243 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Dave of Canada: I agree, even if mine wouldn't become that.

Heresy!

I'm just worried that to avoid the already prelevant real-world Inquisition parallels, the option won't be presented at risk of offending everyone.

David7204 wrote...

In my mind, you have no justification for being surprised or upset at encountering heroism in a game with overwhelmingly obvious heroic themes and tones.

Knowing what themes are presented in the series would certainly give your point credibility.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:58 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

In my mind, you have no justification for being surprised or upset at encountering heroism in a game with overwhelmingly obvious heroic themes and tones.

They're not objectively heroic themes or tones. The heroicness that you see is what I see as practical.

That's what interpretation is David. It's subjective. You have this massive problem of thinking that what you is the absolute truth. It really isn't. Especially for a game series that (mods forgive me for saying this yet again) you haven't played.

Why save the world? Not to be a hero. But because I want to live. 

I can save the world for selfish reasons. I don't have to be a good guy to do it.

All I need to do is recognize that my existence is threatened by something else. If I want to keep living, then I obviously have to do something about it.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Dave of Canada]

My favourite DA:O protagonist is my King Cousland, it's all really headcanon (and I'll acknowledge it) but I like using the Blight to power-play and make the Cousland house take hold of 3/4 of the kingdom and weakening Redcliffe so it's insignificant. No one can really oppose King Cousland except Alistair and he was beheaded.

All the while I've secured the people's adoration because I'm the mythical "Hero of Ferelden."

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:02 .

[Barquiel]

I'd prefer ruthless (renegade) choices which don't make the protagonist look like a jerk or a sociopath. Especially the renegade path in ME has often been the evil/racist sociopathic, violent thug approach...and not so much an "ends justify the means/victory at all cost sort" mindset. Dragon Age was always a bit better in that aspect, imo.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Dave of Canada: I agree, even if mine wouldn't become that.

Heresy!

I'm just worried that to avoid the already prelevant real-world Inquisition parallels, the option won't be presented at risk of offending everyone.

Hey, I'm fine with that. That's the great thing about player choice and agency.

They can make their character be whoever they want them to be.

[Medhia Nox]

@Dave of Canada: Oh, I think it will be there.

Granted, I don't think you're going to get your Ordos Hereticus going... but I think you'll have plenty of implied nasty.

However - I might be enticed to play a Vlad Tepes type. Leave a forest of impaled Qunari for the Arishok and a sign that says: "Come at me brah!"

[David7204]

I know what I've encountered in the interviews and trailers. Which is overwhelming. A single person standing against a great evil? Rising above a society and world that drags everyone else down? It's very clear. Very heroic. And that doesn't even tough imagery. A young, attractive man or woman in shining armor wielding a sword?

Modifié par David7204, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Ianamus]

I liked the idea of Dragon Age 2, to have a more personal story where there was no "big bad", but a variety of different shades of grey.

But it sort of fell apart on a narrative level for me because of those things.

The more personal story was good, but the time skips, while handled alright from a narrative standpoint, suffered from the fact that nothing outside of the narrative actually changed with the time-skips. The story tried to act as if Kirkwall was evolving, but it wasn't. Everything looked the same, everyone stood in the same spots, the atmosphere in different parts of the city was exactly the same.

Another issue was that since the three acts each dealt with their own conflict there was no real singular purpose underlining the entire story. Sometimes the only real reason to move forward with the game was to see what would happen next, rather than actually having a clear goal at all times. The story was at its best when the tension with the Qunari reached the tipping point and you wanted to see how it would end, and at it's worst at the beginning of Act 3 when you are meandering around with no goal now the Qunari threat is gone.

And finally, while the idea of having no "big bad" was good, it meant that an awful lot of antagonists ended up being handed the insanity card as justification for their actions. Some of the antogonists like Petrice were written very well, but a dozen more only had "crazy" as their motivation. Far too many, by the end of the game.

Modifié par EJ107, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

In my mind, you have no justification for being surprised or upset at encountering heroism in a game with overwhelmingly obvious heroic themes and tones.

Expect doesn't have that since you can obviously play the opposite of heroic

[David7204]

To a limited extent. Choices never have and never will extend forever. Besides, the consequences of those choices must be considered as well.

[Medhia Nox]

@AresKeith: While they're called anti-heroes now just so people can feel like they're going against the grain - classical heroes were anything but "good" people.

An anti-hero is still a hero.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I know what I've encountered in the interviews and trailers. Which is overwhelming. A single person standing against a great evil? Rising above a society and world that drags everyone else down? It's very clear. Very heroic. And that doesn't even tough imagery. A young, attractive man or woman in shining armor wielding a sword?

That's your perspective on it. And not one I share.

Hero's don't have to be rising against a great evil (which is completely subjective). I don't hate something like the Reapers or the Darkspawn. I see that we have two incompatible views of life, and they aren't willing to budge, so I have no choice but to face them.

I don't have to view my enemy as evil. I don't have to hate my enemy. I don't even have to have a heroic motivation.

I don't have to be a young, attractive person to be a 'hero'. 

And a society and world that drags everybody else down? No. I can wax poetical about social darwinism, or I can simply say that you don't know much about Thedas, which is understandable since you haven't played the game.

[Dabrikishaw]

I enjoy saving the world stories more than personal ones. Bring it on.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Barquiel wrote...

I'd prefer ruthless (renegade) choices which don't make the protagonist look like a jerk or a sociopath. Especially the renegade path in ME has often been the evil/racist sociopathic, violent thug approach...and not so much an "ends justify the means/victory at all cost sort" mindset. Dragon Age was always a bit better in that aspect, imo.

I prefer the ability for the PC to be whatever the player wants him to be. If the player want the PC to be a racist, sociopathic jerk, power to them. As long as he gets the job done, I don't care who he is.

[AresKeith]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@AresKeith: While they're called anti-heroes now just so people can feel like they're going against the grain - classical heroes were anything but "good" people.

An anti-hero is still a hero.

I know there anti-heroes

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I like playing as unfettered neutral/neutral evil characters. I like playing as magnificent bastards. I like playing as characters who like to kill, or think society is weak, and who can sympathize with the villain. I like being able to choose sides. I like being able to think for myself and choose for myself what is 'good' and what isn't.

[Milan92]

I wouldn't mind playing an anti-hero.

[Nole]

I love being the bad guy.

[SgtSteel91]

I like to play as a good guy, 'traditional' hero who tries to be diplomatic and nice to others and who will try to save everyone. I may not understand or agree with those who want to play as a jerk ass anti hero, but if you want to play that way go ahead. Last time I checked Dragon Age was not a cooperative game.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 28 novembre 2013 - 06:31 .

[Medhia Nox]

@SgtSteel91: You didn't ask but...

That's not the traditional hero.

Achillies, Gilgamesh and Hercules are tradition heroes - and they're all rather rotten as far as people go.

The original hero - was today's anti-hero.

Today's hero, is the hero of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics... the Bibles Christ - the Gita's Arjuna - Gautama Buddha - Confucius' Analects.

[SgtSteel91]

Well I guess I meant an anti-anti hero then.<_<

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 28 novembre 2013 - 07:08 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

I know what I've encountered in the interviews and trailers. Which is overwhelming. A single person standing against a great evil?

Wrong.

Rising above a society and world that drags everyone else down?

Unfounded.

It's very clear. Very heroic. And that doesn't even tough imagery. A young, attractive man or woman in shining armor wielding a sword?

Not enough evidence to even be considered a theory.

1/10 troll harder hero sandwich.

[Silfren]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@AresKeith: While they're called anti-heroes now just so people can feel like they're going against the grain - classical heroes were anything but "good" people.

An anti-hero is still a hero.

They're not called anti-heroes now so that people can "feel like they're going against the grain."  The fact is, the connotation of hero has changed.  That's just the nature of language.  Anti-hero is a term created to encompass this more modern connotation.  It has nothing to do with making people feel like they're doing something new and edgy or whatever. 

[Silfren]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SgtSteel91: You didn't ask but...

That's not the traditional hero.

Achillies, Gilgamesh and Hercules are tradition heroes - and they're all rather rotten as far as people go.

The original hero - was today's anti-hero.

Today's hero, is the hero of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics... the Bibles Christ - the Gita's Arjuna - Gautama Buddha - Confucius' Analects.

Those are the original heroes, sure, the heroes from the classical period.  But the modern tradition is exactly as SgtSteel91 suggested.  Maybe it's just a matter of nitpicking the terminology, but it's not entirely accurate to suggest that the history of heroic literature is one big monolith with a definitive cut off between exactly two forms of the "real" traditional heroes and all that new stuff. 

Hero doesn't mean what it used to.  People nowadays think of a hero as being a person with a morally good alignment.  This isn't inaccurate, it's simply the evolution of the concept.

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I like playing as unfettered neutral/neutral evil characters. I like playing as magnificent bastards. I like playing as characters who like to kill, or think society is weak, and who can sympathize with the villain. I like being able to choose sides. I like being able to think for myself and choose for myself what is 'good' and what isn't.

Agreed. I don't share your preferences exactly, but I like playing anti-hero types, and I think it is very important to let the player decide for themselves what is "good" (in whichever sense of the term) or not, and I've seen too many villains with goals I find worthwhile, and who I would support if they didn't express that "mwahaha" delight-in-cruelty kind of evil .

Just take the ancient magisters. I find their goal - entering a place at the heart of the Fade which would increase their power drastically - absolutely awesome. It's everything my typical character aspires to: exploring the mysteries, knowledge, ascension - and as the icing on the cake, a snub at the religious types who go on and on about how power corrupts because they want to make their powerlessness into a virtue. My characters aren't "unfettered" and would balk at the blood sacrifice, but nonetheless I resent that such goals are all too often dragged down into the pit of evil by association. I want such goals to not be thematically tied to evil for a change.

And I have no use for humility. My typical character doesn't think the universe owes them anything, and they know their limits, but they see it as fundamentally desirable to grow beyond their current limitations - in capability and in power. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 novembre 2013 - 10:26 .