824 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Is this David?

[BabyPuncher]

This is really pretty basic stuff. Characters supposedly have qualities, you show them. When you tell the audience something exists that obviously doesn't in the story, it's worse than useless.

[duckley]

I think it adds richness to the gaming experience to have characters that you dislike. Having said that, I find Vivienne to be insufferable and would like to slap her every time she says "my dear" or pontificates arrogantly.

I only use her if necessary when I play a non mage.

I also dislike Iron Bull, Sera, and Blackwell in terms of their character or personality... I have a lot of slapping to do!

[Heidirs]

^{It's pretty basic Creative Writing 101 lessons: show, don't tell. Telling isn't compelling to the audience. You have to show the audience through the character's actions, dialogue, and choices that they are who you say they are. Otherwise it's not very believable.}

 

^{That said, I just assumed all that "power" Vivienne was said to have comes through in tactics. Many players have reported her to be a power house. That's all I thought the writer's meant.} 

 

^{Character wise, she does seem the least developed, at least at from player experience. She doesn't have anywhere near as much to say or do as the other companions. And she doesn't have much of a story arch if any. She just kind of IS, which is a problem when it comes to relating to her or developing any kind of understanding or insight. Party banter does seem to help somewhat, but even that is veiled through Vivienne's snark. You really have to be paying attention to get it.}

 

^{EDIT: Why is my font so strange?!?!}

[mikeymoonshine]

No, Iron Bull explained how it worked with the mercenary Dalish's clan, not with all clans. When Minaeve says that her clan exiled her, the elven Inquisitor can tell her that his didn't operate that way, and in the dialogue with Vivienne, the main character can make it clear other clans operated the same way as Clan Lavellan as well - which is evident from Merrill's own codex entry and the example of Merrill's original tribe, Clan Alerion. As it reads, "As each generation passes, magic becomes more rare among the Dalish. As the gift dies out, talented children are moved between clans so that every Keeper has a successor, and no clan is in danger of being left without guidance."

 

However, when the Dalish Inquisitor points this out, Vivienne thinks her hearsay trumps his actual first-hand knowledge of the People. She's wrong because she thinks she's right simply because she's heard rumors about the Dalish, even when she's presented with actual facts about the Elvhen from one of their own.

 

I can't remember the exact dialogue but Vivienne was responding to the Inquisitor insinuating that his/her people do not consider magic a danger. Vivienne is merely pointing out that this isn't true and that the Dalish (and the Vashoth) can be just as cruel. Sure she generalizes with the worst examples but for the dalish at least there is one of those examples living in Skyhold and her wider point is still correct. Even in the nicer clans they will only have like about three mages specifically because of the dangers of magic. 

 

A first hand account from a victim of such treatment is not "hearsay" and what Vivienne said doesn't actually conflict with the Inquisitors first hand knowledge. Vivienne is right the Dalish do take the dangers of magic just as seriously as anyone else and they take measures to protect themselves from it. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

I know I'm going to sound biased here, but Sera's disapprove scene is more mature than Vivienne's. I mean come on, Sera in her usual blunt way just lays it out on the table and tells you directly about her dissatisfaction without any coy, childish antics, which is really surprising because this is Sera after all. Vivienne of the other does something childish and ridiculous like moving your furniture just to spite you and then wastes your time by stating that she has no idea why's she's doing any of this before finally explaining herself. Add that to the fact you can't kick her out or at least give her a good tongue-lashing after this you start to get really annoyed her character.

 

Perhaps it's the fault of the writer but you'd think she'd do so kind of public humiliation or spread some horrible gossip to your allies to show her anger with your decisions. She is supposed to be a master of the Game after all. 

[ThreeF]

Characters do not have to be mature in all things but at any rate Vivienne was illustrating a point, she basically showed you instead of telling.

 

 

Perhaps it's the fault of the writer but you'd think she'd do so kind of public humiliation or spread some horrible gossip to your allies to show her anger with your decisions. She is supposed to be a master of the Game after all. 

And endanger the Inquisition? That would be stupid.

[Fredward]

Is it weird that I consider Viv to be one of the more nuanced/better written characters in DA?

[ThreeF]

Is it weird that I consider Viv to be one of the more nuanced/better written characters in DA?

Not at all, she is an interesting character, she would be even better if she wasn't an optional companion. I think the problem is that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Characters do not have to be mature in all things but at any rate Vivienne was illustrating a point, she basically showed you instead of telling.

 

Yes, I understand she was trying to illustrate a point here, but do you really think that doing something like that would actually change someone's behavior, or just annoy them? Being straight-forward and honest with someone about the problems you find with their decision making is far more professional and constructive then... just pulling a prank that the Inquisitor can't even rebuke. There should have been an actually discussion, one that Vivienne may disagree with but an actual discussion nonetheless. Instead we get Vivienne having a fit and the Inquisitor looking inept. Both characters come out of it looking worse. 

[mikeymoonshine]

The only in-game example of it is during her recruitment mission, where she manipulates the situation to trick that Marquise into disparaging you so that she can make a grand entrance and kill two birds with one stone (humiliating the Marquise and proving her potential loyalty to the Inquisition).  It's hinted at through numerous NPC banter that she's formidable, but there aren't any details given.  To be honest though, why would that come up in the game?  Outside of the Winter Palace, there's really no place for Vivienne to use political machinations on any of your enemies.  I will admit that I think Mary really dropped the ball with that particular quest.  If Vivienne can attend with you, she should be able to play a more significant role.  I understand that they wanted to make the companions interchangeable, but it just felt like a huge missed opportunity.  Other than that, where, exactly, was she supposed to show her prowess in The Game during the course of the game?

 
I suppose you could also count her beating Sera at her own game as an example.

 

 

This is really pretty basic stuff. Characters supposedly have qualities, you show them. When you tell the audience something exists that obviously doesn't in the story, it's worse than useless.

 

But they did show them, you just ignored the evidence of that presented to you so you could continue making this ridiculous point. Another example would be the way she used the death of her lover and her ties to the Inquisitor to strengthen her position in the court. While she didn't take anyone down to do this (unless you believe that particular theory) it is an example of her skill at the game and her ability to manipulate a situation to her advantage, her banter with Sera is another great example. 

 

Giving background information is of course an important part of writing a character, Vivienne's game playing skills fell flat in Halamshiral in that she should have been far more relevant to that quest. I dunno why the devs didn't just make it so she attended no matter what even if that meant not as a party member. Other than that though we do see her abilities being shown in the game on several occasions.  

[ThreeF]

Yes, I understand she was trying to illustrate a point here, but do you really think that doing something like that would actually change someone's behavior, or just annoy them? Being straight-forward and honest with someone about the problems you find with their decision making is far more professional and constructive then... just pulling a prank that the Inquisitor can't even rebuke. There should have been an actually discussion, one that Vivienne may disagree with but an actual discussion nonetheless. Instead we get Vivienne having a fit and the Inquisitor looking inept. Both characters come out of it looking worse. 

But that's not the type of character Vivienne is. Have you considered  that perhaps she just had enough? If you go that path then you more often than not must antagonize her and not listen to her. Why having a fit is universally bad for character? Why should everyone be proper and up to some standard of behavior? Cassandra gets drunk, Vivienne takes a more catty approach. Each character has different personality, moralizing them has no weight on the quality of the character.

[daveliam]

Not at all, she is an interesting character, she would be even better if she wasn't an optional companion. I think the problem is that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written.

 

Exactly, it's why I find Vivienne discussion threads to be so exhausting and boring.  Her "haters" just refuse to accept any positives about her so it just ends up with her "supporters" providing evidence and then having to watch that evidence get ignored or dismissed.  It's particularly frustrating because her "supporters" will willingly discuss her flaws and character weaknesses, but her "haters" only focus on one side of the argument.  For them, it boils down to "I don't like her because she's a ******, so I don't use her or talk to her and then I'll complain when she gets no character development in my playthroughs."  I almost never use Sera or Cole in my playthroughs, so guess what?  Neither of them get much character development in my playthroughs.  But that doesn't mean that the characters aren't well written.  It just means that I'm choosing not to explore that.  And that's why you don't see me in Sera and Cole threads talking about how limited the characters are.  I'm aware that it's my choice that leads me to interpret the characters that way. 

[Sarielle]

Snipped some bits of this for brevity

 

I didn't romance Cullen, but I liked his character in Inquisition. He's reasonable, he's trustworthy, and he's able to accept that the protagonist has different views about mages and magic than he does.

 

 

No, Iron Bull explained how it worked with the mercenary Dalish's clan, not with all clans. When Minaeve says that her clan exiled her, the elven Inquisitor can tell her that his didn't operate that way, and in the dialogue with Vivienne, the main character can make it clear other clans operated the same way as Clan Lavellan as well - which is evident from Merrill's own codex entry and the example of Merrill's original tribe, Clan Alerion.

 

However, when the Dalish Inquisitor points this out, Vivienne thinks her hearsay trumps his actual first-hand knowledge of the People. She's wrong because she thinks she's right simply because she's heard rumors about the Dalish, even when she's presented with actual facts about the Elvhen from one of their own.

 

I agree, Cullen is generally a nice guy who's trying to do the right thing. I wasn't trying to imply that Vivienne was hated solely on liking Circles -- what I meant was that she likes Circles, and she bitchily and cleverly defends her position. I do think "you'd do it to one of your own!" adds a little extra fuel to the fire.

 

I just did the Iron Bull bit, he said "Dalish clans can't have too many mages" unless I totally misheard. That ... seemed to be explaining Dalish clans in general to me.

 

As for knowing about the Dalish ... some clans did kick their extra mages out, some didn't. Imo that wasn't handled well by Bioware because the codex entries you're quoting go directly against what others -- and even your inquisitor -- can say about their experiences.

 

Anyway, the fact that not all Dalish clans didn't kick out their extra mages doesn't mean it didn't happen often enough for outsiders to know of the practice. I just replayed that part. If you tell her extra mages got sent to other clans, she simply asks what happens if there aren't any clans with room for more?

 

Sure, she's pointing out that they get cut loose -- which we have evidence sometimes happens. I'm just not seeing the "knows more than the Dalish inquisitor" thing, unless you're talking about a different convo.

 

I'd like someone who claims Vivienne is well written to address my comment on how BioWare gushed over how powerful she was in pre-release information and all the ways she has to take people down despite that never once coming up in the story.

Is that not important? When a writer has to outright, word-for word tell the audience what qualities a character has because they're non-existent in the story, that's a pretty serious sign that the character has failed.

 

I didn't read any of her pre-release stuff. I don't care to answer it because all my opinions are based on what she says/does in-game. -shrug-

 

I do wish she'd had a bigger role in the Winter Palace portion, I can agree that was a missed opportunity. And that she'd been able to wear her fabulous hat.

 

 

----------

 

I think people have every right to dislike Vivienne as she stands, and I can easily see why she'd rub some people the wrong way. What I find puzzling is when people take factually incorrect stands about why she sucks.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Not at all, she is an interesting character, she would be even better if she wasn't an optional companion. I think the problem is that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written.

 

That is a problem though. I would be completely fine if Vivienne managed to pull a Solas and completely deconstruct any argument I had for PC's prior actions because at least then you could be having an interesting debate and it would show how clever she is, but instead you get next to nothing of significance to say back to her. It may be a problem of word budget but its annoying nonetheless. 

[Ryzaki]

Yeah the some (probably many or most) dalish clans kick out mages is pretty much canon. You can choose to have the PC's clan unique in not doing that but even the PC acknowledges that it's different. "My clan found another way." Do note how they don't speak for most of the dalish there.

[AresKeith]

Not at all, she is an interesting character, she would be even better if she wasn't an optional companion. I think the problem is that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written.

 

That's actually why I'm becoming more and more against optional companions 

[ThreeF]

That is a problem though. I would be completely fine if Vivienne managed to pull a Solas and completely deconstruct any argument I had for PC's prior actions because at least then you could be having an interesting debate and it would show how clever she is, but instead you get next to nothing of significance to say back to her. It may be a problem of word budget but its annoying nonetheless. 

You want a debate at the point where she is not going to let you have one, where things have already gone past debate.

[Kurt M.]

I like Viv's iron will and strong personality, I dislike what they're used for (purely personal advancement and/or survivality).

[Ryzaki]

You want a debate at the point where she is not going to let you have one, where things have already gone past debate.

 

And she's a god of the Inquisitor's mouth now?

 

This is just another terrible example of BW having the PC be stupid to make the NPC look superior. Instead the whole scene just looks stupid.

[BabyPuncher]

I almost never use Sera or Cole in my playthroughs, so guess what?  Neither of them get much character development in my playthroughs.  But that doesn't mean that the characters aren't well written.  It just means that I'm choosing not to explore that.  And that's why you don't see me in Sera and Cole threads talking about how limited the characters are.  I'm aware that it's my choice that leads me to interpret the characters that way. 

 

Party banter is not character development.

[ComedicSociopathy]

But that's not the type of character Vivienne is. Have you considered  that perhaps she just had enough? If you go that path then you more often than not must antagonize her and not listen to her. Why having a fit is universally bad for character? Why should everyone be proper and up to some standard of behavior? Cassandra gets drunk, Vivienne takes a more catty approach. Each character has different personality, moralizing them has no weight on the quality of the character.

 

A character having a fit is usually fine. Cassandra getting drunk so she finally say what's on her mind makes sense and is quite humorous and sad to watch. But when it comes to Vivienne, a character who at all times tries to put on a veneer of being a proper, intelligent, classy individual that would never stoop so low as to do something base and uncouth as performing a panic at someone's expense, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe if she was inebriated like in Cassandra's case then I could understand why she would take this approach, but in that scene she is in complete control of her mental faculties and yet still does this lame panic.

 

I don't know, perhaps I just expected more from her. It just feels like this isn't the kind of mind game that a master of the Game would commit. It feels to juvenile and pointless. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

Exactly, it's why I find Vivienne discussion threads to be so exhausting and boring.  Her "haters" just refuse to accept any positives about her so it just ends up with her "supporters" providing evidence and then having to watch that evidence get ignored or dismissed.  It's particularly frustrating because her "supporters" will willingly discuss her flaws and character weaknesses, but her "haters" only focus on one side of the argument.  For them, it boils down to "I don't like her because she's a ******, so I don't use her or talk to her and then I'll complain when she gets no character development in my playthroughs."  I almost never use Sera or Cole in my playthroughs, so guess what?  Neither of them get much character development in my playthroughs.  But that doesn't mean that the characters aren't well written.  It just means that I'm choosing not to explore that.  And that's why you don't see me in Sera and Cole threads talking about how limited the characters are.  I'm aware that it's my choice that leads me to interpret the characters that way. 

 

Vivienne makes really good points about how Fiona's mage rebellion was terribly timed. She has an iron will and tactical mind. Her reaction to the Tranquil being turned into magic spyglass's is very powerfully. She has great fashion sense and as a Knight-Enchanter possess one of the most powerful specs in the game.

 

There you go, I'm a hater and still willing to admit that she has positives. 

[ThreeF]

This is just another terrible example of BW having the PC be stupid to make the NPC look superior. Instead the whole scene just looks stupid.

That is a problem indeed, but this is why I said that people can't separate their inability to react to Vivienne's behavior the way they want and Vivienne's character as she is written and that she could have been done better if she was not an optional character. People can say that her being smarter than the PC should be better developed by creating more opportunities for interaction up to the point where no  debate can exist (because that's the point where the whole furniture thing takes place) You can say that a big chunk of tension is missing and it is true. But saying that her being catty means she is poorly written or that she should do something else than be catty, because that is inappropriate in some fashion is well....weird.

 

A character having a fit is usually fine. Cassandra getting drunk so she finally say what's on her mind makes sense and is quite humorous and sad to watch. But when it comes to Vivienne, a character who at all times tries to put on a veneer of being a proper, intelligent, classy individual that would never stoop so low as to do something base and uncouth as performing a panic at someone's expense, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe if she was inebriated like in Cassandra's case then I could understand why she would take this approach, but in that scene she is in complete control of her mental faculties and yet still does this lame panic.

 

I don't know, perhaps I just expected more from her. It just feels like this isn't the kind of mind game that a master of the Game would commit. It feels to juvenile and pointless. 

You basically brought her to that point where all bets are off. I think this basically boils down to you not understanding what makes her tick since you say that she  "would never stoop so low as to do something base and uncouth". She would, if she thought that is was necessary or if she was driven into a corner, her furniture scene basically tells "well since you don't understand words, perhaps action will make you realize what you do every time you discard my advice" It's juvenile, but not uncharacteristic of her, you can even call it her being desperate and too angry.

[BabyPuncher]

Thinking about it, I'm wondering if party banter hurts these character because writers get the impression they've made a lot of progress when they haven't.

 

Imagine it. You're a writer, you spend months and months coming up with banter for your character. Countless conversations with other writers to make their character fit with yours. Countless checks against the lore and history to make sure everything they say is right. There's like five hours of banter. That's probably dozens of pages of writing per character. And writers likely produce even more before it's cut down by editing. Perhaps much more.

 

You finish that project, and you're exhausted. You naturally think you're done.

 

But you're not done. In fact, you've barely started. Because you've gotten tunnel vision to the fact that although you've spent so much time on this, the average player will never hear the vast majority of it. You've written a character that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.

 

And so we get characters like Vivienne and Sera who are narrative dead weight. Perhaps because writers have put too much effort into banter and forgotten how little it matters.