236 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Rawgrim wrote...
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.

Honestly, there are what? Five characters that can be considered depraved lunatics.
Joffrey Hills (He is a bastard from the Westerlands, that makes him a Hills), Rorge, Vargo Hoat, Gregor Clegane and the The Devil AKA Ramsay Snow.
And even with Ramsay who is, hands down, the most evil man ever born in Westeros, we can see why he is that way. Feudalism + Being born into the Boltons + Social stigma associated with bastards = One very pissed off, sadistic monster.

[SgtElias]

MisterJB wrote...

*snippity*

Honestly, I'd add Viserys to that list, as well; though, thankfully, he didn't get much of a chance to be a depraved lunatic for very long.

To try and bring this back to Inquisition, I'd rather not see characters like those you listed very often in a Dragon Age setting. While I do love to loathe them, I feel that in a game, where the horrible things aren't being done to characters I identify with, but are being done to my PC or companions, I'd probably take it very negatively.

Not to say I don't like fighting evil villians, but Rmsey Snow doesn't ever need to show up in something I'm playing. *shudders*

[Il Divo]

No Joffrey?

[MisterJB]

SgtElias wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

*snippity*

Honestly, I'd add Viserys to that list, as well; though, thankfully, he didn't get much of a chance to be a depraved lunatic for very long.

Vyseris is a dumb as bricks spoiled man-child and an abusive brother but he never actually killed anyone so, it's not really fair to group him with the likes of *brrr* Rorge or Ramsay Snow.
His father, on the other hand...King Aerys Targaryen was certainly a depraved lunatic.

To try and bring this back to Inquisition, I'd rather not see characters like those you listed very often in a Dragon Age setting. While I do love to loathe them, I feel that in a game, where the horrible things aren't being done to characters I identify with, but are being done to my PC or companions, I'd probably take it very negatively.

Not to say I don't like fighting evil villians, but Rmsey Snow doesn't ever need to show up in something I'm playing. *shudders*

Well, if I had to choose characters widely considered as villains to appear in DAI, I would give prevalence to Tywin, Varys, Littlefinger. You know, the Chessmasters.
But, on the other hand, think about how much we would want to kill Ramsay Snow if he was in DAI. That itself can be fun.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 mars 2013 - 03:07 .

[SgtElias]

MisterJB wrote...

Vyseris is a dumb as bricks spoiled man-child and an abuse brother but he never actually killed anyone so, it's not really fair to group him with the likes of *brrr* Rorge or Ramsay Snow.

Viserys and Joffrey could practically be twins, the way they act. He was his lunatic father all over again, so I definitely think he belongs on the lunatic list.

His father, on the other hand...King Aerys Targaryen was certainly a depraved lunatic.

The only reason I didn't mention him is that he's already dead by the time the series begins, but yep.

Well, if I had to choose characters widely considered as villains to appear in DAI, I would give prevalence to Tywin, Varys, Littlefinger. You know, the Chessmasters.

Agreed. Especially Littlefinger.

But, on the other hand, think about how much we would want to kill Ramsay Snow if he was in DAI. That itself can be fun.

It would be satisfying to win or defeat a character like Ramsey. However, I don't think it'd be worth the fury and angst of watching someone like him completely maim and destory my PC, my companions, or NPCs. I can see how others would want it, but that's a level of depraved I don't really need to reach, personally.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd love to see more of Martin's work influence the story but that seems unlikely, I'd say the writers are mostly incapable of doing it simply because of the way they reacted to Loghain's fans.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 mars 2013 - 03:17 .

[MisterJB]

SgtElias wrote...
Viserys and Joffrey could practically be twins, the way they act. He was his lunatic father all over again, so I definitely think he belongs on the lunatic list.

Maybe I just have too much of Harry Lloyd's Viserys on my mind but, I can actually nearly sympathize with him. At a very young age, Viserys watches rebels take home and family from him and he grows up with the pressure of rebuilding the Targaryen Dynasty on his head while enduring the scorn of the entire civilized world. I can see why he is so bitter and hateful as oppose to Joffrey who has no excuse.

It would be satisfying to win or defeat a character like Ramsey. However, I don't think it'd be worth the fury and angst of watching someone like him completely maim and destory my PC, my companions, or NPCs. I can see how others would want it, but that's a level of depraved I don't really need to reach, personally.

One could argue DA2 nearly reached that point with the Quentin plotline. I certainly wanted to maim.

Personally, I must disagree with you. I would love if something akin to Reek's reveal happened in DAI.
Act 1, you save a man in rags from mages/templars/whatever and he feeds you a touching history of opression; he even joins your party for a while so, you trust him. Act 2, he burns your castle to the ground, kills the entire population of your hold and gives your LI/Sibling/Best Friend the "Reek" treatment.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 mars 2013 - 03:20 .

[Xilizhra]

One could argue DA2 nearly reached that point with the Quentin plotline. I certainly wanted to maim.

It's strange, but I never did. I mostly felt sorry for him. My Hawke even identified with him a bit, because they'd both gone through the same period of horrible loss, and she confesses to herself that she doesn't know what she'd do if she genuinely believed there was a way to bring Bethany back.

[MisterJB]

It becomes increasingly obvious mages and elves can do no wrong to you unless it's against other mages and elves, Xilizhra.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah figured that one out ages ago.

But yeah from what I'm reading do not want in my DAO. Gets dark enough for me already.

[Isaidlunch]

I don't want Dragon Age to be any darker, I just want "the dark" to be done properly. Frankenmom could have been one of the most emotional moments in the series if the presentation of it wasn't so goofy.

[Commander Kurt]

This thread makes me slightly sad.

I tried my damnest to like ASOIAF but two things ruined it for me; Lack of charm and lack of hope. I had similar problems with the Witcher 2 actually. It's all tragedy and despair and you learn really quickly that any glimmer of good feeling is fleeting and utterly in vain. To think that for some, this constitutes as realism is... I just hope that your real lives aren't that grim.

I can see why people like it, tragedy has always been a hit with the crowds. Just, don't hold it up as "mature" or "realistic". Angst may be the feeling you prefer, but it isn't more noble than happiness.

I think DA:O was trying to be lighthearted with a sprinkle of darkness. DA2 tried to be dark with a sprinkle of lightheartedness. I liked them both, but I preferred the larger helping of charm and hope.

Modifié par Commander Kurt, 14 mars 2013 - 09:37 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Commander Kurt wrote...

This thread makes me slightly sad.

I tried my damnest to like ASOIAF but two things ruined it for me; Lack of charm and lack of hope. I had similar problems with the Witcher 2 actually. It's all tragedy and despair and you learn really quickly that any glimmer of good feeling is fleeting and utterly in vain. To think that for some, this constitutes as realism is... I just hope that your real lives aren't that grim.

I can see why people like it, tragedy has always been a hit with the crowds. Just, don't hold it up as "mature" or "realistic". Angst may be the feeling you prefer, but it isn't more noble than happiness.

I think DA:O was trying to be lighthearted with a sprinkle of darkness. DA2 tried to be dark with a sprinkle of lightheartedness. I liked them both, but I preferred the larger helping of charm and hope.

Last time I went out I didn't see any knights galloping on horseback on streets.

Fictions are adaptations of real world just on a fictional background. Although the world they live in is differnet,  characters are still very much the same people as we are. TW 2 and ASOIAF are realistic in portraying out medieval power struggle and schemes, which are innately dark topics. If those two were set in the modern world, you would of course see much more peaceful plots.

DA seires on the other hand, does not convey enough realism in character motivation and plots. It's not a matter of how dark the mood or how many characters get killed; it's about individuals(characters) acting on their own goal of survival and looking out for their own interest, and DA defniately lacks it in comparison to TW2 or ASOIF.

DA doesn't necessarily have to be dark to be more realistic. Archdemon should just act soon and exercise some more causion. Nobles should protect their own interest instead of siding with a traitor. Antagonists need to try to kill the captured protagonist group immediately or at least bind them in chains to now allow an escape. All these little things will add to realism and better character motivation and no idiot balls rolling around.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 14 mars 2013 - 11:08 .

[-TC1989-]

One thing about Martin that I really respect, is he isn't afraid to hurt the reader. The people in the story that we come to love and hate, all have some kind of time clock on them. Something I don't like about alot of writers is that they'll make the big players in movies/shows/games overcome impossible odds to keep them around, so not to upset the consumer. I understand why alot of them do this, but it takes away the reality, and personally for me the immersion to always expect the hero, or big names to live on. I love a story where it seems like its going to be okay, but the next page or whatever could include serious heartbreak. Those are the stories that keep me going, to hope for, and almost afraid to read on to see if that person lives or dies.

[imbs]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...


DA seires on the other hand, does not convey enough realism in character motivation and plots. It's not a matter of how dark the mood or how many characters get killed; it's about individuals(characters) acting on their own goal of survival and looking out for their own interest, and DA defniately lacks it in comparison to TW2 or ASOIF.

This is a good point really, and is definitely a good example of why DA is not as well written as say ASOIAF. Characters are written for the moment, instead of written for what they would actually do in a given situation. On the other hand when a fan asked the writer of ASOIAF why he enjoyed killing his characters off so much he responded along the lines of "it's the other characters killing them, not me" and generally indicated that he has a hard time offing his creations. Staying true to established characters is something DA has not done particularly well.

[Brodoteau]

Commander Kurt wrote...

This thread makes me slightly sad.

I tried my damnest to like ASOIAF but two things ruined it for me; Lack of charm and lack of hope. [...]

I think DA:O was trying to be lighthearted with a sprinkle of darkness. DA2 tried to be dark with a sprinkle of lightheartedness. I liked them both, but I preferred the larger helping of charm and hope.

I understand what you mean.  I have largely given up on the Walking Dead for a similar reason.... but...  

Not to turn this into any more of a ASOIAF discussion, but I don't think you're giving the books enough credit here.  Granted the series isn't done yet, so Martin could end it on a very negative note (say with the Ramsay Bolton becoming king), but I don't think that will happen because I think that would betray the tone of the series.  

 There are good characters, sure some of them have died, but there still rests hope.  In fact, I'd argue the entire purpose of Daenerys in the books is to represent the hope of a better future (though for me, at least, she didn't become a particular interesting character until mid-way through the 3rd book).  Plus there is Bran, well really all the Starks (including Jon), and even Tyrion is a relatively hopeful character.  I could be wrong, and Martin could stab his fans in the back, but I don't think so.  As with most writing, things have to get really dark before they can get better, that's the basic plot arc that I think Martin is using -- but who knows. 

That I think is the big difference between DAO and DA2.  It comes down to the first one being the fact that there was a "good" ending and the other one doesn't have one.  The Warden saves the day, whereas Hawke starts a war.  The plot arc wasn't really finished -- arguably even the personal story of Hawke's "rise to power" wasn't really finished. 

I understand that the DA writers are in love with bittersweet but sometimes I don't think things have to be overtly dark or sad to be good.  You could argue that Lord of the Rings is bittersweet at the end, with the Shire destroyed etc., but it never loses its sense that good things occurred and that justice was done.  That's the sweet spot that DAO hit, but DA2 didn't.  

All that being said, I think DA has already stolen enough from ASOIAF without needing to borrow more. 

[Plaintiff]

HolyAvenger wrote...

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

Why?

Good question.

If anything, the Alliance gains a tactical advantage by attacking the Geth ships while they're preoccupied with the Destiny Ascension. If they wait for it to be destroyed and then charge in, then the Geth are free to devote their full attention to the Alliance.

There are several good reasons to save the council and no good reasons not to.

[Dave of Canada]

Commander Kurt wrote...

It's all tragedy and despair and you learn really quickly that any glimmer of good feeling is fleeting and utterly in vain.

That entirely depends on your definition of "glimmer of good feeling", you can't go around killing "bad" people without consequence and expect everything to be fine. Depending on your choices, you can end up unleashing total anarchy or creating some hope at a better future for some individuals.

To think that for some, this constitutes as realism is... I just hope that your real lives aren't that grim.

When someone asks for realism in grim-darkness, they're mostly asking for consequences of decisions actually having some influence. For myself, I always want no happy alternatives with the player choosing themselves what constitutes the "right" decision.

I still believe the Suicide Mission from ME2 should've had some forced deaths with you deciding who should die, who should live and actually suffering the burden of command. The "optimal" route being less deaths rather than everyone living and happily-ever after.

Look at The Walking Dead (game), good people suffer bad things and you can't save everyone. Is the "optimist" route superior than the "survivor" route? No, there's perfectely legitimate reasons to have both routes and none suffer worse consequences or "win".

I can see why people like it, tragedy has always been a hit with the crowds. Just, don't hold it up as "mature" or "realistic". Angst may be the feeling you prefer, but it isn't more noble than happiness.

Getting out unharmed, always having a way out and having everyone praise your decisions and never confronting you about them isn't very mature.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 mars 2013 - 03:29 .

[Plaintiff]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Getting out unharmed, always having a way out and having everyone praise your decisions and never confronting you about them isn't very mature.

Neither is a never-ending orgy of blood where all the participants are terrible, loathsome individuals. Neither extreme is "mature" or "realistic" or good storytelling.

Most stories that end "happily" are not as your strawman describes them, anyway. The protagonists come out on top, and are perhaps rewarded, but that does not mean that they never experience pain, or loss, or blame.

[Oohforf]

Hmm, sounds interesting.

I would also go for having a more intricate version of countries relations in Thedas and dynasties, and end up seeing this like "Antiva and Rivain enter a personal union (under Antiva)".

Modifié par Oohforf, 15 mars 2013 - 03:57 .

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

It becomes increasingly obvious mages and elves can do no wrong to you unless it's against other mages and elves, Xilizhra.

Given that I always play a mage, and that these wrongdoing mages keep trying to kill me and my mage companions, you've set this up to be almost impossible. I'm so very hurt.

[SgtElias]

MisterJB wrote...

I can see why he is so bitter and hateful as oppose to Joffrey who has no excuse.

There's not really an excuse to be as wantonly cruel as Viserys is, regardless of backstory. I'm not saying the dude didn't have a hard life, but A Song of Ice and Fire is a setting brimming with characters living a hard life, and most of them don't turn into Viserys.

One could argue DA2 nearly reached that point with the Quentin plotline. I certainly wanted to maim.

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing Quentin, but he didn't kidnap your mom and subject her to horrible, cruel acts "for the lulz." Not that his actions are okay, but there's a difference (to me, anyway) between doing heinous things, and doing heinous things because you genuinely enjoy watching everyone else suffer.

Act 1, you save a man in rags from mages/templars/whatever and he feeds you a touching history of opression; he even joins your party for a while so, you trust him. Act 2, he burns your castle to the ground, kills the entire population of your hold and gives your LI/Sibling/Best Friend the "Reek" treatment.

. . . yeah, no thank you. Ever. I'll agree to disagree on that point.

[Commander Kurt]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

This thread makes me slightly sad.

I tried my damnest to like ASOIAF but two things ruined it for me; Lack of charm and lack of hope. I had similar problems with the Witcher 2 actually. It's all tragedy and despair and you learn really quickly that any glimmer of good feeling is fleeting and utterly in vain. To think that for some, this constitutes as realism is... I just hope that your real lives aren't that grim.

I can see why people like it, tragedy has always been a hit with the crowds. Just, don't hold it up as "mature" or "realistic". Angst may be the feeling you prefer, but it isn't more noble than happiness.

I think DA:O was trying to be lighthearted with a sprinkle of darkness. DA2 tried to be dark with a sprinkle of lightheartedness. I liked them both, but I preferred the larger helping of charm and hope.

DA seires on the other hand, does not convey enough realism in character motivation and plots. It's not a matter of how dark the mood or how many characters get killed; it's about individuals(characters) acting on their own goal of survival and looking out for their own interest, and DA defniately lacks it in comparison to TW2 or ASOIF.

DA doesn't necessarily have to be dark to be more realistic. Archdemon should just act soon and exercise some more causion. Nobles should protect their own interest instead of siding with a traitor. Antagonists need to try to kill the captured protagonist group immediately or at least bind them in chains to now allow an escape. All these little things will add to realism and better character motivation and no idiot balls rolling around.

You think the AD uses tactics? It's cunning for an animal, it's not Li the Glorious Strategist. Siding with a traitor is exactly what is in the Nobles best interest, why should they want a war? I can think of no war in history that was ever due to an "unfair" power grab. Antagonist doing the James Bond villain is because the Wardens are under the protection of Arl Eamon, a powerful man and possible contender for the throne. Treason is fine, but alas, you can't do it openly

Regarding the idiot ball, I've been critical about Loghain hogging it for the entire game but the man really has nothing on the Starks. Ned, Edd and Sansa (well, the mother's no genious either) are acting well beyond reason, but I guess that's okay since they represent the good side? Having the good guys constantly making the wrong call and the bad guys constantly making the right one makes the story dark. It isn't realism, though. It's just tragedy, a story element that you seem to prefer (which is fine).

[Commander Kurt]

Brodoteau wrote...

Not to turn this into any more of a ASOIAF discussion, but I don't think you're giving the books enough credit here.  Granted the series isn't done yet, so Martin could end it on a very negative note (say with the Ramsay Bolton becoming king), but I don't think that will happen because I think that would betray the tone of the series.  

That I think is the big difference between DAO and DA2.  It comes down to the first one being the fact that there was a "good" ending and the other one doesn't have one.  The Warden saves the day, whereas Hawke starts a war.  The plot arc wasn't really finished -- arguably even the personal story of Hawke's "rise to power" wasn't really finished. 

I understand that the DA writers are in love with bittersweet but sometimes I don't think things have to be overtly dark or sad to be good.  You could argue that Lord of the Rings is bittersweet at the end, with the Shire destroyed etc., but it never loses its sense that good things occurred and that justice was done.  That's the sweet spot that DAO hit, but DA2 didn't.  

All that being said, I think DA has already stolen enough from ASOIAF without needing to borrow more. 

But even if the ending 20 years from now is all sunshine and rainbows, I just don't want to spend 20 years wallowing in despair. There are good characters left, but I just feel like Martin hasn't had time to off them yet, and that makes caring about them such a choir.

It's just too dark for me. I get pleasure out of it, but it's so unrelenting that I loose interest. Balance. That's what I want. ASOIAF has none of it.

[Gyrefalcon]

imbs wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...


DA seires on the other hand, does not convey enough realism in character motivation and plots. It's not a matter of how dark the mood or how many characters get killed; it's about individuals(characters) acting on their own goal of survival and looking out for their own interest, and DA defniately lacks it in comparison to TW2 or ASOIF.

This is a good point really, and is definitely a good example of why DA is not as well written as say ASOIAF. Characters are written for the moment, instead of written for what they would actually do in a given situation. On the other hand when a fan asked the writer of ASOIAF why he enjoyed killing his characters off so much he responded along the lines of "it's the other characters killing them, not me" and generally indicated that he has a hard time offing his creations. Staying true to established characters is something DA has not done particularly well.

You do realize that the most important thing here is that you are actually comparing a video game to a novel.  That would never have happened with Pac Man, Modern Warfare, Legend of Zelda, or Arkham Asylum.  Although the writing is "not as good as" that of George R. R. Martin's ASOIAF series, it is good enough that it is under scrutiny for its writing.  I really think the D.A. series is raising the bar for video games.  I also think that if the D.A. games were allowed as much time for writing/development as each book of George R. R. Martin's, we would have a better product. They are really working under the gun sometimes.  I'm willing to wait for good things.