she meant that choosing to side with the templars and slaughter the entire Kirkwall cirlce, despite none of them haing any part in Anders' actions, was a decision that could be seen as just as cruel and unjust as many decisions made my the antagonists in Game of Thrones.

Xil posted "anyone" of Martin's character's would be prould of Templar supporting Hawke, though. Wouldn't that mean that Eddard and the Stark children, Aemon, Brynden Rivers etc. would be included along with secondary characters who've yet to do anything negative? 

Only a sith deals in absolutes

[wright1978]

Love 'the song of ice and fire' books. Obviously the TV series is a weak imitation of the novels.
I like the willingness that characters such as Eddard and Robb die because of the bad choices they make, rather than there being no consequences for their folly.

Dragon Age is a choice based RPG which means i wouldn't want railroaded 'Red Wedding' moments. I'm all for choices that lead to bad consequences, or choices where the negative consequences play out later as long as there is genuine choice rather than railroading.

[Xilizhra]

The Hierophant wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

There'll be douchebags in any story regardless, but the comment i responded to said that anyone of Martin's characters are comparable to Templar supporters, who by  Xil's reasoning make Danarius look tame in comparison...lol

I think she meant that choosing to side with the templars and slaughter the entire Kirkwall cirlce, despite none of them haing any part in Anders' actions, was a decision that could be seen as just as cruel and unjust as many decisions made my the antagonists in Game of Thrones.

Xil posted "anyone" of Martin's character's would be prould of Templar supporting Hawke, though. Wouldn't that mean that Eddard and the Stark children, Aemon, Brynden Rivers etc. would be included along with secondary characters who've yet to do anything negative? 

What I meant is that the level of pointless violence would be on a par with the pointless violence committed by any of them, if they did in fact commit pointless violence. Perhaps I should have made my sentence longer to accommodate for that.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 mars 2013 - 01:52 .

[Il Divo]

daaaav wrote...

Sooner or later gaming will devote it's effort areas of experience in addition to refining ways of killing things. (see games like tomb raider or LA Noir). Think about it. The only thing that has changed between Baldurs Gate and DAO is the"prettiness" of the combat mechanics.

While true, this depresses me.

Edit: 

Hmm, idea for new thread topic: Who wants to see Neil Gaiman's Sandman style of storytelling? I think that would complement Dragon Age very well.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 mars 2013 - 02:31 .