Ce sujet est fermé
I honestly can't say that I think the ratio of "extreme" characters were larger in DA2 than in Origins.
How many characters with extreme views can you name in Origins? By the way, even devs conceded that we apparently saw "both sides at their worst" in DA2.
How many characters with extreme views can you name in Origins? By the way, even devs conceded that we apparently saw "both sides at their worst" in DA2.
How do you define "extreme" views, exactly?
I think Sten expresses some extreme views 
If you click on him after Leandra's killed, he'll tell you that he can't believe any mage would do such a thing.
Ahh. In that case, it's fairly easily explained as "I can't believe a mage, who should know better, would think that building a meat statue that looked kind of like their dead wife would enable their dead wife to come back."
How do you define "extreme" views, exactly?
I hope you do know that answering question with question is not good.
Yeah I would like to have a somewhat more moderate and modest character in their as well. Although you'll always be dealing with large egos if you're about to work with some of the best warriors/mages/rogues Thedas has to offer, I'd like to have a character that didn't really go into the extreme with their behaviour, but would just be average on some aspects. But then again, it could very well be that my Inquisitor turns out to be that character.
An Average Joe?
While I like that idea as well, such characters tend to end up looking bland in comparison to the super-special snowflakes with special/amazing/rare origins/race/trait/powers and histories.
Case in point: Jacob.
I personally liked the guy.
Then again, I personally think that being sorrounded with nothing but super-special snowflakes ruins crediblity. But doing/discovering more wonderous thing in 1 year the the rest of the word did in a thousand already ruins credibliity anyway...
Personally i liked that the companions in DA2 had issues they were passionate about. I very much got the impression there was a good balance of other companions expressing moderate, passionate support and negative stances on these subjects.
Ahh. In that case, it's fairly easily explained as "I can't believe a mage, who should know better, would think that building a meat statue that looked kind of like their dead wife would enable their dead wife to come back."
Who other than a mage would be able to create a meat statue? One that would actually move that is.
Ahh. In that case, it's fairly easily explained as "I can't believe a mage, who should know better, would think that building a meat statue that looked kind of like their dead wife would enable their dead wife to come back."
Considering how often mages as a group get blamed whenever one mage does something terrible, it struck me a bit as a defensive "we're not all like that!" kind of thing.
Considering how often mages as a group get blamed whenever one mage does something terrible, it struck me a bit as a defensive "we're not all like that!" kind of thing.
Possibly some of both.
Considering how often mages as a group get blamed whenever one mage does something terrible, it struck me a bit as a defensive "we're not all like that!" kind of thing.
It rather struck me, that he's defiant in his belief of mages as supreme, even though unjustly oppressed, beings (that they're above committing such an act, unlike non-mages).
It rather struck me, that he's defiant in his belief of mages as supreme, even though unjustly oppressed, beings (that they're above committing such an act, unlike non-mages).
Hardly, given his strong criticisms of Merrill.
I hope you do know that answering question with question is not good.
I was asking for clarification. "Extreme" is a fairly vague term that could mean different things to different people. Fenris and Anders are generally used as examples of characters with "extreme" views. What makes them so different from other characters with uncompromising viewpoints? Is it because they spend a lot of time talking about one issue?
As I see it, the problem of perceived "extremism" is that many of the issues dividing Thedas are essentially binary. Either mages are controlled by Templars, or they aren't. Either the dalish can live according to what's left of their culture, or they can't. You either follow the Qun, or you don't.
There is no middle ground on some of the world's issues, and I think that is by design. I think that rather than look for "moderation" what I would rather see is basic reasonableness. It may be that a character's unequivocal "yes" or "no" answer to a question dividing Thedas during Inquisition is well reasoned--show me that. Let me see, if I look carefully, why that position makes sense to the character. If I see problems with the logic, let me change someone's mind.
I have no problem with absolute perspectives, necessarily, but it becomes tiring to be surrounded by zealots and dogmatists.
I was asking for clarification. "Extreme" is a fairly vague term that could mean different things to different people. Fenris and Anders are generally used as examples of characters with "extreme" views. What makes them so different from other characters with uncompromising viewpoints? Is it because they spend a lot of time talking about one issue?
*In HK-47 voice* Clarification: How many "extreme" characters can you name in Origins? Definition of "extreme" is up to you.
*in GLaDOS voice* I think they mean to inquire about your personal opinion. What do you think is extreme?
The good thing about having or requesting moderate characters is no one opposes the idea.
Moderates are completely irrelevant as long as they continue to be utterly powerless.
Every other attempt at a moderate, balanced approach seems to end rather badly. Especially pertaining to the important issues.
As you said, Dragon Age II is the perfect example. Try not to get involved in the end? "YOU MUST CHOOSE!" Try to work with Thrask and Company? "The Champion dies now!".
However, with things coming to a boiling point in Thedas you might just get your wish OP. I would simply hope it's not the same as the hand holding you're forced into in ME3.
Mediocrity is boring, I'd rather have insane fanatics from both sides. Besides, Varric and Isabela already expressed distaste or non-chalance towards mage-templar conflict in DA2.
*In HK-47 voice* Clarification: How many "extreme" characters can you name in Origins? Definition of "extreme" is up to you.
In DA2 Varric, Isabela, and Aveline could be said to be moderates. Could throw in Bethany, as well! Merrill didn't exactly push her agenda around either. What was her "agenda"? Reclaim elven history? What a raving radical 
I think this thread is just a reaction thread against Anders and Fenris. Of course both their characters made sense (Fenris as recovering from trauma, and Anders as being the result of an Anders + Justice merging), but it probably wearied some players after awhile.
I'm in favor of letting the writers write who they want to write; I've yet to be disappointed by a DA character -- although I can't say I was ever overly fond of Oghren, but, oh well. We'll pretend he didn't happen 
Moderate characters are generally pretty boring. Just saying.
**** thst noise, we're already going to plenty of that from the npc's and I'd rather have at least 1 companion who wasn't a doormat to the others insane verbal vomit. We need a character who will look at both sides, not be afraid to tell them it's stupid and exactly why it's stupid, and not back down because it might hurt their feelings. If the PC doesn't like his view they can have the option to shut them down but having a characters those of the middle ground can be proud to look up to is long overdue.
Then tell me what the middle ground is. It's one thing to say a character looks at both sides then tells them they're dumb but then that character has to provide a solution of their own, otherwise they're just full of crap. So please provide us all with some examples of these moderate solutions to the problems of thedas that this moderate character will so valiantly champion.
I hope you do know that answering question with question is not good.
I disagree, especially within the context of requesting clarification. I mean, your own statement could be framed as a question ("Do you know that answering a question with a question is not good?") so it tends to be mostly semantics.
So lets not go down a semantics road.
Retour en haut
