455 réponses à ce sujet

[Afro_Explosion]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

zMataxa wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  This topic is assuming that the Maker which the Chantry refers to is in fact real.

If you want to discuss a hypothetical non-omnipotent being, who is posing as the Maker which the Chantry refers to, being the antagonist of DA:I, you'll need a new thread.

__________

The OP asks 'why make the Maker an antagonist' and then goes on to state what he THINKS the Maker is.
He does NOT say - assuming that the Maker is beyond dispute a deity - why then do people want to make ther Maker an antagonist.

So discussing that the Maker may actually just be a Political Gambit etc. is in line with the OP's statement (intent I cannot say for sure - as Masterscribe pointed out the punctuation needed a bit work so perhaps the initial post was rushed).  Nevertheless, it's a great topic for those who wonder out loud about the Maker in Shades of Grey.

Sorry if I'm causing confusion - my wording above could have been clearer perhaps.  Capitalisation is important here.

As far as I'm aware (though correct me if I'm wrong) 'The Maker' is an entity and phrase entirely defined by the Chantry.  As such, any and all references to 'The Maker' automatically fall under the Chantry's definition of 'The Maker'.  That said, in a broader context, the phrase 'the maker' (lower case) could be taken to mean 'the being who created Thedas (plus whatever lies beyond) and it's inhabitants', in which case it wouldn't have to meet the Chantry definition.  But, as I see it, if 'the maker' (lower case) is not 'The Maker', then 'The Maker' does not exist, and the Chantry are wrong - meaning it is impossible for 'The Maker' to be the antagonist.

The OP is expressing an opinion on 'The Maker's' personality - not whether or not 'He' exists.  It is entirely possible that 'The Maker' which the Chantry preach of is neither good or evil, or has a personality disorder (if such a thing could even be assessed).

I suck at being clear in my OP i meant  would you want him as an antagonist: do you feel he is good, evil,neutral. Do you even think he exists. You can kind of disregard most of my bull**** though, I'll never run out.

[Boiny Bunny]

The Xand wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Sorry if I'm causing confusion - my wording above could have been clearer perhaps.  Capitalisation is important here.

As far as I'm aware (though correct me if I'm wrong) 'The Maker' is an entity and phrase entirely defined by the Chantry.  As such, any and all references to 'The Maker' automatically fall under the Chantry's definition of 'The Maker'.  That said, in a broader context, the phrase 'the maker' (lower case) could be taken to mean 'the being who created Thedas (plus whatever lies beyond) and it's inhabitants', in which case it wouldn't have to meet the Chantry definition.  But, as I see it, if 'the maker' (lower case) is not 'The Maker', then 'The Maker' does not exist, and the Chantry are wrong - meaning it is impossible for 'The Maker' to be the antagonist.

The OP is expressing an opinion on 'The Maker's' personality - not whether or not 'he' exists.  It is entirely possible that 'The Maker' which the Chantry preach of is neither good or evil, or has a personality disorder (if such a thing could even be assessed).

Bull****tery of the highest order. The Maker as defined by the Chantry is entirely up for debate, and the limits of it's power and it's moral standing. You don't need to stay within the confines of the Chantry's very precise definitions of it, the mere fact they claim it exists by default opens it up to questioning by anyone and everyone.

Kindly settle down, your filthy language has no bearing on the debate, and only makes you look a fool.

'The Maker' as defined by the Chantry is indeed entirely up for debate - does it exist?  Are the Chantry correct?  Have they changed their tale of 'Him' over the years?  Are they partly correct, or have they twisted the tale in order to gain and maintain power?  Of course there is a debate to be had about various aspects of the Chantry's tale.

However, much as the word 'God' is very different to the word 'god' in our real world, 'The Maker' is very different to 'the maker'.  'The Maker' is a character in a story created by the Chantry, while 'the maker' is the being who created Thedas and the lands beyond.  Perhaps they are one and the same, perhaps not.  It is possible that 'the maker' is a 7 headed dragon - it is not possible that 'The Maker' is a 7 headed dragon.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 04 novembre 2013 - 03:37 .

[The Xand]

mx_keep13 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

zMataxa wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  This topic is assuming that the Maker which the Chantry refers to is in fact real.

If you want to discuss a hypothetical non-omnipotent being, who is posing as the Maker which the Chantry refers to, being the antagonist of DA:I, you'll need a new thread.

__________

The OP asks 'why make the Maker an antagonist' and then goes on to state what he THINKS the Maker is.
He does NOT say - assuming that the Maker is beyond dispute a deity - why then do people want to make ther Maker an antagonist.

So discussing that the Maker may actually just be a Political Gambit etc. is in line with the OP's statement (intent I cannot say for sure - as Masterscribe pointed out the punctuation needed a bit work so perhaps the initial post was rushed).  Nevertheless, it's a great topic for those who wonder out loud about the Maker in Shades of Grey.

Sorry if I'm causing confusion - my wording above could have been clearer perhaps.  Capitalisation is important here.

As far as I'm aware (though correct me if I'm wrong) 'The Maker' is an entity and phrase entirely defined by the Chantry.  As such, any and all references to 'The Maker' automatically fall under the Chantry's definition of 'The Maker'.  That said, in a broader context, the phrase 'the maker' (lower case) could be taken to mean 'the being who created Thedas (plus whatever lies beyond) and it's inhabitants', in which case it wouldn't have to meet the Chantry definition.  But, as I see it, if 'the maker' (lower case) is not 'The Maker', then 'The Maker' does not exist, and the Chantry are wrong - meaning it is impossible for 'The Maker' to be the antagonist.

The OP is expressing an opinion on 'The Maker's' personality - not whether or not 'He' exists.  It is entirely possible that 'The Maker' which the Chantry preach of is neither good or evil, or has a personality disorder (if such a thing could even be assessed).

I suck at being clear in my OP i meant  would you want him as an antagonist: do you feel he is good, evil,neutral. Do you even think he exists. You can kind of disregard most of my bull**** though, I'll never run out.

It's all right we got what you meant.

For anyone having trouble filtering out the meandering pretension in Bunny Boi's post, his main point was that if the Chantry is wrong then the Maker doesn't exist in any form and if it does exist then it has to fall within the boundaries of the Chantry's definition of it, and as such is beyond mortal comprehension.

Which is ofc ridonkulous because even the Chantry's own definitions of the Maker leave it well open to interpretation, and it could blatantly still exist even if they were wrong.

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Kindly settle down, your filthy language has no bearing on the debate, and only makes you look a fool.

'The
Maker' as defined by the Chantry is indeed entirely up for debate -
does it exist?  Are the Chantry correct?  Have they changed their tale
of 'Him' over the years?  Are they partly correct, or have they twisted
the tale in order to gain and maintain power?  Of course there is a
debate to be had about various aspects of the Chantry's tale.

However,
much as the word 'God' is very different to the word 'god' in our real
world, 'The Maker' is very different to 'the maker'.  'The Maker' is a
character in a story created by the Chantry, while 'the maker' is the
being who created Thedas and the lands beyond.  Perhaps they are one and
the same, perhaps not.  It is possible that 'the maker' is a 7 headed
dragon - it is not possible that 'The Maker' is a 7 headed dragon.

So to summarise; pedantics.

Allow me to correct you in terms I'm sure even you would understand. The Maker can still be the Maker even if it's only a maker.

It is entirely possible for the Maker to be a 7 headed dragon. Unless you've some hitherto unknown insight the Chantry doesn't as to what their own god looks like?

Modifié par The Xand, 04 novembre 2013 - 03:44 .

[zMataxa]

The Xand wrote...

I just want to see them do something creative rather than play it safe with the usual grand unknowable uber benevolent being of modern Christianity. Their god was so much cooler when he was in full Old Testament mode. Much more flavoursome character. That's probably why atheist takes on theology in fantasy works tend to be much more interesting and creative.

_______________________

I so agree.  Creative exploration of the whole construct of "the Maker" et al.  could be very enlightening and flavorful as heck.
But I'm guessing, it may be a tough choice for writers/devs in terms of their fanbase in terms of keeping them interested in the world.  Often it's just one step at a time breaking out of molds. 

RE: Old Testament God.  More flavorful yes.  But I'd hesitate to reference "him" - it just has the good potential for opening old wounds and inflaming protective instincts.  I can see why you would wish such an archetype included in a story and I agree 100% it would be fascinating.  Myself, I wouldn't bring out the comparison to the ole Testament God into the public space.  In most cases,  I think you just lose more than you win, even though some days it sure feels like it needs to be said.
So back to your main idea about creativity AND religion/cosmos AND Flavors galore - Oh God yes!

[The Xand]

zMataxa wrote...

_______________________

I so agree.  Creative exploration of the whole construct of "the Maker" et al.  could be very enlightening and flavorful as heck.
But I'm guessing, it may be a tough choice for writers/devs in terms of their fanbase in terms of keeping them interested in the world.  Often it's just one step at a time breaking out of molds. 

RE: Old Testament God.  More flavorful yes.  But I'd hesitate to reference "him" - it just has the good potential for opening old wounds and inflaming protective instincts.  I can see why you would wish such an archetype included in a story and I agree 100% it would be fascinating.  Myself, I wouldn't bring out the comparison to the ole Testament God into the public space.  In most cases,  I think you just lose more than you win, even though some days it sure feels like it needs to be said.
So back to your main idea about creativity AND religion/cosmos AND Flavors galore - Oh God yes!

It being a potentally pretty explosive and controversial approach to take does seem to be the general consensus sadly, but it wouldn't be all that surprising. They already created their own Joan of Arc/Jesus hybrid and turned it's ashes into the Holy Grail.

Given their fondness for inversion of tropes, it would be amusing to see the Catholic styled Chantry transform into a more Old Testament religion and their Abrahamic styled god see a similar regression.

[The Xand]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Xand wrote...

God of War had like a dozen different deicides and was all the better for it.

Is this a serious statement? Are you REALLY serious here?

You DO know that God of War is a series that FOLLOWS a line of Greek deities, right? It's not some random game that "happens" to have gods and they let you fight one. It's literally about the Greek gods.

That is not applicable to Dragon Age. At all.

Dragon Age is more about the wacky misadventures of Flemeth and her unwitting pawns.

[Boiny Bunny]

The Xand wrote...

For anyone having trouble filtering out the meandering pretension in Bunny Boi's post, his main point was that if the Chantry is wrong then the Maker doesn't exist in any form and if it does exist then it has to fall within the boundaries of the Chantry's definition of it, and as such is beyond mortal comprehension.

Which is ofc ridonkulous because even the Chantry's own definitions of the Maker leave it well open to interpretation, and it could blatantly still exist even if they were wrong.

Incorrect.  My point was that there is a potential difference between 'The Maker' (an entity spoken of in Chantry lore) and 'the maker' (the being which created Thedas and the lands beyond).  The Chantry defined 'The Maker' themselves - if they are wrong, then 'The Maker' as they have defined, does not exist.  However, 'the maker' could still exist.

Of course, it is also possible that Thedas and the lands beyond were not created by an entity, thus neither of 'The Maker' nor 'the maker' exist.

I suspect part of the confusion here is arising from the fact that the Chantry decided to name 'The Maker' after 'His' supposed deed.  If instead they had used a name like 'Bob', perhaps it would be easier to see the potential line.

The Chantry's own definitions are in some respects open to interpretation of course - which serves to broaden the scope of possibilities for beings that could be 'The Maker'.  If the Chantry haven't specifically specified that 'The Maker' is of the human form, then perhaps 'He' could be a 7 headed dragon.  Having not studied DA lore outside of the games in great detail, I don't know the exact details of what is left unsaid - however, that isn't overly relevant to this debate.  Pick some characteristic which the Chantry does specify in definite terms, like gender.

The Chantry quite clearly states that 'The Maker' is a 'He' (assuming such en entity would even possess a physical body?  Another debate entirely).  Let's call Him 'Bob' to avoid confusion between the character in their story and the action of making the world.  If in the events of DA:I, it was discovered that the entity which created Thedas and the lands beyond (which one could call 'the maker') was in fact a female, then 'Bob' has been proven to not exist.  There is indeed a 'maker', but not 'The Maker' which the Chantry speak of.

If you still can't see what I mean, I doubt anything further I could say will help you to understand my perspective.  At any rate, whatever your definition of 'The Maker' or 'the maker' might be, or your view on their potential omnipotence, my point of entering this thread was simply to state my distaste for the plot idea that the PC is able to kill a 'god' of some form.  I'll leave this particular conversation at that.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 04 novembre 2013 - 04:02 .

[zMataxa]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Sorry if I'm causing confusion - my wording above could have been clearer perhaps.  Capitalisation is important here.

As far as I'm aware (though correct me if I'm wrong) 'The Maker' is an entity and phrase entirely defined by the Chantry.  As such, any and all references to 'The Maker' automatically fall under the Chantry's definition of 'The Maker'.  That said, in a broader context, the phrase 'the maker' (lower case) could be taken to mean 'the being who created Thedas (plus whatever lies beyond) and it's inhabitants', in which case it wouldn't have to meet the Chantry definition.  But, as I see it, if 'the maker' (lower case) is not 'The Maker', then 'The Maker' does not exist, and the Chantry are wrong - meaning it is impossible for 'The Maker' to be the antagonist.

The OP is expressing an opinion on 'The Maker's' personality - not whether or not 'He' exists.  It is entirely possible that 'The Maker' which the Chantry preach of is neither good or evil, or has a personality disorder (if such a thing could even be assessed).

____________

Ahhhh, I think I  get you.
Your mind has divided this into different constructs.  I can see that as a good tool to separate things.

OP since has now kindly come (I saw while skipping ahead of this post of yours) and clarified that this was all open for discussion, including existence.  It was admittedly confusing - but interesting complex topics sometimes get rushed out the door.  Heck even big studios and software companies do this.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 novembre 2013 - 03:57 .

[The Xand]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

The Xand wrote...

For anyone having trouble filtering out the meandering pretension in Bunny Boi's post, his main point was that if the Chantry is wrong then the Maker doesn't exist in any form and if it does exist then it has to fall within the boundaries of the Chantry's definition of it, and as such is beyond mortal comprehension.

Which is ofc ridonkulous because even the Chantry's own definitions of the Maker leave it well open to interpretation, and it could blatantly still exist even if they were wrong.

Incorrect.  My point was that there is a potential difference between 'The Maker' (an entity spoken of in Chantry lore) and 'the maker' (the being which created Thedas and the lands beyond).  The Chantry defined 'The Maker' themselves - if they are wrong, then 'The Maker' as they have defined, does not exist.  However, 'the maker' could still exist.

Of course, it is also possible that Thedas and the lands beyond were not created by an entity, thus neither of 'The Maker' nor 'the maker' exist.

I suspect part of the confusion here is arising from the fact that the Chantry decided to name 'The Maker' after 'His' supposed deed.  If instead they had used a name like 'Bob', perhaps it would be easier to see the potential line.

The Chantry's own definitions are in some respects open to interpretation of course - which serves to broaden the scope of possibilities for beings that could be 'The Maker'.  If the Chantry haven't specifically specified that 'The Maker' is of the human form, then perhaps 'He' could be a 7 headed dragon.  Having not studied DA lore outside of the games in great detail, I don't know the exact details of what is left unsaid - however, that isn't overly relevant to this debate.  Pick some characteristic which the Chantry does specify in definite terms, like gender.

The Chantry quite clearly states that 'The Maker' is a 'He' (assuming such en entity would even possess a physical body?  Another debate entirely).  Let's call Him 'Bob' to avoid confusion between the character in their story and the action of making the world.  If in the events of DA:I, it was discovered that the entity which created Thedas and the lands beyond (which one could call 'the maker') was in fact a female, then 'Bob' has been proven to not exist.  There is indeed a 'maker', but not 'The Maker' which the Chantry speak of.

"The Maker can still be the Maker even if it's only a maker."

It's just a title dude. Personally I think their Maker is a powerful primeval demon/spirit masquerading as a creator god.

Modifié par The Xand, 04 novembre 2013 - 04:05 .

[zMataxa]

The Xand wrote...

It being a potentally pretty explosive and controversial approach to take does seem to be the general consensus sadly, but it wouldn't be all that surprising. They already created their own Joan of Arc/Jesus hybrid and turned it's ashes into the Holy Grail.

Given their fondness for inversion of tropes, it would be amusing to see the Catholic styled Chantry transform into a more Old Testament religion and their Abrahamic styled god see a similar regression.

______________
Bioware sure has the potential - I mean the whole ME series dealt with all kinds of questions.

That would be salacious if they added more religious symbols raising questions about how it all hangs together.  That's a good salacious for my tastes.

What could they do in DAI to trump Ashes and corrupting figurines?
Ahhhh the intrigue.
Imagine the templar vs mages threads then?  May even trump the romance threads?

[Boiny Bunny]

The Xand wrote...

"The Maker can still be the Maker even if it's only a maker."

It's just a title dude. Personally I think their Maker is a powerful primeval demon/spirit masquerading as a creator god.

  Well, apologies for being pedantic.  What you've said there would make a pretty interesting plot twist.  The question I would then want to ask is, if this demon is masquerading as the creator god, what happened to the actual creator god?  Abandoned its faithful in disgust?  Trapped/banished/killed by other gods?

[HiroVoid]

MasterScribe wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

I want it to stay ambigous. For him to provably not be real would be my second choice. Bonus points if the Chantry higher-ups knew this all along.

So Final Fantasy X?

Or reality? 

I would generally think most religious leaders in the world do actually believe in their religion.

[Boiny Bunny]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

I'm curious - why don't you want Him to be real (as opposed to say, just being ambiguous about it as DA:O and DA2 have been so far)?

[The Xand]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

The Xand wrote...

"The Maker can still be the Maker even if it's only a maker."

It's just a title dude. Personally I think their Maker is a powerful primeval demon/spirit masquerading as a creator god.

  Well, apologies for being pedantic.  What you've said there would make a pretty interesting plot twist.  The question I would then want to ask is, if this demon is masquerading as the creator god, what happened to the actual creator god?  Abandoned its faithful in disgust?  Trapped/banished/killed by other gods?

And my own apologies for being so brusque. We Scots are a contentious people.

As to the actual creator god, I have not a scooby. If it turned out the Maker the Chantry worships is just a powerful Fade entity masquerading as a creator god that at least gives the Bioware team leeway to work it into future stories, possibly even allow you to confront it without offending anyone and not seeming somewhat implausible. Killing the bona fide creator of the universe seems a little far fetched even for an atheist. That would still leave the question open as to who created the world of Thedas, and allow for the existence of a genuine Abrahamic style god.

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'm curious - why don't you want Him
to be real (as opposed to say, just being ambiguous about it as DA:O and
DA2 have been so far)?

I can't speak for others but I can say that I myself find the prospect of the Maker being the genuine article very jarring and out of touch with the rest of DA's overall themes, which thrives on inverting established tropes and making everything much grittier and "down and dirty". The elves for example are no longer aloof and immortal beings of innate superiority over the other races and *sniffs* the dwarves no longer "stouthearted Scots" but "conniving political schemers" .

Modifié par The Xand, 04 novembre 2013 - 04:24 .

[TEWR]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Xand wrote...

Dragon Age is more about the wacky misadventures of Flemeth and her unwitting pawns.

Dragon Age is about Thedas, not any one person or entity alone.

Plot twist: Flemeth is Thedas' life essence in corporeal form.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 novembre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Schneidend]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plot twist: Flemeth is Thedas' life essence in corporeal form.

Eh, I dunno. Warcraft already kind of did the "dragons are the aspects of the planet, and they can take human form" deal.

[zMataxa]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Xand wrote...

Dragon Age is more about the wacky misadventures of Flemeth and her unwitting pawns.

Dragon Age is about Thedas, not any one person or entity alone.

Plot twist: Flemeth is Thedas' life essence in corporeal form.

______________

LOL!  Now that is a plot twist.
A surrealist brush stroke if I've ever seen one.
I'm guessing some fans are gonna need a few kegs of ale before they appreciate that one.

[Plaintiff]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

I'm curious - why don't you want Him to be real (as opposed to say, just being ambiguous about it as DA:O and DA2 have been so far)?

Well, if they leave it ambiguous, I'm going to assume "not real", so I bundle the two ideas together in my head. Either way, the Maker's existence won't have any relevance to the narrative.

I don't like 'God' characters (by which I mean actual deity characters with omnipotence) in fiction generally, and I'm not fond of characters with 'god-level' powers, either.

When people include gods in their stories, one of two things happen:

1) The god acts as a literal deus ex machina, solving all narrative conflict instantly. This rarely works well.

2) To prevent the first thing from happening, the author pulls some arbitrary rule out of their ass to explain how gods are prevented from directly interfering in mortal affairs. In effect, this renders the god character pointless.

As for the whole "Haha deity is secretly evil and/or not really omnipotent" plot twist, I have nothing in particular against it, except that it comes up a lot. Especially in JRPGs. Final Fantasy X, XII and XIII all did it. Tales of Xillia did it. Thats four just off the top of my head.

You have to be careful with the power you give any character; if you give them too much, you disrupt the logic of the setting and create plotholes in the narrative. When I played Bioshock Infinite, for instance, I spent a lot of time wondering why Elizabeth needed anyone's help to escape at all. It was established early in the plot that she wasn't capable of opening new tears in reality, but there was nothing at all stopping her from opening a pre-existing tear and simply walking through it. In fact, she states that she's done it before, multiple times, but always chose to come back because.... no reason.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 04 novembre 2013 - 04:54 .

[Plaintiff]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

You cannot both hate and deny the Maker.

I don't hate The Maker, I hate the concept of a maker.

[Boiny Bunny]

Plaintiff wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

I'm curious - why don't you want Him to be real (as opposed to say, just being ambiguous about it as DA:O and DA2 have been so far)?

Well, if they leave it ambiguous, I'm going to assume "not real", so I bundle the two ideas together in my head. Either way, the Maker's existence won't have any relevance to the narrative.

I don't like 'God' characters (by which I mean actual deity characters with omnipotence) in fiction generally, and I'm not fond of characters with 'god-level' powers, either.

When people include gods in their stories, one of two things happen:

1) The god acts as a literal deus ex machina, solving all narrative conflict instantly. This rarely works well.

2) To prevent the first thing from happening, the author pulls some arbitrary rule out of their ass to explain how gods are prevented from directly interfering in mortal affairs. In effect, this renders the god character pointless.

As for the whole "Haha deity is secretly evil and/or not really omnipotent" plot twist, I have nothing in particular against it, except that it comes up a lot. Especially in JRPGs. Final Fantasy X, XII and XIII all did it. Tales of Xillia did it. Thats four just off the top of my head.

You have to be careful with the power you give any character; if you give them too much, you disrupt the logic of the setting and create plotholes in the narrative. When I played Bioshock Infinite, for instance, I spent a lot of time wondering why Elizabeth needed anyone's help to escape at all. It was established early in the plot that she wasn't capable of opening new tears in reality, but there was nothing at all stopping her from opening a pre-existing tear and simply walking through it. In fact, she states that she's done it before, multiple times, but always chose to come back because.... no reason.

Great answer.  To be honest, I've always found plots involving darker elements of the human personality to be more interesting than something that we don't understand and have no control over coming to destroy the world (e.g. evil god, Darkspawn, etc.)

Unfortunately, DA2 didn't quite do it for me in that regard (though I respect the decision to have a good go at it!)  I'd be much more interested in seeing (if/)how higher up Chantry members use their positions to control the political system, or make themselves rich, or oppress a particular group of people, etc. than having the Maker pop up at the end of the game with a nice deus ex machina on a platter.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:03 .

[Plaintiff]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
Great answer.  To be honest, I've always found plots involving darker elements of the human personality to be more interesting than something that we don't understand and have no control over coming to destroy the world (e.g. evil god, Darkspawn, etc.)

Generically 'evil' races bore me also.

I make an exception for Lovecraft-style shenanigans, where "god" is merely the name we give to forces whose nature and motives are beyond our understanding.

Unfortunately, DA2 didn't quite do it for me in that regard (though I respect the decision to have a good go at it!)  I'd be much more interested in seeing (if/)how higher up Chantry members use their positions to control the political system, or make themselves rich, or oppress a particular group of people, etc. than having the Maker pop up at the end of the game with a nice deus ex machina on a platter.

In recent years my interest has leaned towards smaller-scale narratives, where the characters are driven by more personal and (to me) relatable goals. Less of 'the entire world is at stake' and more of 'my specific goals are threatened'. I found DA2 more appealing for that reason; it wasn't about fixing the world, it was about an individual trying to protect the people close to them.

Another example; in Skyrim (which I mostly disliked), I found the Thieves Guild questline by far the most compelling thing in the entire game. My focus in my own fantasy/sci-fi writing is very much on the outcasts of my fictional societies; the thieves, pirates & outlaws, prostitutes, the poor and homeless, etc. Another reason that DA2 appealed to me is because it dealt a lot with that kind of thing, especially early on.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:39 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

MasterScribe wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't want the Maker to be an antagonist.

I want him to not be real.

I want it to stay ambigous. For him to provably not be real would be my second choice. Bonus points if the Chantry higher-ups knew this all along.

So Final Fantasy X?

Or reality? 

Nah, most real world religions aren't worshiping something that wants to kill them all, and end the world, and is actively doing so. They usually worship nothing, and a whole lot of it, with most of their deity being something that isn't on the empirical or material plane at all, so outside of freaky imagination becoming real powers, it's doubtful the thing they worship will actually come and hurt/kill people.

Following the maker being an antagonist, it would be an exact rip off of what final fantasy X did with sin.

And it would just be "prothean 2.0" or "forerunner 2.0" where this thing we thought was great and ended up being a corner stone in all our civilizations and progress is not made by something evil, but something that actively wants to kill everything alive.

Yay originality. <_< Wonder if evil maker will take the form of a child and make us pick between red, blue, and green lyrium veins.

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:33 .