123 réponses à ce sujet

[Reznore57]

I noticed at the end of DAI, right after defeating Cory, the Inquisitor says something to Solas about there being more of them. More of what?? I'm not sure if that was supposed to refer to there being more orbs? Or more like Cory? Or maybe both? Anyway it seems to imply whatever Solas is/was planning next has something to do with finding the rest of them.

 

I think , I'm not 100% sure , the Inquisitor find Solas mourning the Orb of Doom , and goes "there's more isn't it?" : I understood "We just won and you're heartbroken  so what are you hiding , buddy?" like there's more to the story.

[Sah291]

I think , I'm not 100% sure , the Inquisitor find Solas mourning the Orb of Doom , and goes "there's more isn't it?" : I understood "We just won and you're heartbroken so what are you hiding , buddy?" like there's more to the story.

Hmm maybe. But if so, that still fits in the sense that there is more going on. I can't remember the exact phrasing now, but I remember it sounded vague. I romanced him though, so by that point he had already broken up with the Inquisitor, so she already knew the orb was important to him, and that there was something he wasn't telling her...so I didn't think of it in that context....

[midnight tea]

I think , I'm not 100% sure , the Inquisitor find Solas mourning the Orb of Doom , and goes "there's more isn't it?" : I understood "We just won and you're heartbroken  so what are you hiding , buddy?" like there's more to the story.

 

What's significant is that only befriended/romanced Inquisitor makes this comment. I think it's supposed to imply that those Inquisitors who know Solas better at least suspect that he's hiding something or that he's more than your regular apostate Dreamer (...if we can call those "regular")

[Boost32]

I don't see what one has to do with the other, unless you think including trans characters somehow leads to a lack of well-written antagonists and difficult choices.

While DAI certainly has its flaws, I personally don't think the writing was worse than the writing in DAO or DA2.

Im not saying trans characters leads to bad antagonist, Im saying that the writing of DAI have several flaws and instead of adressing those concerns, the writers seems to ignore those and focus their interviews on irrelevant things (because if they are ggnt to write more trans/hetero/gay/whatever character is irrelevant for the setting).

And it isn't as if players and people on this forum make a big deal of it? I suggest we choose not to make a big deal of it, and then it won't be as much of a big deal and writers can concentrate on making a good story.

I'm much more concerned about the possibility that DA will turn into a sequence of morality tales - in a general sense not restricted to one particular issue - with Weekes at the helm.

I dont care if the players make a big deal of it, they dont have anything to do with the writing to the next DAI.

Im concerned with several aspect of the writing too, and instead of the writing adressing the DAI flaws its seem they are more worried about sexuality than the quality of the history, thats my problem.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Why? Because its irrelevant if a transexual/homosexual/heterosexual/pansexual/whateversexual character will be in the next Dragon Age game.

This game was about dragons, epic battles, interesting antagonists, companion interactions, difficult choices, etc.

 

One of the things it is about is the characters. Sexuality is just another avenue to explore/develop any given character they write.

[Boost32]

 

One of the things it is about is the characters. Sexuality is just another avenue to explore/develop any given character they write.

I do agree with you because it make them more real and relatable, still their sexuality is not the most important part of their charecterization.

 

Look at Dorian, he is interesting because of his personality and because he is against Tevinter traditions and wish to change them, him being gay add another layer to his persona and make him more real. But him being gay is irrelevant to the history of DAI, its a nice interaction to have not a must have interaction.

 

What I dont understand is why its seem that the devs now must not only do different sexuality (and I agree with them doing it) but they should focus every interview about it. Its seem that they are focusing to much on it, seriously the next DA game will not be a hit or miss because of trans character, and they say nothing about the write part that should be their principal focus, like good villains and grey decisions (things that are almost absent in DAI).

[midnight tea]

Look at Dorian, he is interesting because of his personality and because he is against Tevinter traditions and wish to change them, him being gay add another layer to his persona and make him more real. But him being gay is irrelevant to the history of DAI, its a nice interaction to have not a must have interaction.

 

Its also irrelevant to the story that Cassandra like smutty romances, yet it's there, because it tells something about characters. So is Solas not liking tea or Sera not liking cookies (or being an 'unelfy' elf), Blackwall having a beard or Iron Bull being a Qunari.

 

Also - the thing about, say, Dorian sexuality is that it's NOT a "must have" and I have very hard time understanding why people are so desperate to present it that way. Him openly admitting that he's gay is part of his PERSONAL QUEST, done only when you befriend him - and obviously, since you're friends with someone, you get to know things like, say, his sexuality. We also don't have to romance him or flirt with him (and even women have options to playfully flirt with Dorian - same with other characters) and even have an option to make an enemy out of him and kick him out of Skyhold with a bruise on his face (as much as he doesn't deserve it).

 

So no, it's not relevant, but it's also not specifically forced on players and it's silly to say that it is.

[Fearsome1]

I'm straight, but this is an rpg, and no matter who the romance options have been from Origins to Inquisition - I always try them all out just to see what impact they had on the story.  I'm okay with the characters being discussed and Dorian is a favorite of mine; but I agree that there has been far too much chatter over current sexuality issues than was genuinely necessary to get a point across.

[Boost32]

Its also irrelevant to the story that Cassandra like smutty romances, yet it's there, because it tells something about characters. So is Solas not liking tea or Sera not liking cookies (or being an 'unelfy' elf), Blackwall having a beard or Iron Bull being a Qunari.

 

Also - the thing about, say, Dorian sexuality is that it's NOT a "must have" and I have very hard time understanding why people are so desperate to present it that way. Him openly admitting that he's gay is part of his PERSONAL QUEST, done only when you befriend him - and obviously, since you're friends with someone, you get to know things like, say, his sexuality. We also don't have to romance him or flirt with him (and even women have options to playfully flirt with Dorian - same with other characters) and even have an option to make an enemy out of him and kick him out of Skyhold with a bruise on his face (as much as he doesn't deserve it).

 

So no, it's not relevant, but it's also not specifically forced on players and it's silly to say that it is.

 

Good that we doesnt disagree them, Seriously I never said anything about it being forced, read my post again and you will see that I said the same thing as you.

[AlanC9]

Im not saying trans characters leads to bad antagonist, Im saying that the writing of DAI have several flaws and instead of adressing those concerns, the writers seems to ignore those and focus their interviews on irrelevant things (because if they are ggnt to write more trans/hetero/gay/whatever character is irrelevant for the setting).

Devs do prefer to talk about stuff that worked rather than stuff that didn't, yep. Their opinion of what worked might also be different from yours.

Anyway, doesn't this have something to do with the interviewers too?

[Hiemoth]

Had you read my previous post, you would know I wasnt talking about in game content, but about writer's interviews.
Let me try again so you can understand: DAI have huge flaws in its writing department, instead of aknowledge them and saying they know and will improve on them in the next game, they say things like "the next game will have more transexual content and if you dont like it, you dont need to play the game".
Transexual character should be on the "Nice to have" list, not in the "Must have" list.
The Must have list should be composed of good amtagonists like Loghain and th Arishok, not a joke like Corypheus, should have difficult choices with pros and cons, not rainbows and unicorns choices we had in DAI, and I could go on about the flaws in DAI.

 

Well I appreciate an effort to write things out that even I will understand, even if your argument still makes zero sense.

 

In this instance, the writer was answering a very specific question about the transgender character. Hence the answer you got. To draw from that the conclusion that that is pretty much the only thing they are talking about in their studio is just bizarre. Even the tweeted answers touch on so many others subjects.

[Boost32]

Devs do prefer to talk about stuff that worked rather than stuff that didn't, yep. Their opinion of what worked might also be different from yours.

Anyway, doesn't this have something to do with the interviewers too?

Then its a bad habit, and they can have different opnions from mine, but there is a lot of people who agree with me, specially with the joke villain and rainbows and unicorn choices.

 

I already said if the interviewer asked it, then he is a bad one (there is already one interview about sexuality of the character, dont know why bringing the same thing again).

 

Well I appreciate an effort to write things out that even I will understand, even if your argument still makes zero sense.

 

In this instance, the writer was answering a very specific question about the transgender character. Hence the answer you got. To draw from that the conclusion that that is pretty much the only thing they are talking about in their studio is just bizarre. Even the tweeted answers touch on so many others subjects.

Its not only about this interview, in others they still dedicate a lot of time about it and the things that should really matter get 0 time.

Even in the DLC, where they say they listen to players feedback, they did the same thing. Joke vilain (someone remembers who is Gurd?) and white/black choice (lie or tell the truth about Ameridan, if you tell the truth there is no repercussion, everyone just accept the once human noble hero is in truth a elf mage, there is no blowback, nothing.

 

So yes, I have a lot to draw my conclusions.

[BansheeOwnage]

My theory is, not only is the architect still alive, the other magisters are probably still out there somewhere too, and they might have some of the other orbs/keys Solas is looking for? We are given a list of them in the new World of Thedas book, and while they might have been just fleshing out the lore, it kinda seems like they are setting up the plot to introduce more about them, and whatever the relationship is between the elven gods and old gods, and the black city.

I noticed at the end of DAI, right after defeating Cory, the Inquisitor says something to Solas about there being more of them. More of what?? I'm not sure if that was supposed to refer to there being more orbs? Or more like Cory? Or maybe both? Anyway it seems to imply whatever Solas is/was planning next has something to do with finding the rest of them.

One of the 7 is probably dead, if the story about the dwarf seeing them in the deep roads is true. One ate another. I'm pretty sure they all have varying levels of sanity after being in the city. I don't remember that being mentioned with Solas though.

 

Edit: Nevermind.

[AlanC9]

Then its a bad habit, and they can have different opnions from mine, but there is a lot of people who agree with me, specially with the joke villain and rainbows and unicorn choices.
 
I already said if the interviewer asked it, then he is a bad one (there is already one interview about sexuality of the character, dont know why bringing the same thing again).
 

Is it the interviewer's job to talk about the stuff you want him to?

[Boost32]

Is it the interviewer's job to talk about the stuff you want him to?

No, its the interviwer job to ask something beyond characters sexuality.

[midnight tea]

No, its the interviwer job to ask something beyond characters sexuality.

 

Well no, the interviewer's job is to make an interview - and if the aspect they want to talk about is sexuality (instead of, say, design in game) then so be it. Nobody forces anyone to read that particular interview.

[Boost32]

Well no, the interviewer's job is to make an interview - and if the aspect they want to talk about is sexuality (instead of, say, design in game) then so be it. Nobody forces anyone to read that particular interview.

The interviewer had made one speaking only about characters sexyuality, so yes he/she could do another speaking about others subjects

[DuskWanderer]

The interviewer had made one speaking only about characters sexyuality, so yes he/she could do another speaking about others subjects

In the end, this is what I find worrying. That, rather than spend their time developing rich and interesting characters, we'll get nothing but meaningless sexual representation, and somehow be sold that it's the same thing.

[BansheeOwnage]

Stay on topic please. We don't need another lock.

[Sifr]

And, The Architect all but said he was an anomaly - a darkspawn who awoke to self-awareness with no explanation of why it happened.

 

I realize that one takes the word of any character at their own risk: that character may be lying, may be omitting details, or may honestly not know the truth. However, that does give context to why the audience may not equate the The Architect to the Tevinter Magisters. Especially when, as you say, The Architect is just one of several talking darkspawn in Awakening. That he has a unique character model means nothing. The Mother also had one.

 

The Architect didn't know of his origins though, he was merely theorising... or perhaps he was just flat out lying, we honestly don't know?

 

In the course of Awakening we learn that he had already omitted the truth once already, by not admitting that he was the one who started the Fifth Blight in the first place when he attempted to awaken Urthemiel, believing that telling the Warden that would mean they'd refuse to help him.

 

You could imagine that if he does remember who he actually is, why he might not want to tell us that instead of causing one Blight, he accidentally helped (indirectly) to cause all of them?

 

As for why he's one of many talking darkspawn, that's because he was the "first" and used his blood to help create the ritual that gave them sapience. The Calling novel shows that he existed long before Awakening and makes no mention of other talking 'spawn (since his plan was different back then), so they had to have come from him as part of his new plan?

 

It would also makes sense that if he is indeed one of the Magisters who first served as the progenitors of the darkspawn, why he's such an anomaly and why his blood would have special properties that would prevent the Awakened 'spawn from hearing the call of the Old Gods?

 

That's also probably the real reason why Archdemons get destroyed trying to jump into a Warden, as the presence of the Archdemon blood in both parties somehow cancels each other out. Hence why Corypheus can jump into another Warden with no problem, since he doesn't carry Archdemon blood within him, (Warden bodies probably don't carry enough to affect each other, hence why one dying doesn't kill the guy next to them, so Corypheus can survive the process even while using a Warden host), as well as how the Archdemon can jump into nearby Darkspawn who lack that same blood-type. The whole "soul" explanation is actually false.

 

The Awakened being self-aware and free from the Calling could be the result of having three different blood-types inside them (and perhaps versions of the taint), the regular stuff that all Darkspawn carry, that carried by the Progenitors (Magisters such as the Achitect and Corypheus) and Archdemon blood (carried by the Wardens).

[Arisugawa]

As for why he's one of many talking darkspawn, that's because he was the "first" and used his blood to help create the ritual that gave them sapience. The Calling novel shows that he existed long before Awakening and makes no mention of other talking 'spawn (since his plan was different back then), so they had to have come from him as part of his new plan?

 

Which I have not read and will never read. I don't care what happened in The Calling. I care about what happened in Origins, Awakening, Dragon Age II, and Inquisition.

 

The storyline and overall narrative of Dragon Age has to succeed or fail on its own merits within the world of the games.  Any ancillary material, especially if that ancillary material contradicts the setting that I have established (Alistair dies in Origins but yet is King in Until We Sleep, etc), is useless to me.

 

If the answer is not contained within the games, it didn't happen for me.

[Ieldra]

What's significant is that only befriended/romanced Inquisitor makes this comment. I think it's supposed to imply that those Inquisitors who know Solas better at least suspect that he's hiding something or that he's more than your regular apostate Dreamer (...if we can all those "regular")

Your Inquisitor may even suspect a Fen'Harel connection if they notice that the "pendant" he's wearing is a wolf's jawbone. At least that - along with some comments by Cole and suspicious slips by Solas himself - is how I rationalized that my Lavellan suspects the truth at the end. 

[Absafraginlootly]

The Architect didn't know of his origins though, he was merely theorising... or perhaps he was just flat out lying, we honestly don't know?

 

In the course of Awakening we learn that he had already omitted the truth once already, by not admitting that he was the one who started the Fifth Blight in the first place when he attempted to awaken Urthemiel, believing that telling the Warden that would mean they'd refuse to help him.

 

You could imagine that if he does remember who he actually is, why he might not want to tell us that instead of causing one Blight, he accidentally helped (indirectly) to cause all of them?

 

As for why he's one of many talking darkspawn, that's because he was the "first" and used his blood to help create the ritual that gave them sapience. The Calling novel shows that he existed long before Awakening and makes no mention of other talking 'spawn (since his plan was different back then), so they had to have come from him as part of his new plan?

 

It would also makes sense that if he is indeed one of the Magisters who first served as the progenitors of the darkspawn, why he's such an anomaly and why his blood would have special properties that would prevent the Awakened 'spawn from hearing the call of the Old Gods?

 

That's also probably the real reason why Archdemons get destroyed trying to jump into a Warden, as the presence of the Archdemon blood in both parties somehow cancels each other out. Hence why Corypheus can jump into another Warden with no problem, since he doesn't carry Archdemon blood within him, (Warden bodies probably don't carry enough to affect each other, hence why one dying doesn't kill the guy next to them, so Corypheus can survive the process even while using a Warden host), as well as how the Archdemon can jump into nearby Darkspawn who lack that same blood-type. The whole "soul" explanation is actually false.

 

The Awakened being self-aware and free from the Calling could be the result of having three different blood-types inside them (and perhaps versions of the taint), the regular stuff that all Darkspawn carry, that carried by the Progenitors (Magisters such as the Achitect and Corypheus) and Archdemon blood (carried by the Wardens).

 

This is an interesting theory and I think the best explanation I've seen of why corypheus's regen doesn't work the same as archdemons.

Which I have not read and will never read. I don't care what happened in The Calling. I care about what happened in Origins, Awakening, Dragon Age II, and Inquisition.

 

The storyline and overall narrative of Dragon Age has to succeed or fail on its own merits within the world of the games.  Any ancillary material, especially if that ancillary material contradicts the setting that I have established (Alistair dies in Origins but yet is King in Until We Sleep, etc), is useless to me.

 

If the answer is not contained within the games, it didn't happen for me.

Fair enough, I enjoy both (the books more so than the comics), but I would certainly expect the story in the games to make perfect sense without them.

[Sifr]

Which I have not read and will never read. I don't care what happened in The Calling. I care about what happened in Origins, Awakening, Dragon Age II, and Inquisition.

 

The storyline and overall narrative of Dragon Age has to succeed or fail on its own merits within the world of the games.  Any ancillary material, especially if that ancillary material contradicts the setting that I have established (Alistair dies in Origins but yet is King in Until We Sleep, etc), is useless to me.

 

If the answer is not contained within the games, it didn't happen for me.

 

Technically, The Calling  and The Stolen Throne  are prequels, so your game's canon is not being affected in anyway. Like it or not, those two novels at least can be said to canonically have taken place, as the events are alluded to several times in Origins itself, often by Loghain.

 

While I get your point, that you shouldn't need to do your homework to enjoy the games, certain events still apparently happen regardless?

 

In Inquisition for instance, a Warden Alistair will mention meeting Maric in the Fade, which happened in Until We Sleep, where he was King. This suggests that regardless of the canon, he still undertook that mission with Varric and Isabela as in the comics and Varric can back this up, as he comment to Iron Bull that he has met the new Arishok, which is Sten.

 

Yeah, if Alistair died in Origins, that comic that doesn't make much sense I'll grant you, while if just Sten is dead, then we can assume that they simply met another Arishok in his place. Wynne being dead also affects the novel Asunder  in the same way, although the easy explanation in that case is that either was she resurrected by the Ashes like Leliana, or that she's dead and Rhys and Evangeline were recruited for the mission by someone else?

 

Assuming that you didn't go on a killing spree in Origins and in DA2, so most people are still alive in your worldstate, then the overall canon of the novels and comics remains intact and doesn't contradict much of personal canon for the most part.