100 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Thanks for bringing this up, OP. It is a topic that needs to be discussed.

 

Having said that, I don't think that DAI is all that bad with breaking rules earlier established in the setting. If you want something *really* bad, look at ME3, which butchered the lore of whole species to make them adhere to a specific thematic direction with which the writers were dead-set to hit the players on their heads. I have no words to express how plainly despicable I found this.

 

The only change on that level in DAI is the "three mages rule" for Dalish clans, which was created to make the Dalish invalid as an alternative way to handle mages and make the Circles look better.

 

DAI's problem is more a matter of tone than rules. DAO established a certain tone by the way it presented things. There was never a "rule" that said Thedas as a whole had this whole lot of "social issues" we witnessed in Ferelden. It was just there. Slavery, classism, racism and sexism was just there in Ferelden. By ignoring or reinterpreting basically every gender-related issue so that it became non-existent as a problem Bioware didn't exactly contradict themselves, since these things can still exist - and do still exist as proven by a few documents - but the story plays out in a protected zone, which results in a dramatic tone shift that makes the setting as a whole come across as artificial and tame compared to the earlier games.

 

It also lessens the impact of our actions. I recall how satisfying it felt to throw Vaughn's 40 sovereigns back into his face with my CE female Warden. DAI robs me of such satisfaction in overcoming everydays evils of the world, which often feels more significant than overcoming the epic evil since you don't have  a choice about the latter.

[God]

You're really not doing yourself any favors by trying to claim Game of Thones mirrors medieval life.

 

I think you need a few history lessons.

 

Actually, it's based very much on the historical War of the Roses. GRRM himself did a lot of hard research on medieval/late dark age history and political studies. Your claim has no basis or merit, and you are entirely incorrect.

 

Sorry David, what were you lying? Are you a master of history now too?

[Draining Dragon]

Either the Qunari were seriously retconned, or we were tricked into thinking that they were more intriguing than they actually are.

[Carmen_Willow]

Like how he revised The Stand in 1990 with all the filler he'd cut from the original novel. It was nice for some of the "Meanwhile in..." stories during the outbreak, but it also bogged the narrative down with a ton of padding that it obviously didn't need?

 

That being said, you're right that his smaller and more focussed plots tend to be better, which is probably why I find his novellas far better than his novel-length work most of the time? He has less opportunity with shorter stories to end up accidentally rehashing his own work?

I think everyone felt that King's author's cut version of The Stand was a step backward. He proved that an author should not edit their own work. That said, sometimes an author falls so much in love with a story and characters that they can't quite let them go, and because King has given me many hours of enjoyment with his work, I forgive him his need to let us meet the entire Stand family.

 

In the same book, King gives one of the best examples of descriptive action writing I have ever read, the shoot-out in the small Arizona gas station store is a marvelous piece of writing that I would use as an example to anyone of what an author should try to convey when writing action.

 

I think the Dragon Age writers have done a decent job creating and maintaining their world, but I tend to agree with those who feel they are trying to make their universe more politically correct. Only time and future stories will tell if this was a good thing or not. In my view, it's been okay so far...we'll see.

[Zobert]

Clarification =/= change.

 

If that were the case, then J.R.R. Tolkien would be a terrible writer who couldn't make his mind up, since he "changed" just about every aspect of Middle-Earth's lore in The Silmarillion. Hell, even the slight alterations and clarifications that Tolkien made in LotR to things introduced in the Hobbit would be terrible retcons.

 

Clarification means explaining a rule, not changing that rule and calling it a clarification.  I also disagree on Tolkien but if you want to bring up examples, go ahead.  I'll listen to them.

[Iakus]

Actually, it's based very much on the historical War of the Roses. GRRM himself did a lot of hard research on medieval/late dark age history and political studies. Your claim has no basis or merit, and you are entirely incorrect.

 

Sorry David, what were you lying? Are you a master of history now too?

Much as I hate to say it, MassivelyEffective has a point.

 

GRRM based ASoIaF on the War of the Roses and the War of the Hundred Years.  So while the non-supernatural aspects are rather extreme, and it's implausible that such a conflict could engulf an entire continent (rather than one or two countries as the source material had) it's still this side of possible.

[Br3admax]

Everyone needs to stop sock shaming. We all already knew who these people were, and you're taking all of the fun out of making the mods find out. 

[Iakus]

Thanks for bringing this up, OP. It is a topic that needs to be discussed.

 

Having said that, I don't think that DAI is all that bad with breaking rules earlier established in the setting. If you want something *really* bad, look at ME3, which butchered the lore of whole species to make them adhere to a specific thematic direction with which the writers were dead-set to hit the players on their heads. I have no words to express how plainly despicable I found this.

 

The only change on that level in DAI is the "three mages rule" for Dalish clans, which was created to make the Dalish invalid as an alternative way to handle mages and make the Circles look better.

 

DAI's problem is more a matter of tone than rules. DAO established a certain tone by the way it presented things. There was never a "rule" that said Thedas as a whole had this whole lot of "social issues" we witnessed in Ferelden. It was just there. Slavery, classism, racism and sexism was just there in Ferelden. By ignoring or reinterpreting basically every gender-related issue so that it became non-existent as a problem Bioware didn't exactly contradict themselves, since these things can still exist - and do still exist as proven by a few documents - but the story plays out in a protected zone, which results in a dramatic tone shift that makes the setting as a whole come across as artificial and tame compared to the earlier games.

 

It also lessens the impact of our actions. I recall how satisfying it felt to throw Vaughn's 40 sovereigns back into his face with my CE female Warden. DAI robs me of such satisfaction in overcoming everydays evils of the world, which often feels more significant than overcoming the epic evil since you don't have  a choice about the latter.

Yeah DAI doesn't hold a candle to Mass Effect when it comes to wholescale retconning.  Though I do think that some took place in order to make the setting more palatable.  Such as the Qunari.  Their mindset is no longer so alien.  

 

For the Dalish, I'm just going to write it off as individual clans doing things differently, for now.  Minaeve's clan just took a particualrly harsh method in dealing with "excess mages"

[DirkJake]

This is Thedas, not medieval Europe, with magic and matriarchal societies - that were established in the first game, such as the Chantry - as well as fictional races. This isn't historical fiction. This is fantasy.

 

To be honest, the "inconsistencies" people usually talk about are just instances where what happened in the game did not match their headcanons and their misconception that Thedas must be in parallel with medieval Europe. 

[Sarielle]

To be honest, the "inconsistencies" people usually talk about are just instances where what happened in the game did not match their headcanons and their misconception that Thedas must be in parallel with medieval Europe. 

 

C'mon now, this is way oversimplifying. Sten insisting that the Warden couldn't be a warrior and a woman, for instance? And suddenly women can be warriors, but only if they are identified as men blah blah that whole thing from the Krem thread. I mean, say the Qunari culture got "expanded upon" if you will, but that has nothing to do with headcanon. People can't be faulted for taking what seems like a really straight-forward explanation of Qunari culture and accepting it at face value.

[Eliastion]

(...)
For the Dalish, I'm just going to write it off as individual clans doing things differently, for now.  Minaeve's clan just took a particualrly harsh method in dealing with "excess mages"

I prefer to consider that clan black sheep (perhaps one of those Dalish clans that are indeed little more than bandits with tattooed faces) but I do have a feeling that I'm frantically headcanoning away from what the writers intended. But it just doesn't make sense to me that Dalish would get rid of mages rather than either "pass them around" so that other less lucky clans have enough or provide just the basic magical education - I definitely can see them as having the excess mages learn just enough to not endanger themselves - I get the feeling that Elora (Halla keeper in Zathrian's clan) was someone like that and generally wasn't supposed to use magic...
And with a little bit of proper interpretation even the "three mages rule" would still be preserved - after all a mage is a job revolving around magic. Being gifted but without the job is just like having a musical talent plus some basic skill with an instrument - it doesn't make someone a musician
And yeah, it's shameless play on semantic, but if Bioware can do it with Qunari, so can I with the Dalish!

[Sifr]

 

In the same book, King gives one of the best examples of descriptive action writing I have ever read, the shoot-out in the small Arizona gas station store is a marvelous piece of writing that I would use as an example to anyone of what an author should try to convey when writing action.

 

I must admit, that was one of the parts of the book I enjoyed the most, the other was the suspenseful chapter traversing through the pitch-black and corpse-filled Lincoln Tunnel, simply for the sheer eerie atomsphere he was able to generate despite absolutely nothing happening?

 

Much as I hate to say it, MassivelyEffective has a point.

 

GRRM based ASoIaF on the War of the Roses and the War of the Hundred Years.  So while the non-supernatural aspects are rather extreme, and it's implausible that such a conflict could engulf an entire continent (rather than one or two countries as the source material had) it's still this side of possible.

 

Yeah, especially when Westeros is meant to be the size of South America according to GRRM?

[Eliastion]

(...)
Yeah, especially when Westeros is meant to be the size of South America according to GRRM?

Well, this in part is the result of the fact that this (WARNING: TV Tropes link, venture forth at your own risk):
http://tvtropes.org/...eNoSenseOfScale
Really applies a bit to fantasy as well
Unfortunately it's all too easy for modern writers to just judge distances by modern standards even without magic that could substitute modern technology when it comes to travel and communication...

[Iakus]

I prefer to consider that clan black sheep (perhaps one of those Dalish clans that are indeed little more than bandits with tattooed faces) but I do have a feeling that I'm frantically headcanoning away from what the writers intended. But it just doesn't make sense to me that Dalish would get rid of mages rather than either "pass them around" so that other less lucky clans have enough or provide just the basic magical education - I definitely can see them as having the excess mages learn just enough to not endanger themselves - I get the feeling that Elora (Halla keeper in Zathrian's clan) was someone like that and generally wasn't supposed to use magic...
And with a little bit of proper interpretation even the "three mages rule" would still be preserved - after all a mage is a job revolving around magic. Being gifted but without the job is just like having a musical talent plus some basic skill with an instrument - it doesn't make someone a musician
And yeah, it's shameless play on semantic, but if Bioware can do it with Qunari, so can I with the Dalish!

 

Yeah it may be a desperate attempt to headcanon it, but it buys some time until it gets confirmed or refuted.  Especially since Merrill's codex entry states magic is dying out among the Dalish.  Driving out mages seems wasteful, unless it's an act of true desperation.

 

 

Yeah, especially when Westeros is meant to be the size of South America according to GRRM?

Well, I did say it was implausible. 

[StanojeZ]

C'mon now, this is way oversimplifying. Sten insisting that the Warden couldn't be a warrior and a woman, for instance? And suddenly women can be warriors, but only if they are identified as men blah blah that whole thing from the Krem thread. I mean, say the Qunari culture got "expanded upon" if you will, but that has nothing to do with headcanon. People can't be faulted for taking what seems like a really straight-forward explanation of Qunari culture and accepting it at face value.

 

If you don't take a character's words as objective fact, then you get very little of these issues. Characters within the setting can be misinformed or biased, just like real people. If I think about real-world philosophies or religions, I know that if I ask two people about the finer points of doctrine, I'll get five different answers, depending on various factors. No reason to assume it would be any different in the games' setting.

[In Exile]

Acting as if something some random character says is an absolute rule of the setting is silly. That would be like - for example - taking Jon Oliver's views on England as an absolute rule of how English culture is like by the sheer coincidental fact that you spoke with him first.

Zevran said some stuff that corresponds with his experience. That isn't a rule.

King is talking about what you as a writer have to know about your setting and how you have to be consistent in your writing relative to those basic principles that you invented. The reader might never know what those principles are because you might never say them out loud.

Let's use a DA specific example: the Maker. DG and others likely know or have an idea if the Maker is real or not, or whether it's supposed to be unknown even to them, or whatever. The King approach is for them to write everything relating to the Maker consistent with that idea. They don't ever have to tell US what that idea is and they certainly don't have to avoid in-setting contradiction on this point (in fact that would make for poor writing; the real world isn't this consistent).

[In Exile]

The only things that did bother me in term of consistency are the 3 mages limit with the Dalish and the lack of clarification on female Grey Wardens on wether or not they can turn into broodmothers.

It's noteworthy that DG once remarked the broodmother point hadn't occurred to him when writing the GWs. The tenor of his post -which sadly I can't find - seemed to suggest he agreed that female GWs would, unless killed, become broodmothers.

[In Exile]

I am speaking of medieval societies worldwide, not just in the West. Yeah, I know there is a whole other world out there other than the West...Thought you might know....

The word medievial refers to Europe. It's a period in European history. There are other parts of the world with different cultures that existed at the same time but it would be incredibly Eurocentric to label them based on notable historical time periods in Europe.

[Sifr]

Acting as if something some random character says is an absolute rule of the setting is silly. That would be like - for example - taking Jon Oliver's views on England as an absolute rule of how English culture is like by the sheer coincidental fact that you spoke with him first.

 

Very true, John Oliver does tend to generalise about his fellow Brits at times, so his statements aren't necessarily the rule on how things actually are... but then again, as a Brit myself, my own view is that he's not always half wrong, either?

 

But like you said with Zevran, it really comes down to own personal experience, bias and viewpoint?

 

Kinda like asking a Londoner what they consider a Londoner to be, which will probably get you a dozen different answers, depending on whether they're from the East End, North or South of the Thames, inner city or outer?

 

[Eliastion]

Acting as if something some random character says is an absolute rule of the setting is silly. That would be like - for example - taking Jon Oliver's views on England as an absolute rule of how English culture is like by the sheer coincidental fact that you spoke with him first.
(...)

You're right, but limited representation is a problem. Basically, when you're given a single source with no additional information that would damage source's credibility, you can assume that you're getting relatively good insight into the topic covered. Obvioulsy Sten could be biased and Iron Bull could be just lying in Krem's face, in fact every single piece of information can be questioned and most of them discarded as we usually don't get more than one source for most things - if we approached the lore with scrutiny appropriate for real-life problems we wouldn't have too much left. But the thing is that - unlike in real life - we're generally unable to look for more reliable (or just different) sources. As with other works of fiction, we're forced to accept sources given or discard pretty much everything we know about Thedas as unreliable. That's where kind of informal "deal" between writers and readers is struck - readers take what they hear/read/see at face value to greater extent than they would in real life while writers don't have to give a couple reliable sources for every detail to introduce it as part of the world.
Therefore when faced with accounts that aren't implied to be unreliable, players generally assume that even including some bias coming from in-game author of information they're generally told the truth, and the more knowledgeable the source seems to be, the more they can believe it, perhaps distrusting interpretation but not really the facts.
Obviously, some accounts are proven to be wrong, but when some element was introduced by a source that seemed reliable, knowledgeable AND uncontested (there wasn't reallya ny source other than Sten to learn about Qun), its account was understandably taken as binding, since there was completely no reason for Player to doubt it. Suddenly departing from that account in significant manner combined with lots of semantic play to "prove" that there isn't any change, really, it all fits... Well, it leaves people with bad taste in their mouth. Because it's like the writers try and weasel out of their side of the deal I mentioned - deal that is really indispensable for purposes of building a rich world through interaction with a bunch of NPC plus written in-world codex entries.

[BraveVesperia]

Rules ? You should know that Bioware does not have Rules, but they have Retcons. Lots of it. 

 

Tis' rather ironic. I mean from the words of many who play this game, it seems what they want as an inclusive tolerant medieval-esque society with generic fantasy elements to it.

 

Here's the thing though :- Medieval societies were never tolerant. Men and women were not equal. People of different skin color were not equal. Monarchs practiced total authoritarian rule and in some cultures made themselves out to be God-Kings. Slavery was not only rampant but tolerated. So was prostitution though this was restricted to those who can afford having more than one partner. Life was hard and simple. I would guess 98% of society was highly religious where each society would only practice and tolerate one religion with non-religiosity would probably be found in very few educated or learned people, who would hide it. Wars and conflicts between the ruling class was often and frequent. Life for most people during the medieval times were hard and simple. Oh and medicine, twas quite macabre. People usually never made it past 25 or so and if they did, they were lucky. The look and feel during that time were not flashy and over-the-top high definition color either. Twas' mostly dull brown and dark green or simple colorful clothing, due to agrarian lifestyle with the exception of the rulers. 

 

The only entertainment material that I have seen so far that somewhat mirrors this is Game of Thrones. Dragon Age used to be something like Game of Thrones in Origins but now it has been diluted and neutered down to a generic fantasy game by trying to mash medieval-ness with modern civilization values. 

Oh my. Game of Thrones is not an accurate comparison to medieval times either, so I wouldn't hold that up as the ideal. It might have lots more brutality and misery than DA, but that doesn't somehow make it realistic.

 

Though if you're wanting a medieval life simulator, fantasy stories are probably a bad place to look anyway.

[Rekkampum]

C'mon now, this is way oversimplifying. Sten insisting that the Warden couldn't be a warrior and a woman, for instance? And suddenly women can be warriors, but only if they are identified as men blah blah that whole thing from the Krem thread. I mean, say the Qunari culture got "expanded upon" if you will, but that has nothing to do with headcanon. People can't be faulted for taking what seems like a really straight-forward explanation of Qunari culture and accepting it at face value.

 

Aqun-Athlok aren't considered women at all. For all intents and purposes, they are considered men and identify as such. The Grey Warden was not transgender, hence why Sten had a difficult time accepting - and still did not accept - that the Warden was a woman. Also, he's from the Antaam, not the Ben-Hassrath, as IB was.

[Sifr]

Aqun-Athlok aren't considered women at all. For all intents and purposes, they are considered men and identify as such. The Grey Warden was not transgender, hence why Sten had a difficult time accepting - and still did not accept - that the Warden was a woman. Also, he's from the Antaam, not the Ben-Hassrath, as IB was.

 

And to add to that, Sten says that women cannot be warriors... women are shopkeepers, artisans or priests.

 

He's correct, at least in terms of the Qun.

 

The Antaam is made up exclusively of men and are considered part of the military. The Ben-Hassrath, which includes men and women, are technically considered part of the priesthood.

 

This is why Sten has no problem accepting Leliana as a female who fights, because she's identifies herself as a priestess, so that makes complete sense to him. But a female Warden calling herself a "Warrior" is a concept so alien to him, he simply cannot wrap his mind around it?

[Eliastion]

(...)Also, he's from the Antaam, not the Ben-Hassrath, as IB was.

I continue to be puzzled by reasoning that apparently leads you to conclusion that this detail is in any way relevant.

[Rekkampum]

I continue to be puzzled by reasoning that apparently leads you to conclusion that this detail is in any way relevant.

 

And, I continue to not care.