258 réponses à ce sujet

[SgtSteel91]

Vortex13 wrote...

I still say that Dragons should be 'allies' in the sense that they can be used to the player's benefit, rather then being a bad guy in need of slaying. Even if Dragons are only marginally smarter then Mabari, I still say that having them as mounts and/or watch dogs should still be possible.

Having a keep built near a dragon's nest, with the citizens feeding it and protecting its young should allow a pragmatic player to have said dragon's help when defending against an invasion of Red Templars, for example.

Even if the dragon is rather vicious and kills its tenders from time to time, it would still be intelligent enough to know that the attacking force would be destroying its free meal ticket, and free nest security.

Even Sharks are capable of making such a call, when they let certain fish swim freely into their mouths to clean them.

1) That sounds suspiciously like what Dragon Cults do

2) That would be a neat way to unlock the Reaver specilization for the Inquisitor and maybe his agents

[Chrom72]

Qistina wrote...

The Elder Scrolls is about that book of prophecy, TES : Skyrim conclude about that. It is about everything that happen in Mundus is written in a scroll that exist in a place of no time and space. TES is about that, other things are just chapters and spices in the TES universe. It is about destiny, the scroll is like The Matrix where every program is written and ever changing. Anyone who study it will become crazy because no one can comprehend it, it is incomprehensible.How long Bethesda want to maintain that we don't know

But Dragon Age is not about dragon, the premise did show it could be about dragons in the first game, but turn out to be not about dragons at all. The dragons are just monsters to be killed. It is like make a movie titled "Robin Hood" but Robin Hood only appear 5 minutes in the movie, the rest is about John Doe going crusade in Muslim land. (Edit : Then the director said "the movie is about John Doe who live at the same period of Robin Hood")

Skyrim is the outlier in that series though as far as the Scrolls go. You can easily go through Morrowind and Oblivion (If the Thieves Guild is skipped) without hearing a thing about the Scrolls. Skyrim is the exception, not the rule. In Dragon Age you can't go through Origins or DA2 without running into at least a few dragons.

Besides, the title is referring to the century itself which is named after dragons. That doesn't require dragons to be the main plot. Besides, the main point of Origins was stopping the Blight and Archdemon, which was a rather large dragon. I would say dragons are extremely important to the series. 

[Boycott Bioware]

Chrom72 wrote...
Skyrim is the outlier in that series though as far as the Scrolls go. You can easily go through Morrowind and Oblivion (If the Thieves Guild is skipped) without hearing a thing about the Scrolls. Skyrim is the exception, not the rule. In Dragon Age you can't go through Origins or DA2 without running into at least a few dragons.

Besides, the title is referring to the century itself which is named after dragons. That doesn't require dragons to be the main plot. Besides, the main point of Origins was stopping the Blight and Archdemon, which was a rather large dragon. I would say dragons are extremely important to the series.

Like i mention, TES is about TES, the stories are chapters of TES story. Everthing that happen in Mundus is written in the mysterious scroll, TES:Skyrim conclude the main story of the whole series so far.

The title and the main plot give an impression that the story is about the origin of dragons and the origin of this particular dragon named Archdemon. You see, Dragon Age : Origin, when we read that we get the idea that it is the age of dragon and it's origin. The first chapter is assumed the origin of dragons that make the age called Dragon Age. But it is not so.

Look at Star Wars...Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, we get the idea it is about the wars in space and there is a menacing phantom who turnout to be Darth Maul, that is the first chapter of the story. In Episode 6 it is called Star Wars : The Return of the Jedi, the chapter is about the Jedi making a come back and it is the conclusion of the story.

[Chrom72]

Qistina wrote...

Like i mention, TES is about TES, the stories are chapters of TES story. Everthing that happen in Mundus is written in the mysterious scroll, TES:Skyrim conclude the main story of the whole series so far.

The title and the main plot give an impression that the story is about the origin of dragons and the origin of this particular dragon named Archdemon. You see, Dragon Age : Origin, when we read that we get the idea that it is the age of dragon and it's origin. The first chapter is assumed the origin of dragons that make the age called Dragon Age. But it is not so.

Look at Star Wars...Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, we get the idea it is about the wars in space and there is a menacing phantom who turnout to be Darth Maul, that is the first chapter of the story. In Episode 6 it is called Star Wars : The Return of the Jedi, the chapter is about the Jedi making a come back and it is the conclusion of the story.

The "Origins" in the title of Dragon Age: Origins refers to the various origins you can play as, not the origins of the Archdemon and Blight. That's apparent by the time you open up the character creator. It's actually a pretty accurate title. You play out various origins that take place during the Dragon Age. You could guess a wide variety of things about the game just from the title. Not everyone would necessarily immediately conclude it's about the Origin story of Dragons in an age, that's just one possible guess.

[metatheurgist]

There is no law that says titles must be literal. Grapes of Wrath is not about angry fruit.

[Boycott Bioware]

metatheurgist wrote...
There is no law that says titles must be literal. Grapes of Wrath is not about angry fruit.

Yes, Darth Maul is not a phantom, but the title is The Phantom Menace.Look at other movies and their sequels such as Harry Potter : The Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter : Prisoner of Azkaban...the story is about Harry Potter but the chapter is what the title is about.It doesn't mean Harry Potter is the prisoner of Azkaban, but one of the chapter of his story is about his uncle the prisoner of Azkaban

MasterScribe wrote...
The title of the first game is Dragon Age: Origins. "Origins" refers to the origin stories at the beginning of the game.

This is not a point of contention. So what the hell are you talikng about?

I am talking about the role of the dragon in a story about the age of Dragons. The dragons themselves have very little role in their own story. Their role is only for appearing at some point in the game to be killed. It is worse in DA2 where the dragon is just a monster to be killed. The whole Bone Pit quest is about killing dragon and it's young-lings...the dragon is cheap in the story about them

The "Origins" in the title of Dragon Age: Origins refers to the various origins you can play as, not the origins of the Archdemon and Blight. That's apparent by the time you open up the character creator. It's actually a pretty accurate title. You play out various origins that take place during the Dragon Age. You could guess a wide variety of things about the game just from the title. Not everyone would necessarily immediately conclude it's about the Origin story of Dragons in an age, that's just one possible guess.

I can't accept that, the origin of the character we play have little to do with the game, it only take a small part in the beginning then forgotten. In the sequel, DA2, it doesn't matter and it doesn't make anything significant impact in the story of Dragon Age.

Like i said, and i did said before DA premise is weak, not only the title have nothing to do with the story, the story itself is not strong. We as the reader forgot that the story is titled "DRAGON AGE" because the story have nothing to do with dragons

You may argue TES:Oblivion is not about the Elder Scroll, but the title tell us it is about Oblivion in which later we found out that Oblivion is a name of a place/realm, even it is detached from the original story that is The Elder Scroll, the sequel explain the scroll significance in everything that happen in the world.

But Dragon Age, what Dragon Age is about?

[Deflagratio]

Dragon Age is about the events that happen during the Dragon Age.

[Boycott Bioware]

Look at TES:Skyrim, the title itself have nothing to do with dragons, but dragons have significant role in the story. Dragons have characters, have their stories, can talk, have their own language and culture... the dragons are intelligent, respected, feared...the dragons are something majestic and awe in Skyrim.

Compare with Dragon Age where the title itself is DRAGON....

[Deflagratio]

Too bad.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 09 janvier 2014 - 08:34 .

[Chrom72]

Qistina wrote...

I can't accept that, the origin of the character we play have little to do with the game, it only take a small part in the beginning then forgotten. In the sequel, DA2, it doesn't matter and it doesn't make anything significant impact in the story of Dragon Age.

The multiple origins were the biggest selling point Bioware made about the game before it came out. I can't speak for you, but I played the game completely differently depending on which Origin I was. That was by far my favorite feature of the game, having a wide variety of different races and backgrounds to play as. 

Like i said, and i did said before DA premise is weak, not only the title have nothing to do with the story, the story itself is not strong. We as the reader forgot that the story is titled "DRAGON AGE" because the story have nothing to do with dragons

But Dragon Age, what Dragon Age is about?

Using your rationale for The Elder Scrolls series Bioware could completely ignore dragons for the next  two games, as long as they were featured heavily in the fifth game of the series. I mean, that was ok for you in the Elder Scrolls series, right? (Edit: Just in case it needs more explaining, I mean that the Elder Scrolls mentioned in the title were not used in the main story until the fifth game.)

Dragon Age is about a wide variety of characters and events that live in and take place during the Dragon Age in a fictional world called Thedas. No more, no less. The Age just happened to get its name from dragons reappearing. Are they a major point of the games? I would argue that they were a major plot point in Origins, less so in DA2. Judging from the little we know of Inquisition so far it seems that dragons will be a bigger plot point than in DA2. At the very least there will be more of them than there were in DA2. 

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but to get back on topic, why are talking dragons a must for you again? Because they're in the title?

Modifié par Chrom72, 09 janvier 2014 - 08:45 .

[Deflagratio]

It's circular logic. Dragons should talk in Dragon Age because the game is called Dragon Age.

[Chrom72]

Deflagratio wrote...

It's circular logic. Dragons should talk in Dragon Age because the game is called Dragon Age.

Perhaps I'm just flawed in my thinking, but I just don't see how dragons being in the title means the dragons have to be hyper-intelligent and capable of speech. I'm probably the minority, but I wasn't that impressed with the dragons in Skyrim. I didn't think Alduin was that great of a villain either. He was a slightly better villain than the Archdemon, but that had less to do with his ability to speak and more to do with him having more appearences. It's not like he said anything of significance.

The wise talking dragon thing just seems overused at this point to me. I don't mind Smaug, but that's more because he existed decades before any other mainstream talking dragon than anything else. I preferred the Game of Thrones dragons over the Skyrim dragons anyway. They're more of a WMD than anything. At least there isn't so many of them that the characters have to kill one every time they walk for more than 10 minutes like in Skyrim. That got old after about the 10th dragon.

[Deflagratio]

No, you're not flawed in your thinking. Circular logic is a logical fallacy. Your evidence cannot be your conclusion, I think maybe because I have forgone properly quoting the person I'm responding to, you might be under the impression that I think Dragons should speak in Dragon Age. That's not the case.

And in the case of Skyrim, just cause I'm fighting a losing battle with insomnia right now, I rather like their dragons. They're great creature art, they've got a cool (if somewhat underdeveloped) lore and history, and serve as admirably as "Boss" encounters, despite a minimalistic AI package. If Skyrim went astray with Dragons, it's that they appear far too often. I don't think Dragon Age will run into that problem though, according to DigiExpo, there's a handful of them in the world (Precise number not mentioned) and each one is a high-level, hand-crafted encounter designed to push the player's ability to the breaking point. (Subject to difficulty level no doubt)

Alduin in Skyrim was an undeveloped threat... He kind of just pops up once (Ironically saving you) and kind of just stop being relevant pretty fast. There's a lot of philosophical underpinnings with Alduin that weren't quite fleshed out. Paarthurnax is usually the source of all Alduin related exposition, the nature of prophecy, destiny, Alduin's role as destroyer, but perhaps also Herald of the next world were all missed opportunities to pull the main story away from "Bad guy is bad, stop bad guy pls even though you could also theoretically be a bad guy who kills everyone, #cognitivedissonance".

[Chrom72]

I understood what you meant and the theory of circular logic. I was agreeing with you in that it made no sense. I just did a rather poor job of elaborating on that. My Skyrim arguments were more meant for Qistina, but I was too lazy to compile their earlier quotes as well.

In the shared interests of fighting insomnia though I'll continue the discussion. There were a lot of things I did like about the Skyrim dragons. They looked cool and in small doses were fun to battle. Like you though, I felt they were encountered far too often. Your 30th (or 40th, 50th, etc..) dragon just doesn't hold much significance compared to your first few. The limited AI (like you mentioned) and Skyrim's tendency to get glitchy ruined a lot of encounters for me too, which also soured my opinion of them.

I share most of your thoughts on Alduin. For all of its good points, Elder Scrolls has a tendency to fall into the same old trap of killing the "bad guy", who is almost always a Chaotic Evil character. (I did really enjoy Dagoth Ur from Morrowind though, Mehrunes Dagon not so much) One of the few changes I appreciated about DA2 was the focus on a more ambiguous conflict, even if it was implemented poorly. To tie it into the original topic, I just fail to see what Alduin's ability to talk really added to the game. Most of his dialogue was limited to taunts and threats that added little to the story line. Paarthurnax did have some interesting dialogue, but with the exception of perhaps the ghost dragon from Dawnguard, was pretty much the only dragon that really did.

The dragons of Dragon Age could certainly be improved (and seem to be improved from the little we know of Inquisition). But I don't think the way to do that is through speech. More lore and backstory would be a good way to go. The Silent Grove raised some interesting topics that I would like to see expanded upon. Different types or at least slightly different looking dragons(which again, Inquisition seems to be doing) would go a long way to improving them as well. My one exception to the speech limitation is for the Old Gods, but then again I'm not necessarily convinced that they are dragons either. They definitely prefer to appear in dragon form, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they could change forms at will, at least when not corrupted from Darkspawn.

[Gorkanus]

Must all dragon be monsters ? Topic created by BrotherDragon2

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Mistress9Nine]

David Gaider wrote...
No talking animals. This is one of the underlying rules for the Dragon Age universe, and it includes dragons...

What about that girl wo could communicate with dragons in that anime? What was that about? Does it just go one way? Was that even canon?

Modifié par Mistress9Nine, 09 janvier 2014 - 10:52 .

[Vortex13]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

I still say that Dragons should be 'allies' in the sense that they can be used to the player's benefit, rather then being a bad guy in need of slaying. Even if Dragons are only marginally smarter then Mabari, I still say that having them as mounts and/or watch dogs should still be possible.

Having a keep built near a dragon's nest, with the citizens feeding it and protecting its young should allow a pragmatic player to have said dragon's help when defending against an invasion of Red Templars, for example.

Even if the dragon is rather vicious and kills its tenders from time to time, it would still be intelligent enough to know that the attacking force would be destroying its free meal ticket, and free nest security.

Even Sharks are capable of making such a call, when they let certain fish swim freely into their mouths to clean them.

1) That sounds suspiciously like what Dragon Cults do

2) That would be a neat way to unlock the Reaver specilization for the Inquisitor and maybe his agents

Similar, but not the same.

Dragon Cults drink the dragon's blood and worship the dragon, the people in my scenario would be treating the dragon more like a glorified watch dog. The idea is to tend to the beast, not to 'earn the right to drink its blood' or worship it, but rather to garner enough brownie points for the dragon to recognize the keep and its citizens as benificial and any attacking force as detremental.

Though you are on to something about how the Reaver specialization could be unlocked in Inquisition. I am not agaisnt the option of the players being able to choose that path, but the real reason why I would propose such a scenario of tending to the dragon, would be more for the assistance it would provide against attacking Red Templars, moreso then unlocking the specialization.

[Heimdall]

Mistress9Nine wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
No talking animals. This is one of the underlying rules for the Dragon Age universe, and it includes dragons...

What about that girl wo could communicate with dragons in that anime? What was that about? Does it just go one way? Was that even canon?

That was blood magic.  I don't think it counts.

[Hellion Rex]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Mistress9Nine wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
No talking animals. This is one of the underlying rules for the Dragon Age universe, and it includes dragons...

What about that girl wo could communicate with dragons in that anime? What was that about? Does it just go one way? Was that even canon?

That was blood magic.  I don't think it counts.

She had the power to communicate with animals, without blood magic. Frenic just boosted her power by making her drink dragon blood.

[Boycott Bioware]

Using your rationale for The Elder Scrolls series Bioware could completely ignore dragons for the next two games, as long as they were featured heavily in the fifth game of the series. I mean, that was ok for you in the Elder Scrolls series, right? (Edit: Just in case it needs more explaining, I mean that the Elder Scrolls mentioned in the title were not used in the main story until the fifth game.)

Dragon Age is about a wide variety of characters and events that live in and take place during the Dragon Age in a fictional world called Thedas. No more, no less. The Age just happened to get its name from dragons reappearing. Are they a major point of the games? I would argue that they were a major plot point in Origins, less so in DA2. Judging from the little we know of Inquisition so far it seems that dragons will be a bigger plot point than in DA2. At the very least there will be more of them than there were in DA2.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but to get back on topic, why are talking dragons a must for you again? Because they're in the title?

No, what i mean is dragons should be awesome in Dragon Age because the title is DRAGON Age, but it turn out to be dragons are more awesome in TES : Skyrim and TES is not about dragons. I m talking about expectation. That is why i give an allegory about making a movie titled "Robin Hood" but Robin Hood only appear for 5 minutes to shot a single arrow.

So in the age of dragons, dragons are just pests? That is boring...in DA:O we got introduction about Archdemon a dragon, Tevinter worship dragons, Andraste maybe a dragon from crazy cult, but the dragons themselves are just pest and have nothing to do with the story? I am talking about story here, the main story. How come a story title have nothing to do with the story at all?

Make a story about a Messiah saving the world from evil dark lord in Armageddon, but give the title of the story "Cheese Cakes". In the story the cakes show up in some times, the Messiah eat the cakes, the dark lord eat the cakes, the army of darkness hanging around eat cakes, the cakes made of cheese, so the title is "Cheese Cakes" instead of "Armageddon" or "The Messiah Return" or "Age of Darkness : The Messiah"....

(Edit: Or give the title Cheese Cakes : Origin, and the story have nothing to do with the origin of cheese cake, but about the end of the world, army of darkness, dark lord and the Messiah)

Modifié par Qistina, 09 janvier 2014 - 05:03 .

[AresKeith]

Qistina wrote...

Look at TES:Skyrim, the title itself have nothing to do with dragons, but dragons have significant role in the story. Dragons have characters, have their stories, can talk, have their own language and culture... the dragons are intelligent, respected, feared...the dragons are something majestic and awe in Skyrim.

Compare with Dragon Age where the title itself is DRAGON....

Maybe you should stop talking Titles at face value then

[Veruin]

As usual you constantly refuse any points that do not fit what you deem is right. You refuse to accept that titles do not have to reflect what the story is about. By your petty logic, Grapes of Wrath must be about angry grapes, Twilight must be a biography about the night sky, and A Christmas Carol must be 200 pages of people singing door to door.

Modifié par Veruin, 09 janvier 2014 - 05:09 .