85 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It is because they want the easy way out to connect to the public.

They are bad writers, really. They suck up everything that is popular or popularish and create a version inside their stories but they are also so coward they refuse to go far from our reality using modern ideologies and our most basic christian myths... They even compared elves to the jews if I'm not mistaken... the whole were imortal before the fall and stuff like that, being enslaved and so on... then Jesus came... you know right? I would not be surprised if the orb of corypheus was the "apple of Eden"... they suck, really, in this I swear I'm not putting by bitterness, they really suck

 

We must move upward, not downward; forward, not upward, and always twirling, twirling, twirrrrling towards vengeance!

 

[BlazingSpeed]

Bioware writing has been under some flak lately for being "santizied" "cliched" " pure black vs white" but I saw nobody mention Bioware's ability to write proper monarchs and high lords, in a fantasy feudal game.

 

Basically to to be blunt I found Biowares kings and queen to be uninspiring, timid and have an aura of "Cuteness" around them. King Cailan, Viscount Dummar, Queen Celene , duke Gaspard and Alistar failed to make my character feel any awe or amazement. In fact I was dumbfounded how such characters could end in a position of power in the first place. When I meet a monarch I expect to meet a person who has a totally different view of the world than the average joe, a detached person with grandiose ideas , arrogant about his power because of the rule  "the King always gets what he wants".

 

A monarch should not treat my character as an equal, but as a great person addressing his lessers, that is were the "Awe" feeling should come in.

 

Bioware's monarch are basically Disney monarchs lacking charisma. After hearing so much about Celene in the previous games, I expected to be struck by awe by her powerful presence and commanding gaze, sadly she was just like any other npc, uninspired and boring. The only high lord that Bioware ever made that had a commanding presence was Loghain and and to a lesser extent, Arl Eamon. 

 

 

Monarchs live in their own world, they lack the caution of the common man. Great monarchs know this and surround themselves with capable advisers and retinues, and take their advise when needed while bad monarchs keep living in their own fantasy worlds.

 

Now I have never played the witcher games and I doubt I will, but seriously I heard this guy was a King in the witcher and I am like wow... http://a.pomf.se/rovemx.webm I could literally feel the power oozing from every cell in him!!!!

 

A 4 second video inspired in me a sense of awe and fear  greater than all the dragon age monarchs combined. Now this is what a proper monarch should be! Seriously I tempted just to play the game to bask in his presence " despite my heavy objections about sexualization in the game"

 

Opinions?

 

Radovid is a pretty good up and coming ruler too the former bsn user KnightofPhoenix has a pretty good break down of the Witcher game universe rulers (mainly from the Witcher 2's political "game"...) both good and bad.

 

As for your statement I agree as the Warden with four armies at my horn Loghain was the only one in Denerim that made my Warden pause and consider what he had to say good or bad.

 

In this game not so much but then again I'm not up to the winter ball part of the game yet so I'll have to reserve judgement until a later time.

[LinksOcarina]

I should point out a historical fact real quick, in the vein of most monarchies being more or less bad, or uninteresting at their jobs to be notable in any way.

 

Let's be honest, how many ruling dynasties can you all name with complete lines of succession? How many kings and queens have achieved greatness during their reigns for being absolute authority figures?

or 

We can probably name some big ones; William of Normandy, Edward I, Elisabeth I, Charlemagne, and so forth.

 

But for each famous one, you have a slew of notorious ones, Charles the Bald or Adolf Frederick come to mind, as do Alfred I or Louis the German.Others that are famous were really terrible rulers, Henry VIII  or George III for example. 

 

Not to mention why many of these men and women who were excellent rulers had little to do with their power an exertion as kings or queens, but how they played the game. William of Normandy conquered the British Isles, then set up tax codes with the Domesday Manuscripts so people would continue to give him tribute. Charlemagne conquers most of the Germanic states with the Popes Blessing, and sparked the Carolingian Renaissance for a time, a focus of education and intellectual pursuits within the church to keep the people pacified. It was not just about killing and showing an iron fist, it was a world of give and take that made them really successful. 

 

What are the others famous for? Charles the Bald bribed the Vikings with nearly 7000 pounds of silver so they wouldn't invade his holdings and take Paris, and they continued to raid France anyway. Henry the VIII was more interested in finding a male heir, then broke away from the Church when he didn't get his way in annulling his eighth marriage. And poor George III was effectively the puppet of the British Parliament, a narcissistic Tyrant, or a flawed, sick king, depending on who you ask and which historian is writing the book on him. 

 

I think the problem we see is were romanticizing what a monarch should be, over what they are. How Dragon Age or The Witcher or Dungeons and Dragons or whatever have you does a king or queen, or ruler of a hold, it's done in a way that is a pastiche of ideal, or not so ideal, traits we believe such kings and queens need to have, traits that very few people even posses, let alone can enact on properly. 

[Spankatola]

I take the OP's post as a complaint that he/she wasn't treated like crap enough. Everyone alive today has never met a medieval monarch, and won't so it's pretty much open to interpretation how that'd go. A "pastiche of an ideal," as Links said. Perhaps relatedly, I get the feeling that the common conception of these types of characters is heavily influenced by Game of Thrones, which is itself just an interpretation. Just one of many.

[Neon Rising Winter]

I think any medieval monarch of a single country, meeting the leader of what is shaping up to be a popular, influential, militarily powerful, splinter branch of the continent wide religious authority would very much be minding their Ps and Qs.

[keesio74]

I take the OP's post as a complaint that he/she wasn't treated like crap enough. Everyone alive today has never met a medieval monarch, and won't so it's pretty much open to interpretation how that'd go. A "pastiche of an ideal," as Links said. Perhaps relatedly, I get the feeling that the common conception of these types of characters is heavily influenced by Game of Thrones, which is itself just an interpretation. Just one of many.

 

Origins certainly was. Bioware has admitted that they were heavily influenced by ASOIAF from the Wardens (Night's Watch), Darkspawn (Others), and Monarch's behaving badly, screwing around and fathering bastards.

[Dreamer]

I think any medieval monarch of a single country, meeting the leader of what is shaping up to be a popular, influential, militarily powerful, splinter branch of the continent wide religious authority would very much be minding their Ps and Qs.

 

To add: they're meeting the leader of a movement whose legitimacy descends from the Maker himself. The Inquisition can claim Divine Right as a justification for virtually any action they deem necessary--a terrifying amount of power in the hands of so few. You'd think the monarchs of Thedas would wet themselves in the Inquisitor's presence.

[sillymonkboy]

I would've been pretty annoyed if my demon-hunting, dragon-slaying protagonist was forced to seem intimidated by some puffy-shirted monarch. And this is aside from the fact that this same protagonist is the leader of a small army that's spreading across two nations in Thedas.

Fair point. I doubt the Pope is cowed in Queen Elizabeth's presence.

In a similar vein, I was kind of annoyed that my latest Inquisitor, who looks like a badass walking out of hell, looked so frightened and dismayed when dealing with Envy.

[Eusark]

Not sure if serious, but...

Cailan was weak, and therefor deposed by Loghain, who was anything but "cute."

Alistair wasn't King. While he could conceivably become one through certain choices, it was part of the story that it wasn't a role that he was suited to. Anora could be argued to be "cute," but if you genuinely don't think she had the ability to rise to that level of power, then you're probably playing the wrong RPG, entirely.

Celene made perfect sense, given the context of the land she ruled. She wouldn't have made sense in Ferelden, but in Orlais, she was the one who best understood the game.

Duke Gaspard wasn't a king, and his efforts to become one had failed. Only through taking specific actions could he have been made one.

Final point: I don't think you understand what the word "monarch" means. It is not an earned position, it is hereditary. There is a reason why it is not considered an effective system of government. You are one death away from a roll of the dice as to whether your next leader is capable, or not.

This 1=

[Eusark]

I mean 1+........stuoid phone

[Eusark]

*stupid*