118 réponses à ce sujet

[simpatikool]

Right now, we just see the intros to the main story characters over and over again. Of course they seem boring. We really don't know much and of course bioware wants to save the details for the game. It is in the game and playing the game you get to form a real opinion.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I think a lot of your misunderstanding of Varric here (loyal to his family/friends and not being poor murderhobo enough for you) is due to a misunderstanding of how dwarven society works.  

 

He is the Tethras family spymaster.  His job is to spread information the Tethras' want spread, and collect information that will help them.  To dwarves, family is everything.  Complaining that he's loyal to his family is like complaining that Ned Stark is an honourable man who warns Cersei about what he's discovered in GoT.  Varric chooses to perform his duties via the front of drunkard storyteller in a tavern, because he knows people won't suspect him if it seems like he's just an easygoing guy with a fancy crossbow.  

 

Hardly breaks any laws?  Not openly, but a lot of the business dealings you get approval from him when you do are distinctly shady.  Just a 'loyal servant'?  Loyal, maybe, or at the very least dedicated to earning a profit and seeing what happens.  Also - what's wrong with loyalty to a cause?  Is a character 'better' because they shift their opinions at the drop of a hat?  It's nice to see a character with integrity, who basically remains a man with the same ideals throughout the game, as opposed to ****** everyone else in DA2 who drop quests with names like 'Questioning Beliefs' at the drop of a hat.  Very little independent spirit?  He hired on Hawke!  He hung around them because he saw a way to make a profit, and to keep an eye on an up and coming player - and yes, because Hawke (may have been) a friend, and that's something friends do.  'Self-sacrificing'?  Not to my knowledge.  His moral direction is fairly clear from his approval/rivalry changes - he likes smart quick talking solutions where everyone can profit without drawing blood.  Is this somehow worse, or less interesting, than another weeabo bastard who thinks it's cool and edgy to slit someone's throat?  

 

Would it be interesting if the Tethras family were commoners, and Varric was running the whole business thing to keep his family alive?  Maybe, but I personally think it would make him into another brooding angsty bastard like Fenris or Anders and no-one would thank the writers for that.  Not every character has to live in abject misery, or turn to amoral or alternative moral behaviour to survive - sometimes they can just be out to make a buck.  

[Seraphim24]

Honestly, it seems most of what I say is just kind of stretched into something I haven't said. I say I want less super-noble-violent characters/whatever, and so I need a violent anime or murder-hobo. 

 

There are dozens of "noble/heroic" characters in the world. I never really said there was something wrong with loyalty to a cause, it's just that wasn't any diversity in the characters as a consequence, specifically, the original problem was that there weren't any "nice" characters. Many of the characters in DA:O/DA2 and especially DA2 are continuously spewing venom and anger and telling me it's for my own good.

 

It happens in the real world too, there are always violent figures competing to be the one everyone listens to, that "their" brand of violence and control is the right one. So I look at whether these people aren't serving their own interests in a substantial enough way compared to mine to make it feel like it's mostly for their own benefit, and that is precisely what the characters in DA:I strike me as. They could be doing more, but instead they're hanging around at the edge going, "well any more risk would be too risky," and I"m going, I think there are characters out there with more cojones than you guys, you guys aren't interesting enough to me. 

 

It's my instinctual impression based on the aggregate of details, there is no one fact or thing that is singled out as the sole cause. 

 

The reverse point is the same again, instead of having 8 characters that sell me a brand of violence, they could be selling be a brand of passion or gentleness, but this being the tough minded western characters who are all super ripped and mega gnarly and ultra cool and cutting, so there aren't any to actually analyze. 

[Icy Magebane]

So... you have a problem with self-righteous, heroic characters who have strong values and tell you what to do... and you want them replaced by violent, anti-social characters who are strictly self-involved but are otherwise pleasant and agreeable...

 

Well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess that type of character couldn't be called "boring."  Unconventional doesn't equate to quality in my eyes, but to each their own.

 

The fact that you keep bringing up "western" characters, however, makes it seem like you have an axe to grind.  You've ignored several examples of multifaceted, complex characters who do not adhere to your stereotype in favor of a generalization that is actually much more common in traditional JRPGs.

[Fidite Nemini]

I agree completely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or at least I would, had I played the game and came to the same observation regarding those characters' characteristics, which I haven't. Which you haven't either, because the game isn't out yet, which in turn means that any perception you have on anything within the game is flawed at best, or wrong at worst.

[Seraphim24]

So... you have a problem with self-righteous, heroic characters who have strong values and tell you what to do... and you want them replaced by violent, anti-social characters who are strictly self-involved but are otherwise pleasant and agreeable...

 

The fact that you keep bringing up "western" characters, however, makes it seem like you have an axe to grind.  You've ignored several examples of multifaceted, complex characters who do not adhere to your stereotype in favor of a generalization that is actually much more common in traditional JRPGs.

 

Of course I have an ax to grind, that should be obvious at this point. If I liked DA;I as it was I wouldn't say anything. There are literally hundreds of other issues that are related to these issues but I'm just limiting myself to what I dislike in this one game, that's it. 

 

I've said this multiple times. I'm annoyed that the 1) Violent characters are NOT accepting of their interest in violence and 2) that there aren't very many nice charcters. 

 

It's asking that characters like Blackwall or Dorian or Varric or Vivienne stop going "hey, I'm your buddy, we're in this together, I fight for justice" and start going "you know, I'm kind of manic psycho and likes to kill or steal or maim," because quite frankly, they are characters (and who mirror people IRL) that strike me as people that like to kill steal hurt and destroy. I'm calling their presentation in the game a facade. 

 

I bring up "western" characters because I see it as more pervasive there. For instance, Kefka I always think of an incredible character because there is no dimension, no pithy justifications, no "hey we drink together and I helped you that one time, therefore we are friends" the man just embraced his hatred to the utmost.  

 

Opposing them, I'd want to see characters that are in fact, not hateful or spiteful or vengeful in this way. So, a character that really likes rivers and valleys, water and plants. Someone who stays up all night thinking about what kind of flower they are going to give someone as a surprise. 

 

Finally, I have never mentioned DA;O or DA2, because this is the DA:I forum and my problem is with DA:I. Sure, Morrigan is a cool character, fine, but again... that's not the game I'm talking about. 

[Seraphim24]

Anyway, I'm seeing a lot of the "we don't know the full story yet" responses and I'll just say based on what I've seen I'm not "that" interested in this game so I may not get it. However, if you guys all get it and are ecstatic and gush till the end of time then hey, maybe I can see what all the fuss is about. 

[Zen]

Kefka was written the way he was written to provide a consistent villain. He's not a good example of a well-rounded person.

 

"there is no dimension" says it all. You just don't care about depth of character.

[Seraphim24]

Kefka was written the way he was written to provide a consistent villain. He's not a good example of a well-rounded person.

 

"there is no dimension" says it all. You just don't care about depth of character.

 

I wouldn't mind hearing your example of a deep or otherwise rounded character, if you want. 

[Zatche]

Of course I have an ax to grind, that should be obvious at this point. If I liked DA;I as it was I wouldn't say anything. There are literally hundreds of other issues that are related to these issues but I'm just limiting myself to what I dislike in this one game, that's it.

I've said this multiple times. I'm annoyed that the 1) Violent characters are NOT accepting of their interest in violence and 2) that there aren't very many nice charcters.

You've made a number of vague and loosely related points. It's been hard to follow.

It's asking that characters like Blackwall or Dorian or Varric or Vivienne stop going "hey, I'm your buddy, we're in this together, I fight for justice" and start going "you know, I'm kind of manic psycho and likes to kill or steal or maim," because quite frankly, they are characters (and who mirror people IRL) that strike me as people that like to kill steal hurt and destroy. I'm calling their presentation in the game a facade.

There are also people in real life that fight for justice, not because they like fighting, but because they feel they have to. Some happen to also enjoy fighting, but you're accusing Blackwall of being a psychopath based on nothing.

Iron Bull, however, does admit he enjoys violence.

I bring up "western" characters because I see it as more pervasive there. For instance, Kefka I always think of an incredible character because there is no dimension, no pithy justifications, no "hey we drink together and I helped you that one time, therefore we are friends" the man just embraced his hatred to the utmost.

Opposing them, I'd want to see characters that are in fact, not hateful or spiteful or vengeful in this way. So, a character that really likes rivers and valleys, water and plants. Someone who stays up all night thinking about what kind of flower they are going to give someone as a surprise.

People bond and become friends while drinking and helping each other in real life. Don't see a problem there.

And you're describing Sera, it seems. (Also Merrill). She is apparently the type of person to make you a hat or something. But she also hates bigwigs and is self righteous about fighting for the downtrodden, so you may not like that aspect of her, but that's her motivation. It's not meant to be universally appealing.

Finally, I have never mentioned DA;O or DA2, because this is the DA:I forum and my problem is with DA:I. Sure, Morrigan is a cool character, fine, but again... that's not the game I'm talking about.

In your original post, you stated that your points apply to Bioware and Dragon Age overall, and you specifically named Alistair. Alistair, who yes, is vengeful against Loghain, but of course he is. Loghain is responsible for Duncan and the rest of his Grey Warden friends dying. That's his motivation. And yes, that does mirror real life, because some people in real life are mad about injustices and want vengeance.

[StrangeStrategy]

That's too bad. But they're not going to change what they have now because Kefka112 isn't interested in all the companions.

If you've seen the other threads about the companions, you'll see they all have an excited fan base who absolutely love the character.

 

Its also rather unfair for you to say the characters are boring to you when you haven't even played the game yet.

[Seraphim24]

There are also people in real life that fight for justice, not because they like fighting, but because they feel they have to. 

 

I don't buy that, it's just something we differ on here. Most people who are inspired by an abstract concepts like "justice" are inherently violent first, justice is the marketing term used to describe their exploits after the fact. Most of these characters seem to be pretty well-off and secure, they just are determined to upset the apple cart from my POV. 

 

I'm not saying that is always a bad thing either, it's akin to the idea that some kind of "horrible" people like Isaac Newton or some Med-evil King who was not a nice person but ended up producing something valuable is fine. But refusing to question these holy arbiters of "justice" doesn't seem right to me in a game where you get to explore underlying motivations and complexities.

 

People bond and become friends while drinking and helping each other in real life. Don't see a problem there.

 

I just sense it's a ploy used by said med-evil king or Isaac Newton to prove he's also a "nice" and "cool" person that "understands the common man." It's a guess that misses completely IMO. Alternatively, the game is simply catered to a specific group of people and not to people like me, which is fine if they want to do that. 

 

And you're describing Sera, it seems. (Also Merrill). She is apparently the type of person to make you a hat or something. But she also hates bigwigs and is self righteous about fighting for the downtrodden, so you may not like that aspect of her, but that's her motivation. It's not meant to be universally appealing.

 

I said I liked Sera all right, and since you brought up Merrill sure also Merrill.

 

In your original post, you stated that your points apply to Bioware and Dragon Age overall, and you specifically named Alistair. Alistair, who yes, is vengeful against Loghain, but of course he is. Loghain is responsible for Duncan and the rest of his Grey Warden friends dying. That's his motivation. And yes, that does mirror real life, because some people in real life are mad about injustices and want vengeance.

 

Oh so I did, well let me re-phrase this point, I think DA:O probably had the highest percentage of interesting characters, than I suppose DA2 and DA:I are tied for much lower. 

 

At any rate, if Alistair was intended to serve as the cool, nice and friendly guy as a counter-part for all these self-righteous types, then I believe he would of let go after. This struck me as character design as wish fulfillment, he was sold to me as a charming and fun person who suddenly let out this burning heroic side and rose to the kingship and stamps out injustice. It didn't fit to me, I think the first Alistair would of deferred to the rules. 

[Zatche]

I think you're reading way too much into people wanting to drink beer.

 

At any rate, if Alistair was intended to serve as the cool, nice and friendly guy as a counter-part for all these self-righteous types, then I believe he would of let go after. This struck me as character design as wish fulfillment, he was sold to me as a charming and fun person who suddenly let out this burning heroic side and rose to the kingship and stamps out injustice. It didn't fit to me, I think the first Alistair would of deferred to the rules. 

 

To me, that is an opportunity to analyze Alistair as a character. I don't agree with his decision to throw a tantrum over Loghain joining the Grey Wardens, but it makes sense when you think about it. He seems nice and harmless, but when everything around him is destroyed and his friends die, it's not a surprise that he would lash out and want vengeance against Loghain. Again, I don't agree with that definition of justice, but the characters I find most interesting are often the ones I do not agree with. Whether you think that is an interesting character arc is entirely subjective, but you seem more focused on the fact that these characters don't share your particular worldview (A worldview that I, to be frank, disagree with). And it seems that since their views are incompatible with yours, you throw them all in the same bucket and label them all uninteresting. You say they are all the same, that there is no diversity, even though they have completely different worldviews and motivations from each other.

[RevilFox]

Honestly, it seems most of what I say is just kind of stretched into something I haven't said. I say I want less super-noble-violent characters/whatever, and so I need a violent anime or murder-hobo. 

I kind of want a murder-hobo. HK-47 was too long ago.

[Copper Ram]

Wait....wait....wait....I've just read three pages of this and I can't decide what the argument is actually about.  So to circumvent "boring characters" the implication is that they need to be entirely one-dimensional?  What you see is what you get?  Is that.....is that a fair interpretation?  

[Seraphim24]

To me, that is an opportunity to analyze Alistair as a character. I don't agree with his decision to throw a tantrum over Loghain joining the Grey Wardens, but it makes sense when you think about it. He seems nice and harmless, but when everything around him is destroyed and his friends die, it's not a surprise that he would lash out and want vengeance against Loghain. . . Whether you think that is an interesting character arc is entirely subjective, but you seem more focused on the fact that these characters don't share your particular worldview (A worldview that I, to be frank, disagree with). And it seems that since their views are incompatible with yours, you throw them all in the same bucket and label them all uninteresting. You say they are all the same, that there is no diversity, even though they have completely different worldviews and motivations from each other.

 

I don't know what else to say, he's a psycho by the end, not anyone I would recognize, and I'm not sure "Duncan" qualifies as "everyone." Between that point and the end of the game, I would of thought he would of gotten over it, but alas. I don't really buy that he would of been just so attached to Duncan in the first place.

 

I don't think I've delineated a worldview exactly, but I have stated many times that I throw many of these characters in the same bucket because they simply feel like "we're all saving the world together." Edwin and Minsc "hated" each other. Irenicus was immensely proud and seemed to almost enjoy his rebellion, although it also felt like he maybe had a good reason for rebelling also.

 

Do any of the DA:I characters seem like they hate any other character? From Cullen to Leliana and Iron Bull and everyone in between, everyone (again, save Sera, maybe Cassandra/Solas) seems to be very faintly "liberal but with nuance and flair to their otherwise traditional viewpoints." It goes back to all the other D&D games like Mask of the Betrayer where the choices are like "do you want to murder the helpless village," or "do you want to save everyone and get the A ending and heal everyone and have all your friends together." It's like... hmmmmm,, I gotta think about that. 

 

It makes me slightly sleepy and bored, this doesn't have to be about worldviews or viewpoints, it's just how excited I am or not for the game. I'm excited when someone's raising something controversial or unique or something, I don't really smell a lot of controversy here. 

 

Of course I'll likely be said to be "oversimplifying, overbroad, and too early" once again and I think this situation is just going around in circles at this point. Also this has gotten scattershot over 3 pages and probably are causing misinterpretations along the way. 

 

Actually, I've not once bothered to discuss the darkspawn as a character, but they're one of the least interesting parts of the DA universe, and their bland "dark lord" contrast strikes me as the very same timidity. The world isn't a scary place because of giant dark demons with spikes on their head, it's the conflict between people that is often the most interesting source of conflict. They seem to exist for fear of exploring a "real" conflict. 

 

You know let me say though that I have enjoyed Baldur's Gate, I thought certain characters in DA were at least pretty interesting. I wouldn't read too much into any other statements or suggestions aside from the main one which is that I look and this game and go, oh this is supposed to be the amazingly controversial and exciting Bioware universe, but I'm just going, meh. 

[Grieving Natashina]

In dedication to your name, I'll leave you with this.  It's a damned good remix of Dancing Mad.

 

[tmp7704]

For instance, Kefka I always think of an incredible character because there is no dimension, no pithy justifications, no "hey we drink together and I helped you that one time, therefore we are friends" the man just embraced his hatred to the utmost.

It's funny to me you'd bring up Kefka, character who you say yourself has "no dimension" and really nothing going for him but the one hatred note, as "incredibly interesting" in a thread made to complain about boring characters out of all places. Because I can't think of anything more boring than one note character with no dimension.

[Borosini]

She isn't irritating because of good writing. She's irritating because the character she's portraying, a version of the the manic pixie dream girl, is extremely annoying.

 

 

*snip*

 

I'm not sure why people are unwilling to give credit to the writers in this case? It seems clear they chose to utilize (and later subvert) an annoying trope specifically to make Brooks an annoying character.

 

It's effective writing because the trope was subverted. If they wanted Brooks to be an Actual MPDG, she'd have had a different role in the plot—and then we could justifiably accuse the writers of laziness or what-have-you.

 

To bring this back to DA/general characterization: I feel like there are two broad camps—those of us fans who want video games to serve as an escape, and those of us who want video games to comment on real world issues. The former seem to want characters that facilitate uncomplicated feelings—companions that are easy to like and villains that are easy to hate—so that the player can focus on enjoying the experience of the game without distraction. The others might prefer to see characters with flaws, internal conflict, whose motivations don't always make immediate sense—characters who give rise to situations that cause the player to reflect on themselves or the world at large. I don't think either point of view is inherently correct, though I do consider myself squarely in the second camp.

[Icy Magebane]

To bring this back to DA/general characterization: I feel like there are two broad camps—those of us fans who want video games to serve as an escape, and those of us who want video games to comment on real world issues. The former seem to want characters that facilitate uncomplicated feelings—companions that are easy to like and villains that are easy to hate—so that the player can focus on enjoying the experience of the game without distraction. The others might prefer to see characters with flaws, internal conflict, whose motivations don't always make immediate sense—characters who give rise to situations that cause the player to reflect on themselves or the world at large. I don't think either point of view is inherently correct, though I do consider myself squarely in the second camp.

Aside from Dog, I can't think of a DA:O, DA:A. or DA2 party member who doesn't fit this definition.  The OP seems to be unsatisfied by the lack of overtly villainous, low morality, and/or boisterous personalities on the DA:I roster.  They appear to have a very specific taste in characters.  It isn't enough that a character is conflicted over his dedication to the religion he was born into and has killed in the name of.  The OP isn't happy with a blatantly self-absorbed sorceress who seems to want the Circles rebuilt so that she can maintain her social status.  No, it must be either a "no dimensional," flat villain like Kefka, or an obnoxious rookie soldier who can't control their temper, kills randomly, and repeatedly makes reference to how much fun it is to be a killer.

 

Even from the snippets we've been given about each character, there is a lot of potential for depth and inner conflict.  Setting aside these very strict definitions of what it means to be "interesting," I think the cast is actually looking pretty good.

[Icy Magebane]

 I don't think that's fair to the OP. They're saying that characters who DO enjoy violence should not have a justification of "it's for justice" when they simply enjoy the violence. The OP is not talking about a character acting more violent, the OP is talking about a character being honest with themselves.

I admit I might have gone a little overboard with my example, but I have a hard time imagining a veteran soldier giving that much thought to taking lives.  From DA:O until now, none of the party members have been neophytes (except Finn, I guess...).  They've all killed before and they probably came to terms with that long ago.  The fact that they don't verbalize their thoughts on killing doesn't mean they're lying to themselves.  At least, I've never had that impression...

 

Essentially, the OP is focused solely on one or two specific types of depth while ignoring the many, many other forms it has taken over the course of this series.  There is no reason to expect the characters of DAI to deviate from this pattern.

 

Also, keep in mind that one of their reasons for disliking Varric is because he doesn't "act like a rogue."  When one of their desired behaviors for a "true" rogue includes randomly murdering somebody in cold blood after leaving a bar, I think that sets the tone for the type of character the OP is looking for.  The OP's focus is too narrow IMO.

[Seraphim24]

I seem to still not be getting this across properly. To me, Varric, Vivienne, Iron Bull, heck even Dorian, etc, ARE Kefka. They are just sort of blandly violently characters, basically one dimensional uninteresting, they're "depth" doesn't strike me as depth. I realize that seems like a jump but it's just how I feel, that's all there is to it. Obviously I'm assessing all the details people are citing in their defense differently. 

 

So, for one, I'm like why don't you just throw away the mask and emphasize that they're frequently blithely violent characters and be done with it? They're justifications and explanations for why they're not "selfish" are just so thin and unfounded to me, that I don't see them as very different. I'm also saying, that's ok, but if that's the way of things, might as well dress like a clown and openly relish what they clearly seem to relish. I feel like Varric needs to go "You know what the best part is? When I know they've lost money and they're screwed, that's the moment I live for," or whatever.

 

I think the idea that "what pleasure is there in destruction, if no precious lives are lost," is a creed that a lot of DA characters seem to live by, at least implicitly. I don't know, maybe I'm just hypersensitive to what I perceive as "violence." Some people think a person that kills in the street is violent, I agree, but I also find someone who is so exclusively vested in their own interests to the extent of a Varric or whoever to be almost similarly violent and extreme. 

 

Secondly, I specifically wanted NICE characters, i.e. NOT Kefka, such as (if were still going with FF6) Terra or whoever. People have pointed out there are some i.e. the advisers characters from DA2 or DA:O or Sera, but I'm thinking a central character. The fact that they often appear on the margins indicates their importance vis a vis the DA universe. 

 

I have seen instances of more complicated characters that are extremely violent but appears to have depth (Jowy from Suikoden 2 comes to mind). If I thought the giant mercenary that cracks skulls and has a big eye patch from a super warrior culture had potential for depth, I'd say make em deep, I'm not seeing that though.  

[Feybrad]

You do realize that People can kill quite a lot - especially IN WARTIMES! AS SOLDIERS! without actually relishing in it, do you? What you want to see emphasized, that all these Characters like killing and being evil, is not there in these Characters. They do NOT kill because they like it and some of them - the iron Bull for example, or Varric from all we can assess about him in Inquisition - are actively tormented and mentally scarred by the fact that they have to kill in these Amounts nonetheless. If you think they enjoy killing deep down, then you are reading that into them, because it is not there.

 

Actually, to look at the iron Bull, he demonstrates quite a lot of Depth even from what we can see now. He puts on a Facade of being a "playboy", to enjoy drinking, sleeping around and killing, but this is actually a coping Mechanism to deal with the horrible Things he had to do, mostly involving killing. That is quite a lot of Depth.

 

So, if you think they have just "Excuses" and actually like killing, you are wrong. These Things, like for example simply Self-Defense, are not "Excuses" or "Justifications". They are Reasons, for lack of a better Word. Reasons they are fighting. So, if you do not like People, who do not like Fighting, but do it anyway because they have "Reasons" to do so, then you truly are looking into the wrong Franchise. They are not the Monster you make them out to be, no matter what you want.