2858 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

Sera doesn't hate herself. Stop projecting.

 

She just sees herself as "Sera". Not everyone is a slave to groupthink like you.

 

Yeah, I see it more as Sera rejecting the notion that she has to have a certain kind of cultural identity because of her race. I really like that aspect of her character when it is done well. I recall liking the bit she has about not wanting it to become them and us because she likes them.  

 

I see it as intended that she's doing the same thing to elves that she hates some of them for doing: being judgement about others including due to their race as well as their cultural and theological beliefs. I believe I recall her demonstrating this with the Dalish Inquisitor before the latter has even said a word at the inn in Haven. 

 

 Some elves has come to expect a certain kind of attitude from all humans because of what they've experienced in the past from some of them and Sera has come to expect a certain kind of attitude from elves because of what she's experienced in the past from some of them.
 

[RUS_centralnui]

Sera is cool and funny, when I got her as one of mine companions it becomes more interesting and funny with her.

I like her talking with others companions. She speaks what she thinks and never hide anything behind.

 

The only character I don't like is Viviene, I won't be surprised if she will be one of the enemies in future.

Why? Because she don't even care about others, the only important person to her is herself.

She talking about the Mages Circle, but only to get someone to rule to get power.

[Pasquale1234]

Eh, I just thought it would be a good follow-up since Sera claims it would boost moral.

I think you're expected to take that at face value. Or not.
 

Servant: "Did you hear? Someone put a bucket of water over the lady Josephine's door. Her silly, frilly thing thing was all drenched. Had to rush back to her room as fast as she could to change."
Servant: "Who would do such a thing to lady Josephine? She's so nice even smiles and greet us when we come by with the food. Poor woman, she must have felt so humiliated."
Servant: "Well, I thought it was funny!"
Servant: "How would you like to have a bucket of water turned over your head?"

Is there a point to a scenario like that - other than to make any player who goes along with the pranks feel like a butthole?

How should the Inquisitor react to a scene like that?
 

Not everybody shares the same sense of humor and opinion of such so it would only make sense that the common people would likewise have different opinions on it.

Correct - which is probably why they didn't do it. The result would have been a whole new set of arguments about the ratio of people who were amused versus those who weren't versus those who don't care one way or another and so-and-so would have been upset or not minded the prank or... ?

It's pretty clear that they knew Sera would be a divisive character. I don't believe I've ever seen a character present so many opportunities to dismiss them.

[Shechinah]

Is there a point to a scenario like that - other than to make any player who goes along with the pranks feel like a butthole?

 

Why would they? This was the intended outcome of the prank that the players went along with; Josephine opens the door, bucket falls down and Josephine gets water on her.

 

It is just a follow-up to Sera's claim that it'd help boost moral by showing two of the common folk reacting differently to said prank: one is amused by it and one is not amused by it. Both have different opinions on it like the players do.
 

[Pasquale1234]

It is just a follow-up to Sera's claim that it'd help boost moral by showing two of the common folk reacting differently to said prank: one is amused by it and one is not amused by it. Both have different opinions on it like the players do.

Servant: "Who would do such a thing to lady Josephine? She's so nice even smiles and greet us when we come by with the food. Poor woman, she must have felt so humiliated."

Servant: "How would you like to have a bucket of water turned over your head?"

Do you honestly not see that dialogue as an attempt to shame the prankster?

A more neutral response might have one inquiring about Josephine's reaction rather than assuming the worst.

[Shechinah]

Do you honestly not see that dialogue as an attempt to shame the prankster?

A more neutral response might have one inquiring about Josephine's reaction rather than assuming the worst.

 

Ah, like that. I see your point although that was not my intent; the dialogue was suppose to show the different reactions; one is assuming the best of the situation and one is assuming the worst of the situation but neither actually knows what happened since it was a word of mouth kind of thing and so they do not know what Josephine's reaction to the prank was.   
 

[Illegitimus]

I'm a little confused by this demand for "Character development."   Most adults don't change that much without some kind of trauma to cause it.  Again, we are looking at expectations that don't seem to apply to other characters.   Morrigan, Oghren, Zevran, Shale, Dorian, Solas, and probably some of the others don't have any character development.  You just learn more about them, as you do with Sera.

 

 

 Oghren has character development.   He moves on from his fixation on his wife and starts to live life for himself again.  

Morrigan has character development.  It's just spread out over 10 years and multiple games.  

Dorian and Solas don't have a lot of character development...but then their story isn't over.  Sera's story, such as it is, is.  

[Pasquale1234]

Oghren has character development.   He moves on from his fixation on his wife and starts to live life for himself again.  
Morrigan has character development.  It's just spread out over 10 years and multiple games.  
Dorian and Solas don't have a lot of character development...but then their story isn't over.  Sera's story, such as it is, is.

Morrigan has some character development in DAO if the Warden befriends her.

I felt like Sera changed, too, at least on the romance path. She was new the whole acceptance thing, and having someone she can count on seems to change her a bit.

[Pasquale1234]

Ah, like that. I see your point although that was not my intent; the dialogue was suppose to show the different reactions; one is assuming the best of the situation and one is assuming the worst of the situation but neither actually knows what happened since it was a word of mouth kind of thing and so they do not know what Josephine's reaction to the prank was.

Yes - and that's part of the problem.

Let's try this one as an alternative:

Servant1: "Did you hear? Someone put a bucket of water over the lady Josephine's door. Her silly, frilly thing thing was all drenched."
Servant2: "Maker's breath, no! How did she react?"
Servant1: "After she got over the initial shock, she shook herself off, laughed, and went to change."
Servant2: (both laughing) "I'll bet that was quite a sight!"
Servant3 - Josephine's launderer enters: "Oh, you heard? I'll have a bit more work to do tonight, but m'lady is all dried off, and seems more relaxed. She said something about being reminded not to take everything so seriously. She also seemed to enjoy taking some time in the middle of the day to freshen up, and said she might start doing that more often."

In any case, in order to provide some brief scene about the results of Sera's pranks, the writers would have had to first decide exactly how each of the prankees feel about it / react to it, and then decide how various observers would have reacted, and then record voices, animations, etc. There's no reason for an observer to have a negative reaction unless the prankee has a negative reaction.

As near as I can tell, the only purpose it would have served is to give people evidence of the results of the pranks - which can just as well be left to headcanon.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Let's try this one as an alternative:

Servant1: "Did you hear? Someone put a bucket of water over the lady Josephine's door. Her silly, frilly thing thing was all drenched."
Servant2: "Maker's breath, no! How did she react?"
Servant1: "After she got over the initial shock, she shook herself off, laughed, and went to change."
Servant2: (both laughing) "I'll bet that was quite a sight!"
Servant3 - Josephine's launderer enters: "Oh, you heard? I'll have a bit more work to do tonight, but m'lady is all dried off, and seems more relaxed. She said something about being reminded not to take everything so seriously. She also seemed to enjoy taking some time in the middle of the day to freshen up, and said she might start doing that more often."

So your idea is to totally make those who don't like Sera's bullying become invalid, and goes against the actual reaction we see? I prefer the earlier one where it was left vague. What you proposed actually does what you complained about, but the opposite direction. 

[Pasquale1234]

So your idea is to totally make those who don't like Sera's bullying become invalid, and goes against the actual reaction we see?

Nope. My idea is to do what they did - leave it ambiguous. That way, nobody's ideas about how it would turn out are invalidated.
 

I prefer the earlier one where it was left vague.

The prankee's reaction was left vague. One of the servants assumed a negative reaction, and tried to shame the prankster.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Nope. My idea is to do what they did - leave it ambiguous. That way, nobody's ideas about how it would turn out are invalidated.

Except your dialogue doesn't leave it ambiguous. It has everybody, including the victim, end up happy about it. 

 

The prankee's reaction was left vague. One of the servants assumed a negative reaction, and tried to shame the prankster.

How is "They were upset, but then got over it and laughed, enjoying the prank and the opportunity it caused" a vague reaction of the prankee? And said person who assumed a negative reaction is shown to be wrong and joins in on the laughing.

[vertigomez]

Oghren has character development.   He moves on from his fixation on his wife and starts to live life for himself again.  
Morrigan has character development.  It's just spread out over 10 years and multiple games.

Sera has character development, too. It's just not the sort of development that a lot of players want to see, where she totally changes her stance on magic and elven culture.

She goes from being out for herself and a nebulous "little people" to forming strong friendships with - and feeling accepted by - the inner circle ("I'm really not used to that... acceptance thing you're doing.") and in a relationship with the Inquisitor this is magnified ("being for someone else is brilliant" and "Do I get her name? That's like family."). She can even end up working under the Divine, which gives her work with the Jennys some more structure.

Her time with Emmald soured her on the idea that anyone was really on her side. The Inquisitor can change that. (Or not.)

[Pasquale1234]

Except your dialogue doesn't leave it ambiguous. It has everybody, including the victim, end up happy about it.

The only reason I wrote that was to offset the previous dialogue that sets up a negative reaction and shames the prankster, and to demonstrate that pranks are not always harmful.

It was also to show that if BioWare were to include any results of the pranking, it would have been very easy to validate some points of view while invalidating others. This is also something I've stated previously.

It was not a suggestion to include it, or anything like it. I've consistently indicated that my preference is not to include any such material.
 

How is "They were upset, but then got over it and laughed, enjoying the prank and the opportunity it caused" a vague reaction of the prankee? And said person who assumed a negative reaction is shown to be wrong and joins in on the laughing.

Nobody was upset. Servant2 and Josephine were initially surprised, as I expect most people would be when something unexpected happens.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The only reason I wrote that was to offset the previous dialogue that sets up a negative reaction and shames the prankster, and to demonstrate that pranks are not always harmful.

Pranks are always harmful.

 

It was also to show that if BioWare were to include any results of the pranking, it would have been very easy to validate some points of view while invalidating others. This is also something I've stated previously.

It was not a suggestion to include it, or anything like it. I've consistently indicated that my preference is not to include any such material.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize you were purposefully making it like that to prove a point. It read like a genuine suggestion. 

 

Nobody was upset. Servant2 and Josephine were initially surprised, as I expect most people would be when something unexpected happens.

In the game Josephine was certainly depicted to be upset. As was Cullen. 

[fdrty]

Sera has character development, too. It's just not the sort of development that a lot of players want to see, where she totally changes her stance on magic and elven culture.

She goes from being out for herself and a nebulous "little people" to forming strong friendships with - and feeling accepted by - the inner circle ("I'm really not used to that... acceptance thing you're doing.") and in a relationship with the Inquisitor this is magnified ("being for someone else is brilliant" and "Do I get her name? That's like family."). She can even end up working under the Divine, which gives her work with the Jennys some more structure.

Her time with Emmald soured her on the idea that anyone was really on her side. The Inquisitor can change that. (Or not.)

 

I agree. For some, unless the character completely abandons their ideals and sides with them, then it doesn't count as development. and bioware has kind of trained players to expect that, especially in the Mass Effect series. At least in Dragon Age origins, it was clear that everyone had their own beliefs, their own motivations, and their own reasons for following you on your quest. Dragon Age 2 was worse in that regard - I didn't get why everyone stayed together, and there were so many conflicting beliefs on the key issues of the game that friendship, or even cooperation, between say Merrill and Fenris and Anders, would be pretty much impossible. Maybe - and this is quite the criticism, but DA2 and ME2 feel like the companions were designed from a visual standpoint first, as a diverse and intriguing looking group of individuals, and then as characters with beliefs and motivations as secondary to that.

 

As always, any romanced character will get the most development, because they'll feature the most in the main character's personal story.

 

Pranks are always harmful.

 

In the game Josephine was certainly depicted to be upset. As was Cullen. 

 

No offence, but when you say this you sound like quite the humourless person. Obviously, pranks can easily venture into cruelty, so if you have personal experience of that, then sorry for calling you humourless. Pranks are not always harmful. I prank, and get pranked by the people I live with and it makes our days more funny, and we can bond over it.

 

Sometimes people are upset, but if the pranks is good then they shouldn't be for long. I'd really have liked to see someone get their own back on the inquisitor and Sera - but, then again, I don't exactly want the game to become the Prankquisition.

 

If there are no legitimate or peaceful ways, then start one. Every one in our history started somewhere, and even in Dragon Age there are people who are trying. For example Leliana if unhardened and elected Divine.

 

As for the rest, I vehemently disagree. The ends don't justify the means, and if you have to sink to their level to beat them you are no better then them so nothing has changed. We should drop using real world examples though since that is against Site Rules. 

 

Is using real life examples against the rules? Because we're discussing the politics of the game, which comes from the real world. It shouldn't be against the rules to mention real world examples which might have inspired in game events.

 

Did it not occur to you that those very legitimate ways which were created were done exactly through illegitimate means? American war of independence, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the ANC, the list goes on of great liberation movements which used civil disobedience, dissent, sabotage and even violence.

 

Let me do it this way: in most feudal societies, speaking against the king was treason, which as punishable by death. When that is the law, how do you start a movement to enact change?

 

Leliana, in my opinion, does the wrong thing by giving the mages total freedom. Because they are legitimately dangerous, both to the commoners and to themselves. And if she is hardened - something it's very easy to end up happening if you don't know about the softening process and the pivotal moments. And, guess what? Leliana only became divine because the divine and all the clerics were blown up. If that hadn't happened, and someone hadn't used crazy methods to enact change, then she'd never have been there. 

[straykat]

Funny, my dad's name is "Snake".. at least he's gone by that for 40 or 50 years. He got it for being sneaky and playing pranks. Something like that.

 

Some of you wouldn't like him, I suppose. It's all harmful, isn't it? It makes me wonder why he has the largest address book out of people I've known.. he still talks to many friends in his old age.

[yvoi]

Just throwing in my 2 caprice coins, so apologies if it's similar to what has been told before :'D Not planning on reading 106 pages of posts nuh-uh--

 

I don't hate her, let's get that clear from the start, but she's definitely tough to get along with, especially if you're an elven mage //chokes and dies

Sure, I get it, she has opinions on stuff like every other person, but my irritations lie with how rude she is to you if you're either an elf or a mage. Or both. 

She refuses to understand why (some) elves grieve for the loss of their history, and if your inquisitor happens to be like that, you better get ready for a wild amount of approval loss. 

 

Each to their own, though. I don't blame her for not being willing to waste time and effort on pleasing people who she doesn't want to get along with. 

 

Other than that, she's alright I suppose. Love her sense of humor even though it's hard to understand sometimes.

 

Plus her love for qunari/dwarf girls is totally adorable

[vertigomez]

I agree. For some, unless the character completely abandons their ideals and sides with them, then it doesn't count as development. and bioware has kind of trained players to expect that, especially in the Mass Effect series. At least in Dragon Age origins, it was clear that everyone had their own beliefs, their own motivations, and their own reasons for following you on your quest.

Agreed, and I reeeaally dislike the idea that if a companion disagrees with you, it automatically means they're in the wrong and they need some kind of "lesson". Most characters have good reasons to feel the way they do, whether it's Morrigan or Merrill or Sera or Cullen.

Dragon Age 2 was worse in that regard - I didn't get why everyone stayed together, and there were so many conflicting beliefs on the key issues of the game that friendship, or even cooperation, between say Merrill and Fenris and Anders, would be pretty much impossible. Maybe - and this is quite the criticism, but DA2 and ME2 feel like the companions were designed from a visual standpoint first, as a diverse and intriguing looking group of individuals, and then as characters with beliefs and motivations as secondary to that.

Though I disagree completely on this point. There were absolutely some very deep friendships in DA2 - the companions you cited, the ones who truly could not be called friends, like Fenris and Anders or Sebastian and Anders, were cooperating partly out of necessity but largely for Hawke's sake; they tolerated each other (barely) out of loyalty for Hawke, either out of love or a sense of indebtedness. But many characters formed deep, long-lasting friendships... Varric and everyone minus Seb, Merrill and Isabela, Fenris and Sebastian, Aveline and most of the party, Merrill and most of the party...

The ones who truly didn't get along had relationships like Vivienne and Blackwall, where they just despised each other because of fundamental differences. Everybody else got on pretty well, or did after a decade of trailing after Hawke together.

[dragonagenewbie]

 

I don't hate her, let's get that clear from the start, but she's definitely tough to get along with, especially if you're an elven mage //chokes and dies

Sure, I get it, she has opinions on stuff like every other person, but my irritations lie with how rude she is to you if you're either an elf or a mage. Or both. 

She refuses to understand why (some) elves grieve for the loss of their history, and if your inquisitor happens to be like that, you better get ready for a wild amount of approval loss. 

 

Each to their own, though. I don't blame her for not being willing to waste time and effort on pleasing people who she doesn't want to get along with. 

 

 

I think that the key thing that Bioware should keep on doing is to add characters with real and believable personalities and not just likeable types but unlikeables too.  Pick out one of your friends IRL and think about a subject that they really hate.  OK now go talk to your friend about that subject and try to convince them that their hate for that thing is wrong.  In most cases will they agree to change their minds?  So with friends what do you guys do? talk about the things you have in common so you can bond or do you talk to each other about your dislikes?  thats why i like Sera and her "nope not talking about elves, demons or magic" thing.  I'm starting a new playthrough right now with Cassandra as my friend and maybe GF so i want to see how that goes with her likes and dislikes.

[yvoi]

I think that the key thing that Bioware should keep on doing is to add characters with real and believable personalities and not just likeable types but unlikeables too.  Pick out one of your friends IRL and think about a subject that they really hate.  OK now go talk to your friend about that subject and try to convince them that their hate for that thing is wrong.  In most cases will they agree to change their minds?  So with friends what do you guys do? talk about the things you have in common so you can bond or do you talk to each other about your dislikes?  thats why i like Sera and her "nope not talking about elves, demons or magic" thing.  I'm starting a new playthrough right now with Cassandra as my friend and maybe GF so i want to see how that goes with her likes and dislikes.

Yeah! She's realistic, which is definitely a nice change of pace from what consumers usually get (or, well, expect). You either like her or you don't, just like real people. I happen to dislike some of her traits, but I love her for the most part and I wouldn't ever want her to change. Cassandra's romance path is a really enjoyable one in my opinion, I hope you'll like it as much as I did!

[fdrty]

Agreed, and I reeeaally dislike the idea that if a companion disagrees with you, it automatically means they're in the wrong and they need some kind of "lesson". Most characters have good reasons to feel the way they do, whether it's Morrigan or Merrill or Sera or Cullen.

 

 

I'm a Christian IRL, so I tend to play my characters as Andrastians in the game. But, just as IRL, I understood why Morrigan didn't believe in the Maker, and I didn't try to convince her that she was wrong (I don't recall it being an option or really a discussion you could have). It didn't even stop me from romancing her. I don't think it's reasonable to tell someone 'Hey, everything you've ever believed is wrong, and what I believe is correct!' and expect that person to be receptive to that in any way. That's why I don't waste my time arguing religion in youtube comments - because that kind of argument leads nowhere for anyone.

 

I think BW games tend to give the player so much decision-making power in the world (and inquisition is by far the worst in giving you too much power too quickly) and players kind of get into this 'might makes right' mentality. My decisions are right because I chose them, and the game never really punishes them, so I must be right. One thing I'd like to see in future Bioware games is having to confront the negative consequences of our actions. Not necessarily more 'wrong' choices, but to be more aware of the downsides of what we decided was correct. Elect Leliana and free the mages? You have to deal with more rogue blood mages and abominations. Elect Vivienne and keep them locked up? You have to deal with templar abuses. That sort of thing.

 

 

There were absolutely some very deep friendships in DA2 - the companions you cited, the ones who truly could not be called friends, like Fenris and Anders or Sebastian and Anders, were cooperating partly out of necessity but largely for Hawke's sake; they tolerated each other (barely) out of loyalty for Hawke, either out of love or a sense of indebtedness. But many characters formed deep, long-lasting friendships... Varric and everyone minus Seb, Merrill and Isabela, Fenris and Sebastian, Aveline and most of the party, Merrill and most of the party...

The ones who truly didn't get along had relationships like Vivienne and Blackwall, where they just despised each other because of fundamental differences. Everybody else got on pretty well, or did after a decade of trailing after Hawke together.

 

The problem with this description is it doesn't take the approval system into account. Sure, some characters can leave, or even attack you if you have a low enough approval. But it's very easy for Hawke to not be friends with those people, and yet they still follow him even though he acts against their beliefs. If you want to say that they are friends with each other, well, would you put your life on the line following the friends of your friends? Even when they act against your interests? No.

 

It's hard to argue that Fenris and Anders both co-operate with Hawke to further their goals when they have opposite goals. In that scenario, what if Hawke helps templars? Then that goes directly against Anders, while supporting Fenris. then why does Anders still follow Hawke around, when they have different goals, and may not even be friends? What they should have done was have less companions who held strong views on the mage-templar conflict and instead had a bunch of companions whose motive was peace, like Varric and Aveline. That way, it would make sense, as Hawke is the best chance for peace in Kirkwall.

[Squish]

To laugh. And see what frightens old women so.

-likes it five more times-

[vertigomez]

fdrty, with regard to Hawke I think part of the problem is that the friendship/rivalry system is all over the place. The idea is that your companions either agree with you or at least respect you, even if they don't agree. That respect keeps them around. The problem is when you don't have high friendship or rivalry and you're stuck in that grey middling zone - that's when their loyalty is in question and that's when they can turn on you in the Gallows, if you haven't nursed any kind of relationship with them (or haven't learned to game the convoluted F/R paths!), that sense of loyalty is lost. I would say that if you keep everybody in the grey zone, they have no reason to follow you except for wanting to be around/influence a powerful person, I guess.

About putting your life on the line for the sake of friends-of-friends, I think it's not a bad idea actually - not because you care about that person, but because you care about your mutual friend, or because you're suspicious and want to keep an eye on them. Like, these two banters are good examples either of companions choosing Hawke over their goals (but ofc this only makes sense if they're not in the grey) or keeping an eye on someone they distrust:

Sebastian: You've made no secret of your intent to lead the mages here in revolution.
Anders: Well, I've tried not to shout it from the rooftops. You've just been around when I talk with my friends.
Sebastian: Well, as we have mutual friends—who for some reason don't want you to get hurt—let me tell you this: if you go forward with this revolt, the Chantry will bring its full might to bear. They will kill you.
Anders: Andraste was killed. That doesn't mean she failed.
Sebastian: Do not compare yourself to Andraste.
*
Sebastian: It's our duty to tell the templars.
Fenris: Then why haven't you done it?
Sebastian: I guess I was hoping they'd come to it on their own.
Fenris: And then you wouldn't have to betray Hawke's friends, right?
Sebastian: That's not reason enough to allow a maleficar to walk free. Which of us should do it? Shall we draw lots?
Fenris: Uh-uh. You want to turn them in, you work it out with Hawke.

If you support the templars and take Anders' rivalry path, it's more like he's determined to convince you you're wrong and it drives him crazy that you don't see his point of view, so he's going to stick around until you concede the point. Likewise if you're on that path and you think his merging with Justice was a foolish idea, then it's about convincing him he made a mistake. So that's why Anders still follows Hawke around even if they disagree.

tl;dr the friendship/rivalry system is flawed, but it's supposed to be the reason companions stick around.

[Pasquale1234]

Pranks are always harmful.

Deny it all you like, the fact remains that some groups use pranks / practical jokes as bonding tools - and continue to laugh about them many years later.

I believe I've already said this, but I've never been a big fan of pranks, or of slapstick humor. I'm just not willing to deny those who do see value in these things. Different strokes and all...