118 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

Varric drinks heavily, talks a tall tale, has the brazen audacity to "lie" on occasion, and is otherwise filled with the surface of a dangerous rogue without being a dangerous rogue. When does he murder someone in the street out of cold rage? Where is the rogue part?

This is a minor issue, but in the case of Varric, you seem to be overly focused one particular "rogue" mindset.  And to be honest, it's one that I'm not even familiar with.  What you describe is behavior I'd find easier to associate with a barbarian.  Have you never heard of the dashing, heroic rogue?  You know, like Robin Hood or Spider-man?  Varric uses dexterity and cunning to overcome problems, understands the value of money, and is willing to bend the rules from time to time if he needs to.  Even though it's not a requirement for a rogue to have a specific personality, he fits into the basic archetype, and even uses weapons and skills commonly associated with... rogues.

 

As for your overall point... some of the characters do seem a bit one-dimensional, but all we have a are a few paragraphs at most.  With Blackwall, it's more like a few sentences.  So I'd wait until the game come out before declaring them boring.  If you're expecting any companions with very low morality, however, I don't think you're going to find them in DA:I.  Not from what little has been revealed, at least...

[Amfortas]

There were never two "versions" of Brooks.

 

She's the same character even when she's choosing to act a certain way, which means she's more complex than mere parody.

 

The fact that she irritates you is a testament to the strength of the writing. Causing emotional reaction in the player is one of the goals of the writers—and by the end of the DLC it becomes apparent that there was always supposed to be something off or uncomfortable about Brooks's demeanor.

Brooks is not the issue here so I'm not going to argue whether she was written as a parody or not. Phrase it however you wish, during her initial behaviour she acts in away that is a combination of the things that I dislike the most out of bioware's characters, especially present in the dragon age franchise. I gave some examples in my first post.

 

And when I say dislike here, I mean that I consider it bad writing, not that I dislike a character's personality, which is perfectly fine. Getting a reaction is not always a good thing. I watched the D&D movie yesterday and it certainly didn't leave me indifferent, does that mean it's good?

[Borosini]

Brooks is not the issue here so I'm not going to argue whether she was written as a parody or not. Phrase it however you wish, during her initial behaviour she acts in away that is a combination of the things that I dislike the most out of bioware's characters, especially present in the dragon age franchise. I gave some examples in my first post.

 

And when I say dislike here, I mean that I consider it bad writing, not that I dislike a character's personality, which is perfectly fine. Getting a reaction is not always a good thing. I watched the D&D movie yesterday and it certainly didn't leave me indifferent, does that mean it's good?

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a character displays naïveté or insecurity and talks about mundane things they are, by default, poorly written?

 

There are a lot of naïve, insecure people out there. It only makes sense that there'd be naïve and insecure characters in media as well.

[Zatche]

Brooks is not the issue here so I'm not going to argue whether she was written as a parody or not. Phrase it however you wish, during her initial behaviour she acts in away that is a combination of the things that I dislike the most out of bioware's characters, especially present in the dragon age franchise. I gave some examples in my first post.

 

And when I say dislike here, I mean that I consider it bad writing, not that I dislike a character's personality, which is perfectly fine. Getting a reaction is not always a good thing. I watched the D&D movie yesterday and it certainly didn't leave me indifferent, does that mean it's good?

 

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a character displays naïveté or insecurity and talks about mundane things they are, by default, poorly written?

 

There are a lot of naïve, insecure people out there. It only makes sense that there'd be naïve and insecure characters in media as well.

 

Right, it's not bad writing for characters to have flaws.

 

And it's not like Bioware overuses these character traits either. How many Bioware companions actually do fit the description? Alistair, Merril (sort of), Tali (sort of), Traynor. While most characters will show doubt and internal conflict at certain points (because what's a story without conflict?), the majority of Bioware characters are pretty confident and secure in their viewpoints, some even full of themselves (Sten, Morrigan, Miranda).

[Zatche]

I did make the disclaimer that I might change my opinion after having played it, but I take that risk all the time, and I feel completely confident without having ever watched CSI that I'm missing absolutely nothing. I often have my opinion change after having played something but generally not dramatically so.

 

Cassandra I guess actually I could include in the list of being a stable loyal companion just like Iron Bull and Blackwall and so on. Sticking with the Chantry after the DA2 disaster seemed like she was making a more difficult choice on something, and made me more interested in her story. It's not a matter of whether she's technically in support of an organization that defines independent or non-independent. 

 

Most of my problems stems from how they seem to use "gimmicks" to make them seem brash or independent or caring. Sten makes a joke about cookies, therefore he's suddenly not an unrepentant jackstick? Varric drinks heavily, talks a tall tale, has the brazen audacity to "lie" on occasion, and is otherwise filled with the surface of a dangerous rogue without being a dangerous rogue. When does he murder someone in the street out of cold rage? Where is the rogue part?

 

I still see Minsc as infused with anger, not necessarily human passion, two separate things in my view. 

 

Cole does seem sort of interesting but since he was listed as an "optional" character as I stated, not sure what to do with him. 

 

It's not just these main characters either, I was re-playing DA:O the other day and I'm like, everyone in conversation is just basically like "screw you" or trying to get you in a trap of reason, and at a certain point it's wearying.

 

Anyway, it's a dual issue of 1) Absence of genuinely caring non-super egomaniac main characters 2) The really violent characters trying to pretend they're not violent, or that if they talk about beer and conversation or how much fun they have socializing they're somehow "cool" now. 

 

Iron Bull's just a loyal stable companion? He has PTSD from fighting with demons. And he's a bit paradoxical. Despite being a loyal member of the Qun, not the Inquisition, he overindulges in drinking, eating, and sex. (Probably a coping mechanism for his aforementioned PTSD).

 

Sten's joke about cookies subverts your expectations of him, but no, it does not make him less of what he is. He may be a headstrong jackass, but "unrepentant" does not describe him. One of his major motivations for following you, rather than staying in the cage to die, is that it's his way to repent for killing that family.

 

You shouldn't discount Cole because he's optional. It's been stated that most of the companions in the game are optional, but they're every bit as fleshed out as the few required companions.

 

I drink beer, but I don't think it makes me or these companions "cool." But, I find characters more relatable when they can kick back, not take themselves to seriously, and take a break from the drama. If not beer, then there should be something that shows that they enjoy life, whether that's Sten's cookies, Merrill's flowers, or Solas' intellectual pursuits.

[Medhia_Nox]

LOL nobility only seems psychotic because most men are craven selfish cowards who couldn't imagine self-sacrifice for anything but their own self-interest (like family). 

 

I find the "Unique misunderstood outcast" to actually be super boring nowadays.

 

I actually prefer archetypical characters in unique positions that challenge their archetypes to be a far more interesting scenario.

 

Of course, I think many people use these kinds of RPG to make some sort of strange virtual friends - so I suppose it only natural they don't want character studies, they want people who act exactly like themselves.

[Rowe]

I think it's way too early for this post. Many of the characters are still shrouded in mystery with nothing more than a blurb about them. Others, like Varric, haven't revealed their motivations within the coming story-line, we really don't know why he's with the inquisitor (also, a servant? What?). It's too bad if none of the upcoming characters excite you, but they all seem like a really diverse group to me and I'm excited to hear and see them brought to life. 

 

If you want to pass judgement after the game is out and you actually have a sense of their personalities... well that would make more sense. 

[RustyW]

Regardless of your 'disclaimer' comments like yours OP just surely can not be made until the game has been played.

To create an analogy, it is like a child smelling some food & saying they do not like it before actually eating it and changing their mind.

[Nefla]

How can you dislike someone, find them boring, and weigh all of their merits when you've never met them or interacted with them? All we know is a basic summary and when you boil anyone down to a basic summary they're not very interesting. Just wait until the game actually comes out before you judge the characters.

[ManOfSteel]

This is probably the most interesting cast of Dragon Age characters yet, IMO.

[Schreckstoff]

Varric kills that wannabe blood mage apprentice of the white illies serial killer in cold blood, just saying.

[90s Luke]

I'm willing to bet that BioWare is unlikely to reveal enough about each companion this early in order to make a definitive judgement of each one.

 

That would kind of defeat the larger purpose behind being able to interact with them in-game, which is to explore their character arcs (whatever those might be for each companion).

[berelinde]

boring = does not posses character traits I enjoy

 

Got it.

 

Seriously, the characters the OP describes would bore me to tears. Ultra-feminine characters who just want to bake biscuits for everyone? Uh... yeah. I'll pass. Aggressive and mercenary characters motivated mostly by self-interest? Okay, but a party full of them would get old pretty quick.

 

It seems as if the current lineup has a nice mix. I'm happy with it.

[Seraphim24]

I get that we all play games that reflect the characters that interest us, if you want to eviscerate the term "boring" than go for it. 

 

Again though, overindulging in drinking, eating, and sex. This is the standard American college student, I don't care that his name is Iron Bull and he carries a mace the size of Puerto Rico, the man is a wimp. 

 

The Varric thing just makes my point, it's assumed that the rogue is evil for murdering in cold blood and not in accordance with the law, and Bioware is so good to the world by shedding light on how rogues can be a crafty noble kind of rogue (and fitting the theme for pretty much every other character and thus being redundant). I disagree with the unstated assumption that he is a rogue and therefore evil, unless he has vaguely 'heroic' qualities, which are essentially defined as legal vs. illegal, and may not be heroic at all. 

 

What if he was a good person who is just too stupid to get into regular lines of work, because the certification for merchantry is too grueling a test, so he killed the guy to get his bread and survive? Instead, he drinks a lot, the true rabble rowsers like Viconia, or even Irenicus and Melissan are gone. 

 

Varric, as far as I can tell, hardly breaks any laws at all, or does anything that distinguishes from another loyal servant of his cause/family/everything. Why is selfishness a sin? Why is self-sacrifice a virtue? Isn't it merely a guise for attention seeking and violence? The Dragon Age universe is consolidated around "heroic" and "self-sacrificing" types that have very little independent spirit or even apparent moral direction, as they take their orders from the top for the most part. 

 

Ultimately, many of them are not very inspiring as a consequence. 

 

Finally I fail to see how snap judgments are inappropriate on BSN where unrestricted and unlimited guessing of a character's orientation or how much they'll like them or what avatar they like goes on all the time.  

 

@ Puddi

 

Dang I was hoping no one from the anime thread would find me here, everything is so happy over there. Nonetheless, I have said I may end up playing and enjoying the game more than I thought, who knows. 

[SilkieBantam]

I don't think someone with an X/1999 icon is in any position to judge boring characters. 

 

Sorry couldn't resist the jab. I'll excuse myself now. 

[Ghost]

You already found out the characters are boring 106 days before release? 

[SilkieBantam]

Ehm it's more of a random picture I liked, but your mind-blowing counterarguments are nonetheless noted. 

Thanks. I'm quite proud of my debating skills myself. 

[Chron0id]

Thanks. I'm quite proud of my debating skills myself. 

We can't all be pretty bishies like you Griffith.

[Seraphim24]

Anyway this appears like it could go on forever and I'll just end up repeating myself. You (impliedly) bring up Griffith, who has pretty much the same problem again, although he's probably more multi-dimensional than most. The western world and pretty much most western gamers exclusively value violence or leadership and not friendship or passion. You could have picked Casca or even Guts, who is a violent man but not necessarily in a pure sense, but there is that bias for the general, the leader, the decision maker, and unless a character has a massive ego and tries to take control over the world, they're just not valid. Bioware appears to be trying to bridge the gap, I see it as falling short, that's really all there is to it. 

 

Maybe Cole and Sera will be enough come purchasing time, and Cassandra also. Perhaps not, and then hopefully the next Bioware game will be a bit different. Many other people I know would not get the game or games like it for the same reasons. 

[Chernaya]

Iron Bull is too loyal to his cause? ... have you read about his personality yet? 

 

And... how is Varric a servant? I'm confused.

 

[Icy Magebane]

Varric, as far as I can tell, hardly breaks any laws at all, or does anything that distinguishes from another loyal servant of his cause/family/everything. Why is selfishness a sin? Why is self-sacrifice a virtue? Isn't it merely a guise for attention seeking and violence? The Dragon Age universe is consolidated around "heroic" and "self-sacrificing" types that have very little independent spirit or even apparent moral direction, as they take their orders from the top for the most part. 

Did you actually play DA:O?  What about Morrigan, Sten, Oghren, Shale, and Zevran?  I wouldn't call any of those characters heroic, and the only one who was potentially self-sacrificing would be Sten, and then only if the Qun required it (which it never did, in game).  He certainly didn't believe in helping others just to be nice... or at all, really.  In DA2, we had Isabela who was just flat out selfish.  I wouldn't even use her name in the same sentence as altruism.  I mean, I can kind of see that you just want some variation in morality (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you're making blanket statements that don't actually reflect the characters of the past two games.  That aside, it's just too early to tell with DAI.

[Zatche]

I get that we all play games that reflect the characters that interest us, if you want to eviscerate the term "boring" than go for it. 

 

Again though, overindulging in drinking, eating, and sex. This is the standard American college student, I don't care that his name is Iron Bull and he carries a mace the size of Puerto Rico, the man is a wimp. 

 

The Varric thing just makes my point, it's assumed that the rogue is evil for murdering in cold blood and not in accordance with the law, and Bioware is so good to the world by shedding light on how rogues can be a crafty noble kind of rogue (and fitting the theme for pretty much every other character and thus being redundant). I disagree with the unstated assumption that he is a rogue and therefore evil, unless he has vaguely 'heroic' qualities, which are essentially defined as legal vs. illegal, and may not be heroic at all. 

 

What if he was a good person who is just too stupid to get into regular lines of work, because the certification for merchantry is too grueling a test, so he killed the guy to get his bread and survive? That was kind of variation of Les Miserables, but this tawdry D&D and now Dragon Age concept that some people just actively like killing or mayhem is kind of bizzare. Even though they also overplayed the stereotype in BG with people like Viconia, at least they existed and were trying to get at the essence of those characters. There is a powerful obsequiousness in Dragon Age towards the law and the status quo, the true rabble rowsers like Viconia, or even Irenicus and Melissan are gone. 

 

Varric, as far as I can tell, hardly breaks any laws at all, or does anything that distinguishes from another loyal servant of his cause/family/everything. Why is selfishness a sin? Why is self-sacrifice a virtue? Isn't it merely a guise for attention seeking and violence? The Dragon Age universe is consolidated around "heroic" and "self-sacrificing" types that have very little independent spirit or even apparent moral direction, as they take their orders from the top for the most part.

 

Iron Bull's overindulging is a character flaw, sure, but I fail to see how that makes him a wimp or comparable to an American college student who has never seen war.

 

Varric bribes and cuts deals with mercenaries and smugglers. His business dealings are not legal.

 

I fail to see how you can say Dragon Age has characters that don't have a free spirit and that all follow the law, when you have Morrigan, Velanna, Isabela, Merrill, Zevran, and all the spirited party banter debates. And an obsequiousness towards the status quo? The whole continent is falling apart, partly because one of the supposed law-obiding citizens blew up the Chantry.

[yullyuk]

To the OP, you haven't even played the game yet to know any of the characters on more than just a base level so i wouldn't make assumptions that there all boring until the game is released, that's like saying you cant stand a movie without actually having seen it and it makes you sound like a pretentious snob

[dutch_gamer]

Again though, overindulging in drinking, eating, and sex. This is the standard American college student, I don't care that his name is Iron Bull and he carries a mace the size of Puerto Rico, the man is a wimp.

Once again you make it seem you have already played the game. You can't remotely determine Iron Bull is somehow a wimp or making a nonsense statement every standard American college student are just carbon copies of one another.

With Varric as the narrator of DA 2's stories I don't think you can even say he doesn't break any laws because he could have easily left all that out of the story he was telling Cassandra.

Even though people on this forum like to judge the book by its cover it doesn't mean acting as if characters are boring without actually even knowing them at all isn't going to be questioned by anyone on this forum.