2858 réponses à ce sujet

[IHaveReturned1999]

You can't demonize or oppress a fictional race. The elves in Dragon Age are just a figment of Bioware's imagination.
Or are you leading back to the whole "Bioware are racists" thing again?

I meant the fictional human writers in the actual game not the creators who wrote the game in real life.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I meant the fictional human writers in the actual game not the creators who wrote the game in real life.

Except I'm referring to sources other than humans, like spirits or the ancient Elves themselves. We find information against them in places nobody has ever been since at latest Solas' creation of the Veil. 

[fdrty]

No offense, but you sound just like Sera. "Oh, you don't enjoy pranks like I do, therefore you're a humorless person." Just because someone doesn't enjoy pranks doesn't mean they don't know how to have fun. There are different ways of having fun, and pranking is just one of them, and pranking doesn't work for anyone. Just because someone doesn't enjoy pranks doesn't mean they're humorless.

 

But the post never said 'I don't enjoy pranks.' It said 'Pranks are always harmful'. They sometimes are, but to say that they always are does strike me as humourless. There's a butt to every joke. Even if I don't enjoy or find a prank funny, I can, ahem, humour someone, and not describe something as harmful if it's fairly innocuous. 'Prank' itself is a broad term. Anyway, I don't want to spend forever arguing on the ethics of pranking. You see them as always bad. I see some as bad, some as good.

 

 

No, Sera has made it abundantly clear that she does not care about the past so none of that would matter to her. She dosen't care about elven history, she dosen't care to know where or of what elves came from and she dosen't care how great elves used to be. She's heard about all of that and she does not care.

 

Well, one of the problems with the elves is that they spend so much of their efforts trying to recapture their former glory that they aren't utilising what they have now to improve their circumstances. Look at Merrill, her misguided attempt to recapture ancient elven magic gets her entire clan killed.

 

Sera's perspective is unique, because we don't really get to see the different opinions within elven communities. Having an Elf who rejects the culture of the Dalish is a perspective that I don't think we've seen anywhere else in the games.

 

 

 I think it's the friendship/rivalry mechanic that's broken, though I like the system in theory and loved the totally different, equally rich character interactions that came from it. But I disagree that being in the grey was the "expected" outcome - I think the narrative expects you develop strong relationships with the companions, and I think it's a failure of the system and not the story that it's so easy to end up neutral.

 

Well, isn't it the same system that is in DAI? Your companions approve or disapprove of your actions, and can react in accordance to that? Just that they've dressed it a little different, but it's the same. If the system was so broken, then why does it not break DAI? Because in DAI, while people can approve or disapprove of your actions, there is always the greater objective of the Inquisition which binds people together. And that's not just some abstract thing in the back of the player's mind, it's something which is established when you meet each of your companions.

 

And I don't think the problem is that you can end up neutral. The problem is that, because extreme reactions both characterize and flag events for companions,  neutrality is the most boring option. A key point is romance - you can only romance someone if you are rivals or friends, but there is nothing for the neutral option. Realistically, romance should be only for the characters with high approval ratings.

 

I disagree that people with diametrically opposed views can never cooperate if they're both following a leader they feel strongly about. Aveline and Isabela, and Anders and Fenris, can all see value in Hawke - even if they don't see value in the same thing. A Hawke who leans toward the Chaotic Good (for lack of a better reference!) can win Aveline over by having their heart in the right place, and Isabela by showing that they like freedom and having a good time. A Hawke who wants to rival Fenris and Anders both can disagree that all mages are a danger and gain rivalry with Fenris, but also disapprove of Anders' merging with Justice and gain rivalry with him. It's not as black and white as order versus chaos, mages versus templars, etc.

 

But that's just my point. You can win Aveline over... but she follows you even if you don't. They can cooperate if they all adore the same leader, but that result is nearly impossible without gaming the system. Although, you are right: it's not all black and white. There are more than one issue which the characters react to.

 

I'm honestly not sure what this has to do with anything. That's what makes them interesting, to me - nobody's perfect. It's about exploring the people within those archetypes, and a Hawke who befriends or rivals them is going to discover who they really are anyway, so..?

 

I think you misunderstand me: my point wasn't that the characters were imperfect, my point was that they conformed to archetypes which typically fill the role of antagonist, not allies to a protagonist. This makes them ill-fitting to be your companions, and is, in my opinion, one of the huge reasons why Dragon Age 2 was less popular than Origins. Compare it to Mass Effect 2. ME2 has a pretty bad story which throws away a lot of what came before, same as DA2. But ME2 gives the characters a clear goal and has a better designed and more interesting cast of characters, which is why it's a more narratively satisfying game, often cited as the best ME game. Whereas DA2 is seen by most as the worst in the series.

 

 Everyone in it is lost and they don't fit in anywhere. Fenris stays in Kirkwall because it's the first place he's been able to stop running; he's relying on Hawke's help to defeat Danarius and help him learn how to live as a free man. Merrill's been rejected by her clan and literally has no one else to turn to. Isabela's lost her ship and her moorings. Sebastian wants to stay in Kirkwall to protect Elthina and he's also waffling about his destiny.

 

This is exactly why the narrative of DA2 is such a muddled mess. You said it: Everyone's lost and doesn't fit in anywhere. You can see by your description how disparate those characters are. A bunch of misfits without a purpose. While that isn't necessarily a bad story, it is not what DA players were expecting, and not really a good fit for the kind of action-y, goals-oriented narrative which RPGs require to work well.

 

The driving motivating factor in this game is keeping your head above water when the world's gone to crap, and relying on the only people who will have you.

 

But world only goes to crap at the end of the game, so how does it motivate the earlier actions of the characters?

 

Why will they have you, if they can hate or be indifferent to you?

[vertigomez]

Well, isn't it the same system that is in DAI? Your companions approve or disapprove of your actions, and can react in accordance to that? Just that they've dressed it a little different, but it's the same. If the system was so broken, then why does it not break DAI? Because in DAI, while people can approve or disapprove of your actions, there is always the greater objective of the Inquisition which binds people together. And that's not just some abstract thing in the back of the player's mind, it's something which is established when you meet each of your companions.

And I don't think the problem is that you can end up neutral. The problem is that, because extreme reactions both characterize and flag events for companions, neutrality is the most boring option. A key point is romance - you can only romance someone if you are rivals or friends, but there is nothing for the neutral option. Realistically, romance should be only for the characters with high approval ratings.

But that's just my point. You can win Aveline over... but she follows you even if you don't. They can cooperate if they all adore the same leader, but that result is nearly impossible without gaming the system. Although, you are right: it's not all black and white. There are more than one issue which the characters react to.

Because I don't consider the friendship/rivalry system to be the same as the approval/disapproval system. In DA2, they don't have to "adore" you to follow you - they just have to respect you. That's possible with rivalry, whereas in DAI if you garner significant disapproval with a companion, there's no respect. Nobody has anybody's best interests at heart, but with rivalry you can respect and care about someone even if you don't agree with everything they say and do.

I just look at them as completely different systems.

I think you misunderstand me: my point wasn't that the characters were imperfect, my point was that they conformed to archetypes which typically fill the role of antagonist, not allies to a protagonist. This makes them ill-fitting to be your companions, and is, in my opinion, one of the huge reasons why Dragon Age 2 was less popular than Origins. Compare it to Mass Effect 2. ME2 has a pretty bad story which throws away a lot of what came before, same as DA2. But ME2 gives the characters a clear goal and has a better designed and more interesting cast of characters, which is why it's a more narratively satisfying game, often cited as the best ME game. Whereas DA2 is seen by most as the worst in the series.

This is exactly why the narrative of DA2 is such a muddled mess. You said it: Everyone's lost and doesn't fit in anywhere. You can see by your description how disparate those characters are. A bunch of misfits without a purpose. While that isn't necessarily a bad story, it is not what DA players were expecting, and not really a good fit for the kind of action-y, goals-oriented narrative which RPGs require to work well.

This is all incredibly subjective, though. I loved DA2's change in tone even though I started the series with Origins. "A bunch of misfits without a purpose" struggling to survive in a hateful city that tries to pit everyone against each other is EXACTLY what I'd like to see more of. It's why I enjoy the tavern scenes in DAI so much - they're intimate and bring you back to what matters when you're not off saving the world.

But world only goes to crap at the end of the game, so how does it motivate the earlier actions of the characters?

The world goes to crap for Hawke as soon as the game starts, and for everybody else it's before or during the game.

Why will they have you, if they can hate or be indifferent to you?

Because they have no one else.

Like I said, this is all very subjective (and off-topic). I think we just appreciate different things about these games, and that's fine..?

[IHaveReturned1999]

Except I'm referring to sources other than humans, like spirits or the ancient Elves themselves. We find information against them in places nobody has ever been since at latest Solas' creation of the Veil.

I'n talking about after the fall of the Ancients did the elves did all these horrible evil machinations against humans.

[GoldenGail3]

I'n talking about after the fall of the Ancients did the elves did all these horrible evil machinations against humans.

They were defenseless but it was there own fault though.... The Humans only merely took advantage of the damage done to the culture by the loss of the veil.  

[IHaveReturned1999]

They were defenseless but it was there own fault though.... The Humans only merely took advantage of the damage done to the culture by the loss of the veil.

That's dumb. That's cognitive dissonance to justify to kill and discriminate elves just because of the Evanuris caused their civilization to fall.

[GoldenGail3]

That's dumb. That's cognitive dissonance to justify to kill and discriminate elves just because of the Evanuris caused their civilization to fall.

No, Solas caused there culture to fall.   The Evernus built and destroyed their own culture, so it's ironic. 

[IHaveReturned1999]

No, Solas caused there culture to fall. The Evernus built and destroyed their own culture, so it's ironic.

Every civilizations rise and fall but the elves never been killing humans before their downfall.

[GoldenGail3]

Every civilizations rise and fall but the elves never been killing humans before their downfall.

How would you know? 

[IHaveReturned1999]

How would you know?

You tell me.

[GoldenGail3]

You tell me.

The elves could've been killing humans during there time. I actually find it likely that they did, the evenuras needed blood to do blood magic... 

[Shechinah]

I think this discussion is best moved elsewhere since it has nothing to do with the topic, please.

[GoldenGail3]

I think this discussion is best moved elsewhere since it has nothing to do with the topic, please.

True. Thank chu for reminding me. 

[Shechinah]

True. Thank chu for reminding me. 

 

Happens for everybody and to the best of us.
 

[GoldenGail3]

Happens for everybody and to the best of us.
 

Yeah, and thanks for understanding! 

[IHaveReturned1999]

Why do people keep engaging with N7.

Do you want me to be this dead person? Whatever this person is is not here.

[Pasquale1234]

Because I don't consider the friendship/rivalry system to be the same as the approval/disapproval system. In DA2, they don't have to "adore" you to follow you - they just have to respect you. That's possible with rivalry, whereas in DAI if you garner significant disapproval with a companion, there's no respect. Nobody has anybody's best interests at heart, but with rivalry you can respect and care about someone even if you don't agree with everything they say and do.

I just look at them as completely different systems.

I view the friendship/rivalry system to be exactly the same as approval/disapproval with a little different application of paint to make the game work.

It's still a 2-ended meter. Gaining rivalry does result in losing friendship, and vice-versa. The only difference is that disapproval is now called rivalry, so that when Hawke makes decisions that cut a companion's ideology to the core, there is a gain of "respect" for stepping all over whatever that companion believes in.

DA2 offered a smallish set of companions, some of whom were aligned with the issues presented in the game. They presented disapproval as rivalry/respect to make it work.

[Xilizhra]

Look at Merrill, her misguided attempt to recapture ancient elven magic gets her entire clan killed.

If her clan die's, it's 100% her clan's stupid fault.

 

Sera's perspective is unique, because we don't really get to see the different opinions within elven communities. Having an Elf who rejects the culture of the Dalish is a perspective that I don't think we've seen anywhere else in the games.

Bloody flux, yes we do. Fenris does the same damn thing. And Zevran has no particular love for elven culture. We've still never had a loyal city elf.

[ModernAcademic]

There are people who play pranks because they like you and want you to "come out and play" once in a while.

 

And there are those who use pranks to destabilize and humiliate the people they secretly dislike.

 

The second kind usually disguises their ill intention as a harmless prank. And most people believe it, blaming the victim for not knowing "how to play along". 

 

That's the problem.

[fdrty]

If her clan die's, it's 100% her clan's stupid fault.

The keeper warns her on numerous occasions. She ignores her. So, yeah, it is Merrill's fault.

 

Bloody flux, yes we do. Fenris does the same damn thing. And Zevran has no particular love for elven culture. We've still never had a loyal city elf.

True, but they aren't as vocal in their rejection. They're more just like 'Dalish elves, not really for me.' Fenris is critical, but he doesn't straight up mock them like Sera does.

 

There are people who play pranks because they like you and want you to "come out and play" once in a while.

 

And there are those who use pranks to destabilize and humiliate the people they secretly dislike.

 

The second kind usually disguises their ill intention as a harmless prank. And most people believe it, blaming the victim for not knowing "how to play along". 

 

That's the problem.

 

I agree. Which is why I disagreed with the statement 'Pranks are always harmful'.

[WardenBlue]

Do you want me to be this dead person? Whatever this person is is not here.

 Oh really?

[The Elder King]

Is it Merrill's fault that Marethari gave herself to a demon, that would've wiped out her clan if it'd have killed Merrill and Hawke? A clan she had the duty to protect and didn't warn about her plan?
I'm pretty neutral on Merrill, but it's not her fault if her clan and Marethari are/might be dead. It's the Keeper's fault. Her plan was idiotic, to put it mildly. There were far better solutions to stop Merrill to go to the demon. Going with Merril to help overpowering the demon was a far better plan then hers as Well.

[dragonagenewbie]

Because I don't consider the friendship/rivalry system to be the same as the approval/disapproval system. In DA2, they don't have to "adore" you to follow you - they just have to respect you. That's possible with rivalry, whereas in DAI if you garner significant disapproval with a companion, there's no respect. Nobody has anybody's best interests at heart, but with rivalry you can respect and care about someone even if you don't agree with everything they say and do.

I just look at them as completely different systems.
 

 

With DAI isnt it possible to enable the trial setting (the one that greatly increases approval/disapproval gains) and recruit a companion and making a choice that they greatly disapprove and then having the companion immediately leave?  I havent tried DA2 yet but i've read about its friend/rival system and i like how it sounds.  I think it would be neat if Bioware or Bethesda (ha yah right) would develop a more in depth friend/rival or approval/disapproval system.  Like maybe break it down by category where they/dislike political or big decisions (related to the main game plot) and enough dislike in this causes them to leave.  But they also have a personal like/dislike system where if you talk to your comp about something they hate personally like talking about "elfy stuff" then their personal dislike for you goes down but they wont leave the inquisition but they just wont talk to you or they wont open up.  I dunno i just made that up on the spot but just anything with a bit more depth  and not something like where your choice the destroy the universe gains you -40 dislike while burning a cake that you baked for them earns you -30 dislike.

[WardenBlue]

I actually like Sera! And I love Solas!  Than again, i like everyone in DA:I.