1194 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Lol. Right.

You know what I mean.

[BabyPuncher]

The rest of the game is 2 superpowers, Inquisition Vs Cory followers, trying to gain the upper hand over each other...

 

I wouldn't really call the Inquisition a 'superpower.' The game does that enough. 

[Lady Artifice]

I wouldn't really call the Inquisition a 'superpower.' The game does that enough. 

 

The game does that because the Inquisition is written as a growing superpower. 

[BabyPuncher]

The game does that because Inquisition is written as a growing superpower. 

 

Superficially, yes, but what isn't written is the necessary qualities to support it being a superpower. The qualities imperative in convincing me, the audience, that it's real or more importantly, meaningful.

[AresKeith]

Superficially, yes, but what isn't written is the necessary qualities to support it being a superpower. To convince me, the audience that it's real or more importantly, meaningful.

 

Which are what David?

[Lady Artifice]

Superficially, yes, but what isn't written is the necessary qualities to support it being a superpower. The qualities imperative in convincing me, the audience, that it's real or more importantly, meaningful.

 

Why do you need a superpower to be meaningful? 

 

I can understand wanting a story or a cause to be meaningful, but a superpower is just a force of influence, no? Tevinter and Orlais are superpowers, but thanks DAO most players are inclined to sympathize with Ferelden, and don't find them meaningful in the least. Yet they're still superpowers. 

[BabyPuncher]

Depends on how the story is written. If you're trying to sell the protagonist as just someone who got lucky, who was in the right place at the right time, who had the right family or connections, you're fine with just that: Luck. Like New Vegas. Hey, we stumbled across this robot who can take over the city for us and will obey our every command. But it's totally okay, because the protagonist is never sold as a hero for having Yes Man on his side. Yes Man outright says it was 'Probably pretty dumb' for Benny not to have been more careful.

 

However, if you're selling it as the protagonist built this empire because he's just that great of a person, like Inquisition...you need to show personal qualities, and they obviously need to be tremendously strong. So...they need to be a really, really exception person. Really brave, really smart, really determined, really resourceful...As to how you'd go about doing that, I haven't the faintest idea. 

[BabyPuncher]

Why do you need a superpower to be meaningful?

 

You don't, in general. But in Inquisition's case, you do, because the story continually attempts to sell the audience that the Inquisition was built from nothing and flourished on the Inquisitor's heroism. The Inquisition being powerful is in direct correlation to how heroic the Inquisitor is, so we're meant to believe the Inquisitor is super heroic based on how successful the Inquisition is.

[Bugsie]

Which are what David?

Wait... have I missed something, is the OP David?

[Lady Artifice]

Wait... have I missed something, is the OP David?

 

It is so weird how almost everyone who's been here since before 2012 seems to know this guy.

 

"David," the most innocuous name in the world for the most notorious poster on the forum.

[wolfhowwl]

Wait... have I missed something, is the OP David?

 

Yes.

[In Exile]

Wait... have I missed something, is the OP David?

Did all the heroism stuff not tip you off?

[Bugsie]

Did all the heroism stuff not tip you off?

I must of missed that.  But that would have been a dead giveaway.  I only gave this thread a cursory glance. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Ridicule David all you like (with my blessing, I will add) but he hit the nail on the head in the OP.

[Xilizhra]

It is so weird how almost everyone who's been here since before 2012 seems to know this guy.

 

"David," the most innocuous name in the world for the most notorious poster on the forum.

Notoriety that is, in my opinion, somewhat undeserved. We've had, and have, much worse people.

[Lady Artifice]

You don't, in general. But in Inquisition's case, you do, because the story continually attempts to sell the audience that the Inquisition was built from nothing and flourished on the Inquisitor's heroism. The Inquisition being powerful is in direct correlation to how heroic the Inquisitor is, so we're meant to believe the Inquisitor is super heroic based on how successful the Inquisition is.

 

You don't there's a chance that the writing team is placing a lot less value on heroism in the context of the story that you are? That they might have written all those ruthless options (condemning someone to a gibbet, or using tranquility as a punishment, or allowing an assassination to occur unopposed) because "heroism" is not actually intended as the Inquisitor's most significant quality? 

 

Notoriety that is, in my opinion, somewhat undeserved. We've had, and have, much worse people.

 

 

I grant you, I have seen much more malicious posters on the forum. 

 

The reputation seems to have developed mostly for obstinance and an unwillingness to try to relate to other points of view.

 

OP has completely mistaken my point numerous times, on numerous threads, and sometimes expressed aggravation at their incorrect interpretation. That almost certainly colors my reaction to them, but at least I believe they're earnest. 

[Dabal Hayat]

I wouldn't really call the Inquisition a 'superpower.' The game does that enough. 

 

I really don't understand your post, sorry  : is nitpicking over my choice of words more important than trying and offer some sort of sense and closure to the end of DAI? Or is it because it's an hopeless struggle here too(believe me, I understand and share completely your opinions about ME3 endings)?

[Caddius]

You don't, in general. But in Inquisition's case, you do, because the story continually attempts to sell the audience that the Inquisition was built from nothing and flourished on the Inquisitor's heroism. The Inquisition being powerful is in direct correlation to how heroic the Inquisitor is, so we're meant to believe the Inquisitor is super heroic based on how successful the Inquisition is.

Like in New Vegas, the Inquisitor was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's presented as being the hand of the Maker or Andraste, and that's where the Inquisition's (admittedly not a superpower) power base comes from. Not the personal awesomeness of the Inquisitor as she runs around punching baby dragons to death or what have you, but a concerted effort by the Inquisition to make the people believe in the 'Herald of Andraste' story. While it seems a lot of the Inquisition forces genuinely do believe in the Herald, they're not afraid to use that belief to their advantage. The Inquisition was built from a core of the Chantry's elite, with the Divine's Hands, loyalist Templars and mages, and a swell of disaffected soldiers and peasants that join out of faith. I thought it was interesting how the game didn't rely so much on what the character was, as what the character symbolized.

The Herald myth is really cinched by the events at Haven. These consisted of the Inquisition barely escaping from an overwhelming assault because the Inquisitor distracted Corypheus and, by luck, managed to survive the avalanche. Then Solas used his knowledge of Skyhold and conspired with the Inquisitor to make the people believe in the Herald. It's especially obvious with an elf, as he claims to be doing it to reduce the risk of turning on elves.

The advisers send the Herald out on dangerous missions in the early days as a PR stunt as much as they do it for the ability to seal rifts. As far as I'm concerned, the advisers are still responsible for running the Inquisition and making it what it is, while the Inquisitor focuses on the 'heroic deeds and quests' portions to continue to build the safety net of their own legend.

I will admit that the ending was disappointing, Corypheus wise. The final level felt slapped on. I think there should have been more confrontations with Corypheus's forces and dismantling them in direct story missions before the Arbor Wilds, and that the final battle itself didn't feel so shoddy. (I am quite fond of the Epilogue, though. ) Usually I'm too pleased with the Arbor Wilds mission to feel grumpy about the ending, however.

[Pierce Miller]

The only thing that bugged me about the ending was the fact that it meant the game was over.

[raging_monkey]

The only thing that bugged me about the ending was the fact that it meant the game was over.

Ikr I was expecting the next chapter in the story

[ApostleinTriumph]

Don't ever compare M3 ending with this game please. DAI ending was rather dull (besides the final cinematic) but it still brought closure to this game'

 

We could have been told by a small elven God child that the opening of the Breach was inevitable and forced to decide what kind of colour the Breach will turn into.

[BabyPuncher]

You don't there's a chance that the writing team is placing a lot less value on heroism in the context of the story that you are? That they might have written all those ruthless options (condemning someone to a gibbet, or using tranquility as a punishment, or allowing an assassination to occur unopposed) because "heroism" is not actually intended as the Inquisitor's most significant quality? 

 

First of all, I don't place value on it. That's uhh...kind of the point, right? The narrative is the one trying to sell me that these characters are heroic messiahs, and I'm the one saying the whole thing is basically drivel, yes?

 

But to answer your question, no, I don't think there is. Giving the player the opportunity to slaughter innocent people and so forth is part and parcel to choice driven RPGs. I've talked about about a few times before, but it really doesn't mean anything because such 'evil' actions are pretty much always basically ignored by the narrative.

 

Besides, even if it wasn't their intention, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. They didn't put anything else in to make up for it. The story is still vapid.

 

That being said, just because it's BioWare's policy to attempt this sort of thing doesn't mean the writers place value on it themselves. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if, after ME 3, EA sat down with BioWare and basically said "Your failure has cost us a huge amount of money and respect. This is not going to happen again. From this point on, your stories are going to do this, and this, and this..."

 

So I, again, wouldn't be surprised at all if many of the writers are carrying resentment or outright contempt towards the 'heroism' they superficially write about. It would certainly go a long way in explaining these problems, as well as the various hypocrisies the writers have expressed.

[In Exile]

First of all, I don't place value on it. That's uhh...kind of the point, right? The narrative is the one trying to sell me that these characters are heroic messiahs, and I'm the one saying the whole thing is basically drivel, yes?

 

But to answer your question, no, I don't think there is. Giving the player the opportunity to slaughter innocent people and so forth is part and parcel to choice driven RPGs. I've talked about about a few times before, but it really doesn't mean anything because such 'evil' actions are pretty much always basically ignored by the narrative.

 

Besides, even if it wasn't their intention, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. They didn't put anything else in to make up for it. The story is still vapid.

 

That being said, just because it's BioWare's policy to attempt this sort of thing doesn't mean the writers place value on it themselves. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if, after ME 3, EA sat down with BioWare and basically said "Your failure has cost us a huge amount of money and respect. This is not going to happen again. From this point on, your stories are going to do this, and this, and this..."

 

So I, again, wouldn't be surprised at all if many of the writers are carrying resentment or outright contempt towards the 'heroism' they superficially write about. It would certainly go a long way in explaining these problems, as well as the various hypocrisies the writers have expressed.

 

The narrative isn't trying to convince you about "heroism" as you understand it because absolutely no one believes the concept of "heroism" to apprehend what you think it apprehends. 

[BabyPuncher]

I'm just a simple man that believes in the benefits of people being strong and smart instead of weak and stupid.

[AresKeith]

The narrative isn't trying to convince you about "heroism" as you understand it because absolutely no one believes the concept of "heroism" to apprehend what you think it apprehends. 

 

Don't deny the "heroin" "heroism"