187 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

Heroes aren't neutral.

I love being the hero that acts indifferent and tries not to take sides throughout the game, but I completely understand them forcing you to eventually pick a side. Because you wouldn't be the hero everyone talks about if you didn't.

[andy6915]

BubbleDncr wrote...

Heroes aren't neutral.

I love being the hero that acts indifferent and tries not to take sides throughout the game, but I completely understand them forcing you to eventually pick a side. Because you wouldn't be the hero everyone talks about if you didn't.

And what if you don't care to be a hero? A Hawke who says "I don't want to get involved" during the side choosing in the Last Straw certainly doesn't want to get involved, but you're forced to anwyay.

[BubbleDncr]

andy69156915 wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Heroes aren't neutral.

I love being the hero that acts indifferent and tries not to take sides throughout the game, but I completely understand them forcing you to eventually pick a side. Because you wouldn't be the hero everyone talks about if you didn't.

And what if you don't care to be a hero? A Hawke who says "I don't want to get involved" during the side choosing in the Last Straw certainly doesn't want to get involved, but you're forced to anwyay.

You can roleplay Hawke to not want to be involved all you want - that's pretty much my cannon Warden and cannon Hawke's outlook. But eventually, I am fine with the game forcing me to choose a side. Just like most people eventually have to pick a college and move out of their parents' house. If Hawke/Warden doesn't pick a side, there is no exciting climax to the game - if people don't move out of their parents house, they're doomed to the  monoteny of living with their parents forever. Or their parenst just kick them out and force life upon them. Which I guess is the equivelent of the game just forcing a side on you.

The whole plot of DA2 is "Who is the Champion of Kirkwall?" It pretty much says it on the box. Which means by the end of the game, Hawke has to do something important. Which means Hawke has to pick a side.

Modifié par BubbleDncr, 15 avril 2013 - 10:35 .

[Zeldrik1389]

andy69156915 wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Heroes aren't neutral.

I love being the hero that acts indifferent and tries not to take sides throughout the game, but I completely understand them forcing you to eventually pick a side. Because you wouldn't be the hero everyone talks about if you didn't.

And what if you don't care to be a hero? A Hawke who says "I don't want to get involved" during the side choosing in the Last Straw certainly doesn't want to get involved, but you're forced to anwyay.

Out of mere curiosity, but I kinda wonder how would the game end if that "I don't want to get involved" option was accepted. Imagine Hawke just walk away with Kirkwall crumble behind him, and the tale ends with Hawke live happily ever after with his/ her LI on some tropical island lol

Modifié par Zeldrik1389, 15 avril 2013 - 10:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BubbleDncr wrote...

Heroes aren't neutral.

That these games assume we are heroic is a massive problem.

Well, no, let me rephrase that.  BioWare has usually assumed the PC to be heroic, but in most of their games it was still possible to play an unheroic character despite BioWare's lack of intended support for that playstyle.

That we are forced to play a heroic character is a massive problem.  We were not so forced as recently as DAO.

[Medhia Nox]

Neutral isn't necessarily apathetic in this case.

Neutral is believing that neither of these sides is correct - more importantly, that both are wrong.

In a battle - you can be neutral to the plight of a group, but still fight a war.

You think the Russians were really torn up about the plight of the Jews during World War II? No - they hated the fascist Germans. Doesn't change the fact that many Jewish prisoners were liberated by the Russian army.

I despise both Templars and Mages. Mages moreso only because I think any plea for egalitarianism is willful ignorance and openly duplicitous. Templars are just another fascist group in need of being dissolved and re-made as a secular body of the monarchs of Thedas.

I am "neutral" to their reasons for fighting - I am "neutral" to their passion - I am hostile to their actions.

[Bleachrude]

Medhia Nox wrote...

 Templars are just another fascist group in need of being dissolved and re-made as a secular body of the monarchs of Thedas.

 

I've seen this multiple times but I don't think it makes a difference AT ALL.  All it does is change who the templars answer to and they become part of that's state military (aka, they will be used for war).

People point to Ferelden as to what could happen (the fereldens probably won't be using their templars/mages aggressively) but would the crows of Antiva (who actually run the country) be so inclined to not use the powers now given to them?

As much as the orlesians and the chantry are looked as one, the orlesian chantry has never allowed/used the templars (or the circle mages frot hat matter) against other andrastrian countries that follow the white divine.

The most it has done has been not coming out against the invasion of ferelden and even the orlesians could take issue with that as the neverans have taken orlesian lands and the chantry hasn't said anything against Neverra.

With secular control, this non-interference by mages/templars will go out the window....

[LobselVith8]

Bleachrude wrote...

As much as the orlesians and the chantry are looked as one, the orlesian chantry has never allowed/used the templars (or the circle mages frot hat matter) against other andrastrian countries that follow the white divine. 

Against other Andrastian nations? Not that we know, although it was mentioned in Asunder the Circle of Orlais could have been utilized by the Empress to deal with the brewing civil war before the Circles broke free from the Chantry, so that may not really be the case. Against the Dales and the Qunari? That's another matter entirely.

[Blarg]

I have the same issue with everything Star Wars. I don't like the Jedi/Republic, I don't like the Sith/Empire, and I won't join a crime syndicate. So what can I do? Nothing. Games just haven't developed to that point yet, where a player can affiliate exactly how they want.

[Nightdragon8]

you know now that i think of it... wont DA3 run into the same problems as ME3 about the story after DA3... I mean think about it even if its just 2 choices they can be very world changing choices that will effect it in DA4.

I mean if you go pro mage. wouldn't the outcome be more fredom for mages thus while circles will still be around for teaching it wont be prisons for mages.

And in a pro Templar it will pretty much go back to what it was in DA:O, DA2....

so in reality they have to think up a story for 2 games insted of the one. Now I have an idea in how they can make the work load for DA4 to a minium. And that is by "nameless" NPCs just having a few mages walking around talking would be enough to "make a change in the world" so it can be changed but also not as hard on the furture storytellers.

[Nightdragon8]

come to think of it isn't that pretty much what the seekers are?? not pro templar or pro mage, just trying to stop the war and find out how it started?

[LobselVith8]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

come to think of it isn't that pretty much what the seekers are?? not pro templar or pro mage, just trying to stop the war and find out how it started?

The Seekers of Truth are tied to the Order of Templars; the original Inquisition that hunted down mages and heretics became the Seekers and the templars (because of Emperor Drakon). It's simply that Cassandra and (it seems) some of her people are working for Divine Justina V.

[Senya]

The Original Inquisition sounded like loose canons, hunting mages down no matter who they were. I think the Circle system was as much about allaying the Inquisition's and the general populace's fears as much as the Mage's wish to be free of persecution (as imperfect as the Circle system is.)

When the Chantry (or Emperor Drakon) received command of the Inquisition, it was changed into Templars monitor Mages and Seekers monitoring Templars as a check on their power. At least, that was how it was originally conceived. Templars and Seekers varied from person to person and Age to Age as they were human and varied this way.

I think the Inquisition is reformed in order to become what the Seekers were originally conceived to be as well as being given the authority and autonomy to seek peace and a balance of power between Mages and Templars and/or maybe find a new solution to the conflict.