1194 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

I have

Read the rest of the post. That was a general statement.

[In Exile]

You know, I actually heard quite enough of every remotely friendly character kissing every footstep of the Inquisitor in the game, thanks. I don't think I need to hear any more of it from you. And of course, you mean "The Inquisitor." Because it's a character in the story. It's not "you."

 

You need to have a far better reason for the antagonist to be defeated than 'he's the opposite of the protagonist.' That's kind of a given. And I really fail to see how it matters in the slightest. Antagonists aren't beaten by sheer power of opposite-ness. In any case, you could just as easily make the same case for protagonists. 

 

Do you even understand the meaning of "theme" ? Because it doesn't sound like you do. A theme is not a "reason" to defeat the antagonist. It's a literary device, capturing a consistent idea that permeates throughout the narrative. A "thematic conclusion" captures and ties together all of these common threads. And there's nothing more comical than some pedantic grammatical complaint like "[y]ou mean 'The Inquisitor'", as if that somehow defeats my entire argument. 

 

It goes without saying that DA:I is cliche. That was written to be cliche. That isn't the same as saying it lacks a thematic conclusion. The reason to defeat Corypheus is that he's an insane darkspawn that has stolen an ancient elven artefact that threatens to destroy the world. 

 

Corypheus, as a practical matter, was defeated by the Inquisitor acquiring the knowledge of how to use the anchor to close the breach. You could not beat him without the Well of Sorrows and, moreover, without your persistent mastery of the Mark. 

 

Repeating "no theme, no theme!" as if using it like a chorus is somehow enough to make a point is, by now, embarrassing. 

[Steelcan]

Read the rest of the post. That was a general statement.

and it reeked of condescension thus it was discarded

[In Exile]

He was immortal via adapting an ancient elven technique used to hop between tagged bodies by binding his life force to a dragon. 

The powers he had were ultimately amplified by the ancient elven orb. That's how he opened the Breach.

 

He's a really powerful and arrogant magister but that's all he is. 

 

That's not accurate. His body surf is an innate ability as a supercharged darkspawn magister. The binding to the AD is different, and what you're really doing is wrecking his wi-fi link to other GW bodies by killing it. 

[leaguer of one]

and it reeked of condescension thus it was discarded

Sorry but I have a point. The story is about the truth and peoples reaction to it both positive , negative, acceptance and denial. Every story in dai covers it. Even the ones about faith, which is not about Faith itself but why people depend on faith to get by even if they can be wrong or illogical.

[BabyPuncher]

Corypheus, as a practical matter, was defeated by the Inquisitor acquiring the knowledge of how to use the anchor to close the breach. You could not beat him without the Well of Sorrows and, moreover, without your persistent mastery of the Mark.

 

Even if that wasn't complete nonsense, it still wouldn't matter. There's no evidence that the Inquisitor ever gets 'better' at closing the rifts and that learning how to close rifts 'better' is what enabled him or her to close to breach entirely. And if it did, so what? The protagonist encountered smaller rifts and the well on his journey which are tools he uses to fight the antagonist. And? Suppose another protagonist encounters and pickis up a rifle. Does that mean shooting the bad guy in the face is suddenly meaningful because he found the rifle in his journey? Because it's a tool he successfully uses? No. 

 

Also, my comment was really less about grammar and more about you confusing praise and love being showered on the Inquisitor with praise and love showered on you, the player. We wouldn't want to make that mistake, would we now?
 

[leaguer of one]

Even if that wasn't complete nonsense, it still wouldn't matter. There's no evidence that the Inquisitor ever gets 'better' at closing the rifts and that learning how to close rifts 'better' is what enabled him or her to close to breach entirely. And if it did, so what? The protagonist encountered smaller rifts and the well on his journey. And? It's no more meaningful than another protagonist encountering and picking up a rifle. Does that mean shooting the bad guy in the face is suddenly meaningful because he found the rifle in his journey? No. 
 

...Except when they did it again at the end with no help from anyone.

[Steelcan]

Sorry but I have a point. The story is about the truth and peoples reaction to it both positive , negative, acceptance and denial. Every story in dai covers it. Even the ones about faith, which is not about Faith itself but why people depend on faith to get by even if they can be wrong or illogical.

and I say the story is about people's reactions and adherence to faith since the truth is completely beyond our grasp in the universe.  And the climax with the main villain is a more convincing point than a two minute scene with a one time appearing crazy hag

[In Exile]

Even if that wasn't complete nonsense, it still wouldn't matter. There's no evidence that the Inquisitor ever gets 'better' at closing the rifts and that learning how to close rifts 'better' is what enabled him or her to close to breach entirely. And if it did, so what? The protagonist encountered smaller rifts and the well on his journey. And? It's no more meaningful than another protagonist encountering and picking up a rifle. Does that mean shooting the bad guy in the face is suddenly meaningful because he found the rifle in his journey? No.

So you ignore the substance to cherry pick? Well, I certainly can argue with intellectual honesty of that caliber.

As to mastery of the Mark, it's quite apparent. First, Corypheus can use the Foci to bring you to your knees. You see this in In Your Heart Shall Burn. Right after, you can claim the power of the Mark of the Rift. When the Magister corrupting the GWs tries the same trick on you before Adamant, you're brought to your knees for a second before recovering and reversing the effect. By the endgame, your mastery of the Anchor is complete.

You keep drawing parallel to mundane weapons, but that's nonsense. The Mark is thematically significant. Your mastery over it corresponds to the growth of the Inquisition and the standing of the Inquisitor. It's creation is the main goal of Corypheus, it's loss is his biggest defeat prior to the Arbor Wilds, and the manner of its use is the death kneel for his ambition. It isn't just a rifle.

Again, I have to ask if you have any idea as to the meaning of "theme". At this point your posts display an almost lamentable and borderline childish level of ignorance.

You literally use the foci to close the Breach, amplifying the power of the Anchor. It's so painfully obvious that it requires willfull blindness not to see it.

[leaguer of one]

and I say the story is about people's reactions and adherence to faith since the truth is completely beyond our grasp in the universe.  And the climax with the main villain is a more convincing point than a two minute scene with a one time appearing crazy hag

Except for that fact you can play an Inquistor that is not adherent to faith at all. Even have them screaming that they don't believe in gods. And Cory action had nothing to do with any adherence to anything. If fact it was his way of rebelling once he found out the truth. How can the story be about adherence when the drive of the villain is that he find out their is no god?

[In Exile]

The second part hardly speaks in it's favor.

And that's just it. You're measuring the loss as something calculable. You lose Haven, you lose resources.

But what is Haven itself to you? It's a writers job to give you a reason to care about those resources, to show you the loss of life in a way that carries weight.

::shrug:: It just fell a little flat for me.

That's totally reasonable. I didn't care much, for example, for Ferelden in DAO. Bioware's biggest problem with creating an emotional response is that they essentially say it should occur by fiat (Look, your mother was murdered and made into a meat puppet! Feels! The Feels!) rather than earning it (e.g. how Mordin sacrifices himself on Tuchanka).

[Lady Artifice]

I'm sure the companions of DAI breathed a collective sigh of relief when the learned none of them were at risk of being sacrificed at the alter of drama.

 

The altar of drama has claimed many an excellent character.

 

However, your point eludes me. Do you find the concept of characters being killed off for the sake of the narrative offensive?

[leaguer of one]

The altar of drama has claimed many an excellent character.

 

However, your point eludes me. Do you find the concept of characters being killed off for the sake of the narrative offensive?

Only when the point is just to kill characters only and the death has no point to the plot.

[In Exile]

The altar of drama has claimed many an excellent character.

However, your point eludes me. Do you find the concept of characters being killed off for the sake of the narrative offensive?

There is a character who GRRM killed at the Red Wedding who he did not intend to kill. He killed this character off because, when writing that scene, it was what needed to happen. I think that this is good tragic writing. You set up a horrid situation, justified by the narrative that you have written thus far, and then let the chips fall where they may.

The problem with a great deal of fiction is when it puts the narrative goal (must have tragic feels!) ahead of narrative coherence. A good example of this is ME1 on Virmire. The VS choice is a bit of a false dillema - the reason one has to die, even when the majority of the salarian squad can survive the nuke (!!!!), is to create emotional weigh because the plot demands it. It's not organic.

[Steelcan]

Except for that fact you can play an Inquistor that is not adherent to faith at all. Even have them screaming that they don't believe in gods. And Cory action had nothing to do with any adherence to anything. If fact it was his way of rebelling once he found out the truth. How can the story be about adherence when the drive of the villain is that he find out their is no god?

you can say you don't believe in the Maker as much as you want, does not change that you are an embodiment of hope and faith to those who follow you

[Lady Artifice]

Only when the point is just to kill characters only and the death has no point to the plot.

 

Well, I was in fact referring to character deaths that do have a point. 

[Aimi]

Bioware's biggest problem with creating an emotional response is that they essentially say it should occur by fiat (Look, your mother was murdered and made into a meat puppet! Feels! The Feels!) rather than earning it (e.g. how Mordin sacrifices himself on Tuchanka).

I don't understand what the substantive intersubjective difference between these two things is.

[leaguer of one]

There is a character who GRRM killed at the Red Wedding who he did not intend to kill. He killed this character off because, when writing that scene, it was what needed to happen. I think that this is good tragic writing. You set up a horrid situation, justified by the narrative that you have written thus far, and then let the chips fall where they may.

The problem with a great deal of fiction is when it puts the narrative goal (must have tragic feels!) ahead of narrative coherence. A good example of this is ME1 on Virmire. The VS choice is a bit of a false dillema - the reason one has to die, even when the majority of the salarian squad can survive the nuke (!!!!), is to create emotional weigh because the plot demands it. It's not organic.

Virmire issue was the long run effects not the short term. The person on Virmire did have a justified reason to die and it was part of the narrative of making you choose a conflicting choice. But Virmires issue was how it effect the rest of the series, not the first game.

[leaguer of one]

you can say you don't believe in the Maker as much as you want, does not change that you are an embodiment of hope and faith to those who follow you

And that is not because you are because they want you to be. Not you can be a horrible person and you team can dislike you and your still a beacon of hope.  That not because you are. Faith and hope did not save thedus it was action and drive. Faith and hope just allowed people to keep going and not fall to despair. That was the point of showing faith in dai. To show it can mentally help people get through hard times. 

[Lady Artifice]

There is a character who GRRM killed at the Red Wedding who he did not intend to kill. He killed this character off because, when writing that scene, it was what needed to happen. I think that this is good tragic writing. You set up a horrid situation, justified by the narrative that you have written thus far, and then let the chips fall where they may.

The problem with a great deal of fiction is when it puts the narrative goal (must have tragic feels!) ahead of narrative coherence. A good example of this is ME1 on Virmire. The VS choice is a bit of a false dillema - the reason one has to die, even when the majority of the salarian squad can survive the nuke (!!!!), is to create emotional weigh because the plot demands it. It's not organic.

 

 

Agreed about Virmire. It was very flawed.

 

The example that goes through my head as compared to Haven, however, would be Luke's aunt and uncle in Star Wars. They died to establish the Empire as a force to be feared, one that could hit the protagonist where it hurts.

 

Lots of people died in Haven, but I don't think that's given quite the focus that it deserves.  

[Steelcan]

And that is not because you are because they want you to be. Not you can be a horrible person and you team can dislike you and your still a beacon of hope.  That not because you are. Faith and hope did not save thedus it was action and drive. Faith and hope just allowed people to keep going and not fall to despair. That was the point of showing faith in dai. To show it can mentally help people get through hard times. 

tell that to those participating in the musical number after Haven

[leaguer of one]

Well, I was in fact referring to character deaths that do have a point. 

And the issue is some people feel the death have no point. Like people who are upset over Thanes death.(Even though he told you he's dying.)

[leaguer of one]

tell that to those participating in the musical number after Haven

Sorry, so sing got them Shyhold and saved them from Cory? Sorry, that moment showed why they had faith not that faith saved them.

[BabyPuncher]

As to mastery of the Mark, it's quite apparent. First, Corypheus can use the Foci to bring you to your knees. You see this in In Your Heart Shall Burn. Right after, you can claim the power of the Mark of the Rift. When the Magister corrupting the GWs tries the same trick on you before Adamant, you're brought to your knees for a second before recovering and reversing the effect. By the endgame, your mastery of the Anchor is complete.

You keep drawing parallel to mundane weapons, but that's nonsense. The Mark is thematically significant. Your mastery over it corresponds to the growth of the Inquisition and the standing of the Inquisitor. It's creation is the main goal of Corypheus, it's loss is his biggest defeat prior to the Arbor Wilds, and the manner of its use is the death kneel for his ambition. It isn't just a rifle.

 

Ridiculous. A rifle, and the protagonist's skill over it isn't thematically significant? The protagonist's steady improvement and mastery of its use isn't thematically significant? The rifle might be very personal, might have a very interesting history with the protagonist.

 

None of it makes any difference. None of it makes it okay to have a story with no climax, by having the protagonist shoot the antagonist in the face with no struggle. Whether the rifle is a person heirloom wielded by an expert or a piece of junk picked up 15 seconds ago by a novice. A story without a climax is a story without a climax.

 

Contrary to what you might think, the fact that the Anchor is stuck to the Inquisitor makes no difference. Nor the fact that's it's magic. Particularly in a world where the magical is the mundane. 

 

No, the real issue here for you is that anything more complicated than the protagonist walking up to the antagonist and lopping his head off with a sword might threaten the Inquisitor's reception where everyone showers him with praise for being the best person ever. We can't have that. Oh, my mistake, I mean showers you with praise. Isn't that right?

[leaguer of one]

Ridiculous. A rifle, and the protagonist's skill over it isn't thematically significant? The protagonist's steady improvement and mastery of its use isn't thematically significant? The rifle might be very personal, might have a very interesting history with the protagonist.

 

None of it makes any difference. None of it makes it okay to have a story with no climax, by having the protagonist shoot the antagonist in the face with no struggle. Whether the rifle is a person heirloom wielded by an expert or a piece of junk picked up 15 seconds ago by a novice. A story without a climax is a story without a climax.

 

Contrary to what you might think, the fact that the Anchor is stuck to the Inquisitor makes no difference. Nor the fact that's it's magic. Particularly in a world where the magical is the mundane. 

 

No, the real issue here for you is that anything more complicated than the protagonist walking up to the antagonist and lopping his head off with a sword might threaten the Inquisitor's reception where everyone showers him with praise for being the best person ever. We can't have that. Oh, my mistake, I mean showers you with praise. Isn't that right?

Seriously, You are in denial. One look at the ending and you can see the quis understand how to use the mark. The first time the quis picks up the foci he/she blows up a temple in their ignorant fumbling. Then the time they can close the breach the first time they ether need to barrow power or weaken the breach to close it. The final fight has them close the breach again with out blowing anything up and with no help. Seriously, how can you not get it at this point?