118 réponses à ce sujet

[Samahl]

Your claim is unfalsifiable. We can't ever be completely sure what any given character's true motives are, and even where evidence exists for their altruism, you are insistent on denying it in a way that justifies your outlook.

Basically, you are arguing from a place where it is impossible for you to be wrong.

I personally don't think BioWare should be catering to people with your philosophical outlook in any case.

[JWvonGoethe]

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."

From the official Bioware companion profile pages (paraphrasing):

Sera and Vivienne hate Cole. Sera even refers to him as "It". Varric dislikes Iron Bull due to his experience of the Qunari in DA2. Varric also has a problematic relationship with Cassandra, since she forcibly interrogated him, using the threat of violence to intimidate him in DA2. Iron Bull does not get on with Solas; Vivienne and Dorian have problems with each other; Cassandra and Vivienne are also said to have a heated relationship. There are only 9 companions and they have at least 7 rivalries between them that we know of. That's a lot of animosity for such a small group of people.

[Storm King]

This whole thread is just... Ugh.

[Seraphim24]

Oh, I understand what you're saying. I just don't see any logic in the idea that absolutely no one who uses reasons like "justice" or "to help others" is being genuine.

 

I really don't understand why people need to use reasons like "to help others." If they say "to help themselves" and it seems genuine, that would seem completely sufficient to me. 

 

The insistence upon "helping others" (again, how are they helping? Did these people ask?) and for justice are very Christian, traditional concepts and I find it odd they pop up in a Bioware video game where it's supposed to be kind of on the bleeding edge. The fact that they've allowed them (and not themselves) to define right and wrong in such a way suggests a kind of giving in that is disappointing. What about the notion that you have to help yourself to help others? That seems like an equally valid or exciting concept, but it doesn't appear to get any screen time in this game. 

 

We can't ever be completely sure what any given character's true motives are, and even where evidence exists for their altruism, you are insistent on denying it in a way that justifies your outlook.

 

I get it, we all disagree that these characters true motives and intentions, the evidence is presented to me in a way that suggests something differently than people who gave it more a face reading. 

 

Sera and Vivienne hate Cole. Sera even refers to him as "It". Varric dislikes Iron Bull due to his experience of the Qunari in DA2. Varric also has a problematic relationship with Cassandra, since she forcibly interrogated him, using the threat of violence to intimidate him in DA2. Iron Bull does not get on with Solas; Vivienne and Dorian have problems with each other; Cassandra and Vivienne are also said to have a heated relationship. There are only 9 companions and they have at least 7 rivalries between them that we know of. That's a lot of animosity for such a small group of people.

 

Most of those things were in the nature of "not getting along," or "have problems with each other" or "heated relationship." It all sounds pretty mild, to be honest, like roommate issues or something. Sera for the umpteenth I get, she's different. Varric and Cass, maybe.

 

You're presuming a lot from a shot of characters standing around a war table. Everything else we've seen from the developers indicates that the characters will take hard stances and may even leave the Inquisition if they don't like the direction you're taking.

 

I'm rarely if ever surprised that my initial snap impression is off when it comes to these things. It doesn't matter if it's a Bioware game, a movie, a TV show, I usually have an instantaneous impression that is very rarely changed by actual experience. 

 

Oy. This has gotten really negative. I guess I'll emphasize again that I personally found characters like Viconia, Edwin, Irenicus, Melissan, and whoever else to be kind of fascinating in how they accepted their violent inclinations. They didn't offer up boring little justifications like "I did it for peace, or the Grey Wardens, or because the ugly minion was going to hit me." No, they were steadfast in embracing their true nature. It happened once before, I don't see why it can't happen again. 

 

When I played D&D games at first, I was like, of course I do this thing for good or that, I never would play an evil character. I still can't, really. However, there are people IRL that strike me as just wanting to hurt people, period. Not just criminals, powerful people, "noble" people. That's why I thought it was interesting to see Bioware trying to represent those characters in a kind of heroic fashion, to shed light on what it's like to really be that kind of person, now they're gone, I am disappoint. 

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I really don't understand why people need to use reasons like "to help others." If they say "to help themselves" and it seems genuine, that would seem completely sufficient to me. 

 

The insistence upon "helping others" (again, how are they helping? Did these people ask?) and for justice are very Christian, traditional concepts

Hammurabi, inventor of the first known code of laws and concept of justice, would like a word from 1750BCish.  

 

Admittedly, definitions of justice have changed since his day, but to claim that the idea of 'justice' is Christian or that altruism is Christian shows an ignorance that is frankly astounding.  

[KainD]

You're presuming a lot from a shot of characters standing around a war table. Everything else we've seen from the developers indicates that the characters will take hard stances and may even leave the Inquisition if they don't like the direction you're taking.

 

The only problem is, they are all headed in one direction, more or less. 

[KainD]

Your claim is unfalsifiable. We can't ever be completely sure what any given character's true motives are, and even where evidence exists for their altruism, you are insistent on denying it in a way that justifies your outlook.

Basically, you are arguing from a place where it is impossible for you to be wrong.

I personally don't think BioWare should be catering to people with your philosophical outlook in any case.

Yeah, personal preferences can't be wrong in any way.

And your stance is basically anti diversity which can be applied anywhere. Try and post your last sentence in any thread asking for more diversity in other aspects like race, sexuality etc. see how that goes. And this is not really different.

[RustyW]

I can not believe this is still going on.

OP you have your opinion which is fine, yet your opinion is based without the full facts, so you could be arguing or being unhappy about nothing yet.

Perhaps you could revisit this after DA:I has been out for a few weeks.

[Samahl]

Yeah, personal preferences can't be wrong in any way.

The OP is asserting that certain characters are a certain way, with little to no evidence backing his claims. It's not preference, it's opinion, and opinions can be wrong.

And your stance is basically anti diversity which can be applied anywhere. Try and post your last sentence in any thread asking for more diversity in other aspects like race, sexuality etc. see how that goes. And this is not really different.

My sentence is vague enough to be applied to anything... without context. Good thing I didn't just post it in any random place, and addressed the OP dirrectly. His opinions have nothing to do with representation, by the by, unless you're talking about diversity of personalities, which I see plenty of already in Inquisition.

[tmp7704]

I'd argue that "selfish" reasons are good reasons; someone who becomes a knight first to protect his home and incidentally protects the village is the only real hero. The one who protects a village sheerly to aspire to some concept of "good" (and who has no real stake in the game) is therefore doing it to feed some "other" cause like a love of violence.

I'd argue this is bullshit, especially the "only real hero" part, as it completely excludes the possibility someone may be willing to protect others out of empathy or other actually selfish reason(s). I don't know why you'd exclude this possibility, but it undermines your entire argument, and also in a way it's responsible for this thread, as it makes you view the characters in a way I doubt they were written.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I personally don't think BioWare should be catering to people with your philosophical outlook in any case.

 

Why not? They're literally trying to cater to everyone else.

[Feybrad]

Why not? They're literally trying to cater to everyone else.

 

Because there are so many philosophcal Outlooks out there that it would be impossible to cater to them all and as you can observe in this very Thread, his oder her philosophical Outlook is one many People oppose, while he himself makes astonishingly little Sense for all his or her Ramblings.

[Seraphim24]

Admittedly, definitions of justice have changed since his day, but to claim that the idea of 'justice' is Christian or that altruism is Christian shows an ignorance that is frankly astounding.  

 

Ruh roh. Ok, it's just one I'm very familiar with, wherever the precise origins is irrelevant to me. 

 

I don't know why you'd exclude this possibility

 

Because I neither necessarily like nor believe in those kinds of people. It varies just how much they lean on abstractions, and and that varies how interested I am in them, I might still like them somewhat if it's just someone using the words when it's really all their own initiative.

 

At any rate, speaking of exclusion, I don't know why Bioware would exclude the possibility of people who are crazy excited to be visiting new lands and getting to know the local population and jump up at the sound of cookies baking or meat cooking. Or people who try to stay positive, or have no interest in politics necessarily but are warm and endearing people nonetheless. 

 

Having done so, though, I've turned my attention to Tales of Symphonia which in fact does have a character with a penchant for baking cookies (among other things, of course), and perhaps I'll play that until DA:I has been out awhile and maybe there will be even more information to change my viewpoint. (unlikely though, I believe) You guys can take this squad of avengers and bash those dark and evil minions in and drink the blood from their skulls while doing super magical sword attacks that explode people in the name of justice though in the meantime, I hope it's fun. 

[stormhit]

Are you just complaining about ludonarrative dissonance? I mean, would you rather play a cookie baking simulator?

 

It doesn't make a lot of sense to have characters that are non-violent when the second you control them you're grinding levels by killing things. Sometimes it's best to avoid that kind of characterization, as it can be narrative-breaking.

[Bugsie]

You guys can take this squad of avengers and bash those dark and evil minions in and drink the blood from their skulls while doing super magical sword attacks that explode people in the name of justice though in the meantime, I hope it's fun.

I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve with this thread really. You seem to like taking sneering little digs at people for not taking on board a whole lot of depth in characters, and given the amount of information given to us so far, why would they?

Yay you, for reading more into than the developers have actually provided, I guess?

Can't say it has dampened many people's enthusiasm for the game though. It has obviously gotten a rise out of people, wait... that wasn't the aim of the thread was it?

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

cookies baking

Sten.  That is all.  

 

What you seem to actually want is polarised characters - one character who believes dogmatically in the bizarre nature of the Qun, and another who likes cookies, rather than the more layered characters who are capable of liking both.  Unfortunately, the latter is closer to reality.  Hitler liked Western novels and dogs; Churchill was overly fond of smoking.  People ARE layered, and not all of their attributes, likes, dislikes, goals, etc. are good or bad.  Also, people ****** love abstractions and chase after them ferociously irl.  

[Seraphim24]

I just want to see someone who isn't sneering and attempting to get me in a trap of logic or who isn't otherwise extremely violent and brutal. DA:I seems very interested in going, oh look, there are those guys, (say, Category E characters) but hey, they're also your friend with little hobbies like this and that, see? We have such broad and unique vision, our warriors dance around and have feelings, like beer, are ever so charming. 

 

I'm like ok, what about A) Characters who are equally wrathful and generous? Characters that aren't extremely violent and brutal, or who are in fact and extremely charming, nice C) Characters that aren't extremely violent and brutal but fight out of necessity? D) Characters that can't stand abstractions or who don't use them in the same way. (70% of the human world population IMO) The fixation on the nuances for superleaders and world figures like Churchill and Hitler feels a kind of bias that DA:I has, it's not the nuances of a housewife or gentle personality, it's only how the "important" people are human, not how the "gentle" people can be violent or otherwise multifaceted (because they largely don't even exist, simple or multifaceted form, in game). I've also contested numerous times the notion that "Hey I drink," "Hey, I like dogs," "Hey I smoke" is really very multifaceted IMO. If you had said that Churchill had a passion for singing or piano or something more than just finding another way to get a disease then maybe I'd personally care more about him.

 

People have been trying to shove certain characters into spots A-D and I'm telling you that I simply still feel those are category E people guessing badly and poorly imitating a person in an A-D category, (save maybe Sera/Solas) I'm saying it's no fun from my POV, I'm saying their psychological analysis doesn't work for me, I'm saying that I really don't like Kant, I'm saying it's making me bored and feeling like it's a dry cliched and generic game, it's just my impression, pure and simple. My only goal was to make clear why I have pretty much abandoned Dragon Age after once being excited for it, simple as that. I'm not interested in dampening other people's enthusiasm, I'm hoping to eventually get a game where I personally can get more enthusiastic. No need to get upset, if you are satisfied with the game there is no reason to even read this thread, you can just go, "boring?! PSH whatever guy has no idea, moving on."

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

 

I'm like ok, what about A) Characters who are equally wrathful and generous? Characters that aren't extremely violent and brutal, or who are in fact and extremely charming, nice C) Characters that aren't extremely violent and brutal but fight out of necessity? D) Characters that can't stand abstractions or who don't use them in the same way. (70% of the human world population IMO) The fixation on the nuances for superleaders and world figures like Churchill and Hitler feels a kind of bias that DA:I has, it's not the nuances of a housewife or gentle personality, it's only how the "important" people are human, not how the "gentle" people can be violent or otherwise multifaceted (because they largely don't even exist, simple or multifaceted form, in game). I've also contested numerous times the notion that "Hey I drink," "Hey, I like dogs," "Hey I smoke" is really very multifaceted IMO. If you had said that Churchill had a passion for singing or piano or something more than just finding another way to get a disease then maybe I'd personally care more about him.

 

Ok, I partly don't understand your definition of E), but taking this on as is my first point would be...

 

Your followers in DAI aren't housewives.  One of the taglines here is 'leader of leaders'.  Your followers are exceptional people with a lot of charisma and goodwill in their own right.  Yes, having vague hobbies isn't in and of itself multifaceted, but what it reveals about the person is interesting and shows another side to them.  In other words, it's about inference - X likes dogs BECAUSE Y, which is at odds with their apparent personality of Z.  Spelling out what Y is is dull and assumes that you're thick.  I like it when a game has the balls to show me X and Z and leave me to think up Y myself.  But maybe that's just me.  

 

Also, coming up with detailed examples for A through D for you....A) Fenris, much as I found him a dislikeable angry ******* is capable of showing generosity in his dealings with Qunari and elves of various stripes (arguably DA2 Anders could belong here as well, but everyone seems to hate him so I'll leave him out of this).   Merrill and Alistair, arguably - while both have their odd fascinations, they aren't in and of themselves violent people: Alistair seems to only want to kill people because Duncan did and Duncan is the great god, and Merrill seems to only do it because Hawke is and because Dalish.  C) Varric, who almost always gains Rivalry points if you jump straight to fightan without trying to resolve things via trickery or cunning first.  D) Morrigan, who is eminently perfectly pragmatic - always recommends amoral but sensible decisions (don't trust the loonies who just turned themselves into demons, giant wolf people are tougher than flimsy archers, giant iron golem army good/no giant iron golem army bad) - and believes in nothing more than herself and her mother.  I doubt you'll agree with this, because you do seem to want these character traits to be very open to you - which is reasonable enough, some people like the full picture of events when they read a book.  I like moments of uncertainty, where it's up to the reader to decide what is going on, and why.  

 

I'll leave with this: Lovecraft is a better horror writer than most, because he knows when to say 'it was a horrifying being I could not describe' to allow the reader's mind to fill in the blanks to greater effect.  If he'd just said 'It was a big black blob covered in mouths' a lot of people would've gone 'a big black blob covered in mouths?  That's not scary' and given up.  The former way, more readers were able to feel the impact of the story, though some would've been left confused.  Does that make sense?  

[Lady Nuggins]

My only goal was to make clear why I have pretty much abandoned Dragon Age after once being excited for it, simple as that.

 

You spend an awful lot of time in the DAI forums for somebody who has abandoned it.

 

I read this thread when it first started, was really confused about the OP's point, figured it would have congealed into some kind of clear conversation by now, and I'm still confused.  You seem to want really, really specific characters with very specific traits, Kefka.  I'm sorry the game doesn't have your exact list of specifications.