257 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiden Crowe]

@MC

To your last point: not always. Bhelen is the better choice for the dwarves in practical terms, but he is also utterly ruthless and screwed over the dwarf noble. Certain character types simp;y will not side with him unless the player is metagaming. And that's on the player. Anvil of the Void can also go either way. I also wouldn't call refusing the DR ignoring logic.

 

Yeah but in those situations it really doesn't matter as no matter what you choose your Warden is always viewed as having made the right choice, there is no way they can screw up on that choice as no matter what the Warden gains the support of their allies and shows positive traits.

[In Exile]

I'm familiar with the show.  I just watched the whole 3rd season a couple weeks ago.

 

The book is similar in regards to the spoiler, though the book also has enough details to support that some form of potion may have been involved in creating that emotional state. 

[robertthebard]

Because the reward was for resolution, not which resolution they got.  I'll be sure, however, to note that you had to go out of your way to screw up the next time there's a "I can't believe Leliana is back" thread.  After all, if that's, according to you, the only way to get comps to turn on you, then there should be no way to kill her in the first place, right?  As far back as BG, I could get my comps to turn on me, simply by playing my alignment.  I didn't have to go out of my way to screw up, all I had to do was be NE/CE, and play accordingly.  You do realize that if you can get your LG/CG comps to turn on you while playing an evil alignment, you're actually doing it right, right?

[Maiden Crowe]

As far back as BG, I could get my comps to turn on me, simply by playing my alignment.  I didn't have to go out of my way to screw up, all I had to do was be NE/CE, and play accordingly.  You do realize that if you can get your LG/CG comps to turn on you while playing an evil alignment, you're actually doing it right, right?

 

And you do realize we are talking about the Dragon Age series not the Baldur's Gate series right? While I am sure there is plenty the Dragon Age series can learn from the Baldur's Gate series that is not what this thread is about so could you please stay on topic dear?

[tmp7704]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party? How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances? How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair? No escapes, No alternate choices that lead to a more optimal outcome.

These sound interesting, I'd like to see (more) stuff like that in the game.

Disfigurement thing could potentially be tricky to pull off -- things like battle scars on the game character are viewed by some as attractive rather than a drawback, to the point where they're common element of the character creator. I think having NPCs able to react to appearances in general could be cool, though, even if also likely hard/tricky to implement.

edit:
 

Yeah but in those situations it really doesn't matter as no matter what you choose your Warden is always viewed as having made the right choice, there is no way they can screw up on that choice as no matter what the Warden gains the support of their allies and shows positive traits.

The choices made by the Warden regularly evoke negative reactions from companions (based on the companion's world views) ranging from "X disapproves" to outright conflict, fighting or the companion leaving the group. While the gifts mechanics can cheapen that, if you refrain from abusing them there's enough room to argue your choices are often polarizing instead of unanimously revered.

[DontWakeTheBear]

Maiden Crow-I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you want.

 

Is it that you want your character to act in a believable way and your action's to have meaningful consequences? You're able to do that now, though DA2 didn't have it as much on the actions part, we've been told DAI will.

 

Is it that you feel that Dragon Age characters are Mary/Gary Stu's? They're able to be played similar to that I suppose, but it's certainly not required. The game let's you play multiple styles and let's people play the style that fits them best (within limits).

 

Is it that you want no win situations and your character to be mangled and hated? Um....perhaps Dragon Age isn't actually what your looking for in a game. There's other games out there that do this and i'm not seeing why Dragon Age should completely shift just to include this.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure what it is your looking for.

[Maiden Crowe]

Maiden Crow-I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you want.

 

Then I shall make this easy for you, I want to know what you want, what you really want not what you tell everyone you want.

[Vilegrim]

I'm familiar with the show.  I just watched the whole 3rd season a couple weeks ago.

 

Spoiler

You'll forgive me if I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the books, but in the show it really comes across as Robb betraying his word because he fell in love with another woman.  His mother conveys this very point several times in season 2, IIRC.

Spoiler

In the books it's clear that he regards it as his duty to marry the women he slept with as he doesn't want to sire a bastard, but yes he breaks his word, and gets punished for it, punished in a way that the characters in universe consider a moral event horizon for house Frey, not that the Freys punished him, that was their right, but how they did it

[DontWakeTheBear]

I want to know what you want, what you really want not what you tell everyone you want.

What I want is an enjoyable game that tells the next part of the Dragon Age story. i don't think the game should be shifted into something completely different because some people feel it's "not gritty enough" or "too cliche". There were part's in DA:O, DA:A, and DA2 that I didn't care for or thought could have been done better but I enjoyed the game's themselves and that's why I'm here and waiting for the game. I believe that Bioware will continue to release games that I will enjoy and trust them to do this. What I want to know is what you want. Is it another Dragon Age game or is it something else merely packaged as one?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aren't Mary-Sues supposed to be characters that are the absolute best at EVERYTHING?

The youngest lieutenant in the fleet, at only fifteen and a half years old.

 

That's the original Mary Sue.  That's the basis for the label.

[Giantdeathrobot]

If we take ''this character suceeds at most/all that he does'' as a 100% Sue trait then pretty much every character in video game history is a Mary Sue as soon as the player finishes the game. Cripes, even my Dark Souls II character is a Sue, he gets to kill all those big bad monsters nobody else can touch and can never truly die because reasons.

 

Even Hawke is not really far from that, since as long as he's in the player's control (IE fights), he's an unstopabble force of nature that eats Pride Demons for breakfeast and spits out the bones of High Dragons. It's only when the game takes control away from him/her that s/he fails at predetermined spots.

 

Honestly, unless you're playing a game where failing is the entire point (which wouldn't be fun), every protagonist ever could be defined as a Sue if you extend the term. Which makes it pretty usless IMO, and it seems ''Mary Sue'' is a byword for ''character I don't like'', same as ''not a true RPG'' is a byword for ''game I don't like''.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If we take ''this character suceeds at most/all that he does'' as a 100% Sue trait then pretty much every character in video game history is a Mary Sue as soon as the player finishes the game. Cripes, even my Dark Souls II character is a Sue, he gets to kill all those big bad monsters nobody else can touch and can never truly die because reasons.

 

Even Hawke is not really far from that, since as long as he's in the player's control (IE fights), he's an unstopabble force of nature that eats Pride Demons for breakfeast and spits out the bones of High Dragons. It's only when the game takes control away from him/her that s/he fails at predetermined spots.

 

Honestly, unless you're playing a game where failing is the entire point (which wouldn't be fun), every protagonist ever could be defined as a Sue if you extend the term. Which makes it pretty usless IMO, and it seems ''Mary Sue'' is a byword for ''character I don't like'', same as ''not a true RPG'' is a byword for ''game I don't like''.

The difference is that some games force you to be a Mary Sue, and others don't.  The Warden didn't need to be a Mary Sue.  The Warden could be genuinely bad at his job, and could easily fail.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The difference is that some games force you to be a Mary Sue, and others don't.  The Warden didn't need to be a Mary Sue.  The Warden could be genuinely bad at his job, and could easily fail.

 

Well that's the point of an RPG isin't it? But I'm not sure about the Warden failing. No matter how shitty you are and how many people you ****** off, you can always kill the Archdemon, and you will always resolve the multiple regional problems you come across one way or the other. I don't think that's even remotely enough to say the Warden is a Sue, however. It just makes them a protagonist in a video game.

[In Exile]

The difference is that some games force you to be a Mary Sue, and others don't.  The Warden didn't need to be a Mary Sue.  The Warden could be genuinely bad at his job, and could easily fail.

 

Well, no. You could head-cannon the Warden being bad at the job through the game over screen, but the game itself acts and only recognizes the Warden as being phenomenal at the job, including imputing competency in combat and charisma to the character. 

 

The very basis for your recruitment into the GWs was your undeniable competence. As a mage, your competence was the reason Jowan turned to blood magic in the first place., etc. 

[Steelcan]

I'm familiar with the show.  I just watched the whole 3rd season a couple weeks ago.

 

Spoiler

You'll forgive me if I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the books, but in the show it really comes across as Robb betraying his word because he fell in love with another woman.  His mother conveys this very point several times in season 2, IIRC.

I was using the book example, I only used the image from the show, because the only fan art I can find doesn't quite get the point across as well

 

Spoiler

In the book its made a bit more clear that the Freys and Boltons are self serving, and only aligned with Robb as long as he was winning, when it became clear that his days were numbered, they switched sides and you know the rest.  Robb was never betrothed to a specific person, he vastly outranked the Freys, and the betrothal was made before Robb was declared King in the North, at that point the betrothal should have been between Bran and a Frey.  That line that Catelyn says about Walder being promised a King in marriage is pure rubbish.  If you'd like we can continue this via PM

[Gwydden]

The difference is that some games force you to be a Mary Sue, and others don't.  The Warden didn't need to be a Mary Sue.  The Warden could be genuinely bad at his job, and could easily fail.

I don´t think it true nor healthy from a character development standpoint to equate ´not a Mary Sue´ with incompetence. I know that probably isn´t what you meant, but many people here seem to think that way. Fiction is full of capable characters who succeed at what they set out to do, many of which happen to be well-written.

 

For me the ultimate Mary Sue is Richard Cypher from The Sword of Truth series. I'm not going to go on about him here, but suffice to say the Warden does not remotely compare. Make of that what you will.

 

It's not solely a Bioware thing, though. Look at Assassin's Creed. Most popular characters: Ezio, Edward, and Altair - Three unmitigated badasses whose minor failures are eclipsed by their successes and ride/sail off into the sunset having accomplished all their goals. Least popular? By far Connor, the "Hawke" of Assassin's Creed, who succeeded but also lost everything he had been fighting for.

I don't agree. I've always gotten the impression that Connor is disliked not because he fails, but because for the most part he has the personality of a brick. The failure angle? That's one of the few things that make him interesting. For the most part of AC3  he is more of a nonentity, and his goals and feelings are poorly presented, especially compared to, say, Ezio.

[Steelcan]

Let's be honest, no one could look good following Ezio

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, no. You could head-cannon the Warden being bad at the job through the game over screen, but the game itself acts and only recognizes the Warden as being phenomenal at the job, including imputing competency in combat and charisma to the character. 

 

The very basis for your recruitment into the GWs was your undeniable competence. As a mage, your competence was the reason Jowan turned to blood magic in the first place., etc. 

Given that the Warden can die, this is obviously false.  More over, competency in combat can absolutely be avoided.  Play a Rogue, take no combat talents, and use a shield; you will not be competent at combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don´t think it true nor healthy from a character development standpoint to equate ´not a Mary Sue´ with incompetence. I know that probably isn´t what you meant, but many people here seem to think that way. Fiction is full of capable characters who succeed at what they set out to do, many of which happen to be well-written.

Of course.  Competent characters are not necessarily Mary Sues.  But incompetent characters are necessarily not Mary Sues, and that was my point.  If the Warden can be incompetent, then he obviously cannot be a Mary Sue.

 

Competence is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

[Maiden Crowe]

What I want to know is what you want. Is it another Dragon Age game or is it something else merely packaged as one?

 

And I have already told you, I am merely doing market research trying to determine the fanbase Bioware is trying to appeal to, of course there are plenty of suggestions I could make but even if Bioware was keen to listen and implement them would it still be a Dragon Age game? And would their current fanbase appreciate them?

 

In the end it is best that Bioware makes the game they want to make, if the game turns into something that might appeal to me in some way shape or form then I will give it a look, if it doesn't then I will pass, it is as simple as that and in the end that is what I am here to determine.

[Maiden Crowe]

Given that the Warden can die, this is obviously false.  More over, competency in combat can absolutely be avoided.  Play a Rogue, take no combat talents, and use a shield; you will not be competent at combat.

 

Yeah but that is you making a conscious decision to **** up which in the end doesn't really count, I mean you can also fail at combat by scratching your arse with the Keyboard but no player in their right mind would play that way unless their goal was to **** up

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah but that is you making a conscious decision to **** up which in the end doesn't really count, I mean you can also fail at combat by scratching your arse with the Keyboard but no player in their right mind would play that way unless their goal was to **** up

My goal, when playing, is to play the character I've designed and see what happens as a result.  Once, in response to a comment on the ME boards about how no PC is ever truly a self-insert because players idealise themselves when designing characters, I tried to create an unidealised character in DAO just to see what happened.

 

He was a coward.  He fled physical confrontation.  He always backed down when given the option.  He always deferred to others' judgment.  And he had a very high opinion of himself that bore no resemblance to reality.  He was a lot of fun to play, and he died when Sten killed him during the Sacred Ashes quest.

 

The objective in a roleplaying game is to roleplay.  There are no victory conditions.  You can't ever lose a roleplaying game, and you've only ever failed at one if you think you have.

[zambingo]

I made an Elf who only joined the Wardens because he was dying from magical-cancer and then along the way to punching evil in it's turkey neck he slept with everyone possible.

My Hawke was a smartass looking for gold and held really strong opinions about dealing with demons... like Harrison Ford in Air Force One strong, GET OFF MY PLANE of existence. She really really loved Aveline, but alas dems the breaks sometimes.

My Shepard cracked jokes and relaxed in the down time, but when it was business time.... no not Flight of the Conchords style... She was all, "Stow it, Joker! Kaidan put it away, I'm your commanding officer. Act like the officers you are." And she-pard definitely told James to quit with the nicknames.

Now personally, I believe in monogamy and true love and hilarity is awesome and make up nicknames for everyone I know and think greed is disgusting and I believe a middle ground can usually be found. I also have zero desire to kill anyone and I'm pretty certain magical-cancer dragons are fictional.

I understand the appeal of putting yourself into a game, I loved Smackdown on PS2 because of that. And if people want to play themselves or more whatever whatever in their RPGs then that is rad for them, I hope they get to. Me? I'm happy trying to figure out how an elf with magical-cancer might look at his world.

[In Exile]

Given that the Warden can die, this is obviously false.  More over, competency in combat can absolutely be avoided.  Play a Rogue, take no combat talents, and use a shield; you will not be competent at combat.

 

The Warden being "able" to die is just the game over screen. That's true for any video-game character (with a very na. rrow band of exceptions). 

 

As for talents and combat proficiency; it doesn't matter. No matter how badly you chose to play the game, the game treats it as an absolute truth about the world that you are competent. 

[naddaya]

The Warden being "able" to die is just the game over screen. That's true for any video-game character (with a very na. rrow band of exceptions). 

 

As for talents and combat proficiency; it doesn't matter. No matter how badly you chose to play the game, the game treats it as an absolute truth about the world that you are competent. 

 

Yep, but being a competent leader doesn't make you a Mary Sue. Being perfect does. In DAO, you're able to create a less-than-perfect Warden, depending on what dialogue choices you pick and how you roleplay him/her.

 

My mage warden had some serious issues after killing Connor out of suspicion of blood magic and the feeling she had the weight of the world on her shoulders. She was a talented mage, but young, inexperienced, nervous and afraid of failure and expectations when it came to politics and leading. She would snap at self-righteousness and people talking about her duty and whatnot. She spared Loghain and refused the Dark Ritual. Loghain ended up killing the Archdemon. She didn't want to die and was glad that Loghain gave her that way out, but felt incredibly guilty because of it.

 

There you go. Possible.