Dragon Age impressions

[1eyedking]

In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better. Characters afflicted with this trait often seem to go out of their way to over-complicate their speech, probably because writers think that this is the only way to show that someone is more intelligent than the average writer.

The joke's on you since this is precisely what Gaider does. And he actually explains these words to you. Very annoying and condescending.

I also didn't use any "big words" in my example.

You use too many words. That makes the sentence too complicated and incomprehensible. A golden rule of writing (and pretty much everything when it comes to creative processes) is 'keep it simple, stupid'.

When you're writing something technical, yes.

But prose?

...

The original line from DA which was dissected fits the first professor character. It is easily understandable and has nothing that would unnecessarily complicate things. Your line fits the second professor perfectly.

I'll pull VD's usual asshattery for this one: why?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better. Characters afflicted with this trait often seem to go out of their way to over-complicate their speech, probably because writers think that this is the only way to show that someone is more intelligent than the average writer.

The joke's on you since this is precisely what Gaider does. And he actually explains these words to you. Very annoying and condescending.

Wait, didn't you complain the guy talks like the average joe?

I also didn't use any "big words" in my example.

Yeah, the big words part doesn't apply. Then there's this one, too

In fiction, characters inevitably come out with well-formed sentences. They may have a poetic flavor filled with Shakespeare-like similes and luminous golden metaphors that most people in real life aren't clever enough to come up with on the spot — or even at all. They never stumble over their words or say the wrong thing except for deliberate comedic effect or to show that the character is trying to suddenly come up with an explanation. Even "realistic" dialogue is often relatively free of errors and padding. It's almost as if they prepared and rehearsed their conversations the night before, with each and every word intricately reviewed and assessed by a team of professional writers.

You rewritten dialogue isn't something anyone would say in a conversation. It's way too dramatic for no real reason; the guy is talking to someone, not writing a new bible.

When you're writing something technical, yes.

But prose?

...

Yes, unless you don't care about the conversations sounding like conversations at all. Which is fine, but it's another writing style and not necessarily a superior one.

I'll pull VD's usual asshattery for this one: why?

Dunno, it's just something about your sentence that doesn't sound like what someone actually smart would say. It sounds unnecessarily detailed.

It sounds too...epic.

Or Hakunin from FO2.

Hakunin was amusing because at first he sounds like a boring "wise guy", but then you realize he's fairly pleasant to talk to. One of the characters I really like in 2. He doesn't even treat you badly if you're a retard (though he does notice his metaphors may be too much)

 

[DreadMessiah]

Wow. What a wonderfully scintillating discussion.

It's like the Codex has officially become a giant parody of a Seinfeld episode: a bunch of self-absorbed asshats who frantically fap to gay pseudo-intellectual conversations about nothing.

I mean, Christ. The Codex trying to critically dissect and re-write David Gaider's Dragon Age: Origins and taking this seriously? And FAILING?

All of you who have participated in this crap-fest so far are useless and can just DIAF, as far as I'm concerned.

Who is more the fool. The fool or the fool that follows him/her. People always make me laugh when they call people out along with themselves in this type of manner. Lezi did that with his/her replies in another thread as well. For such smart people both of you seem to come across as stupid.

Also trolling attempt 1/10. 1 for trying. Stupidity attempt 10/10. 10 points for proving you do not have a brain by trapping yourself in your own "logic". Congrats...

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's a phrase, not a cliche. Anyway, since you gave your permission to use it once, we can drop it and move on.

Except it is a cliche. Vault Dweller fail at literature:

Her prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page--page 4--of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the "stretch his legs" variety.

Source

He even uses my example.

It doesn't take much to find some guy on the internet who is angry about something and thinks that X sucks. Bloom even attacked Stephen King: "He [King] shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer..."

I'm not a huge fan of King, but a bad writer he is not.

So, let me repeat my question, other than ranting of some old guy, is there any proof that swallowing a great deal is a horrible cliche? I'm truly curious.

b) it doesn't fit the character at all. The mage is an arrogant, bitter, and resentful scientist, not a patient teacher-philosopher. He isn't explaining the nature of things, he's snapping at the Chantry.

And what I said doesn't snap at religion?

Surely you understand the meaning of the word "snap"?

Are we talking about philosophical discussions, game design, or quality of writing? One at a time, please.

They're related, since when one writes one describes and recreates events, characters and descriptions which are all part of game design.

They are not. At all. Good writing has nothing to do with design or philosophical topics. Even a shooter or an RTS can have good writing for the characters.

Summary of the encounter:

VD: The line sums up most religions and shows the arrogance of the NPC.

One-Eye: First, it's angsty teenage crap. Second, I'll have you know that I talk to a lot of smart people and I'm fascinated with them. Third, religion is deeper than "people are sheep"!

It seems that you forgot to throw in a few arguments.

Are you a child VD? You are a very tiresome person, you ask for every obvious detail to be explained.

It's childish because it's what you read in every emo blog out there. "My life sucks", "I'll kill myself", "Religion is oppressive and it's lies, lies, LIES", "God doesn't exist", etc. It's common knowledge ("LULZ THAT BE NOT KOMMON KNOWLEDGE QUOTE QUOTE QUOTE OR ITZ LIES").

Second, learn to read: I am fascinated with some Christian philosophers, not my friends and professors. And third, if you want to discuss religion we can do it elsewhere since it's quite a subject. For starters I'll say that some people don't swallow all of it, and some that do actually find immense comfort in believing, for example, that they may meet their loved ones who passed away in the afterlife, in knowing they have a leader who is genuinely interested in preserving their morals and traditions, or just content to find a community that embraces them and cares for them.

And before you revert back to your teens, yes, there may be some hypocrisy and self-righteousness in it (as there is in everything), but for the most part it works that way.

sigh

You're confusing what a character in a game thinks with an essay on religions. That's your first mistake.

Second, you're looking at it as it was a statement made on a forum. It's not. It's a game. In most games the characters don't question or bitch about the religion. Hence, it's a plus in DA. It's a lot more entertaining to read than reading a lecture on why religion is awesome. In other words, I prefer games where characters question things, because it's still a rarity.

Third, the Chantry is an imaginary religion. It may or may not share the faults of the existing religions. So, unless you're prepared to discuss the Chantry...

Fourth, the mage doesn't say it sucks and people are sheep. He doesn't say "Chantry? Shit! Banal! Boring!" His comment is "swallow a great deal for small comfort", which is very close to what you've just said: "some people don't swallow all of it, and some that do actually find immense comfort in believing".

Now is it possible that some bitter old fart who needs no comfort and dislikes the Chantry for restricting his research wouldn't see much value in the comfort but would hate the fact that someone wants him to swallow anything? Can you explain why it does NOT make sense?

Also, do you expect every character in a game to say shit that you 100% agree with?

 

[Vault Dweller]

The original line from DA which was dissected fits the first professor character. It is easily understandable and has nothing that would unnecessarily complicate things. Your line fits the second professor perfectly.

I'll pull VD's usual asshattery for this one: why?

Since when asking for arguments backing up one's claims is asshattery?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

In most games the characters don't question or bitch about the religion. Hence, it's a plus in DA.

You could play some jrpgs. Not only do the characters question religion, they usually always end up killing the gods themselves.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Er, I do understand the context, actually, having played the game, mage origin and all.

I see. So your earlier statement - "See, it's a single line. No context (though the context is understood by those who've played the game and seen that bit of dialogue). There's simply not much to work with..." - was nothing but an attempt to weasel your way out.

It's not just that the line is nothing special; it's that the context surrounding it (blah blah Christianity is iffy and dubious blah blah blah god may or may not be there zzzz) is derivative and shallow, which leads to the line itself being theologically banal.

Even the phrasing itself hardly sparkles with linguistic creativity. "Swallowing [bullshit]" is a cliche; "small/cold comfort" is ditto. If you think saying a lot through common cliches is the way to go, well, at least nobody can say you have unrealistic standards.

I'll grant you, this isn't exactly ultra-intellectual literary criticism but I daresay it qualifies as dissection.

I daresay it doesn't. The first quote criticizes the character's opinion, which is kinda stupid, not to mention that he says nothing about god. The second quote claims that the sentence isn't creative enough and complains about the cliche. I'm not sure I understand what's "not creative" enough about that sentence and what a truly creative sentence looks like.

So I ask you again, rewrite the sentence - not to earn your right to criticize, but to support your point. If I were to believe you, this line is so plain and so poorly worded that even a 5th grader can come up with better shit.

Go ahead. Everyone's waiting.

Again I must ask: exactly what kind of "dissection" and "arguments" are you looking for? Apart from just wanting people to agree with you and say you're completely right, I mean.

Anything that can help me understand your position.

 

[Volourn]

DA > BG2

 

[Vault Dweller]

It surely does.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

So, let me repeat my question, other than ranting of some old guy, is there any proof that swallowing a great deal is a horrible cliche?

Bukkake is overdone and rather dreadful. But then again, I'm just an old guy ranting.

 

[DreadMessiah]

Fourth, the mage doesn't say it sucks and people are sheep. He doesn't say "Chantry? Shit! Banal! Boring!" His comment is "swallow a great deal for small comfort", which is very close to what you've just said: "some people don't swallow all of it, and some that do actually find immense comfort in believing".

I love this. Also when I see "Mean people suck!" on stickers, shirts, etc. Picking on someone equates to being mean thus saying oneself is mean and sucks. Gotta love people who think they are smart. The meaning behind both the game sentence and 1eyedking's sentence is the same even if the wording is different. Look at me I iz smrt! Blaming others for being childish of thought while oneself is? Priceless!

 

[Monocause]

When you're writing something technical, yes.
But prose?

Yes, prose. When you're writing a story think twice before you consider each sentence OK. I'll give you an example:

"John made a sandwich."

When you write this, you should ask yourself - why are you even mentioning it? Is John a glutton or has some other trait that could be illustrated by showing him making a sandwich, and this is a way to remind the reader about this trait? Is the sandwich relevant now or will be in the future? Does it really stimulate the reader's imagination? What exactly is the purpose of this sentence?
If you can't give an easy answer to this question it's very likely that this sentence is completely unnecessary and creates chaos by giving the reader too much information he doesn't need.
This is exactly the reason writers don't usually mention everyday stuff like going to take a dump. Not because it isn't tasteful since you can use pretty wording to cover it up - but because usually there's not one damn reason to mention that the protagonist and his cousin make use of a toilet a couple of times during the day.

This rule applies to poetry, too - at least modern poetry. When writing a poem you can't be too specific. Every word should either have meaning, add something to the poem - or be crossed out or replaced. I've seen many amateur poems ruined by a couple of completely unnecessary words. Here we call a word like that 'a grind'.

The original line from DA which was dissected fits the first professor character. It is easily understandable and has nothing that would unnecessarily complicate things. Your line fits the second professor perfectly.

I'll pull VD's usual asshattery for this one: why?

Asking 'why' is not asshattery. I'm tempted to make a nice jab here at you, but I'll pass.

Let's take a look at the sentence once again.

"Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith.

What does this even mean? That one should believe what he sees? "Faith demands that you have faith in what you see?"

"In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us"

Does this mean that when we blindly refrain from asking questions we are less troubled by the world around us and by the lack of answers? Seriously, I don't know. We know no difference in darkness? It might mean that we see everything either black or white. It also might mean other things. I'm confused, guess I'll be better off sticking to what the Chantry tells me.

What's the rationale between covering the meaning of such a message behind some mystical mumbo-jumbo? A person who's attacking religious people as the ones who blind themselves for comfort shouldn't be using the exact same techniques like the ones he's criticising. That's why I mentioned Hakunin - he took every sentence and transformed it into something that was meant to be seen as timeless wisdom; in reality he just wanted you to kick some large plants out of his garden.

If I were to rewrite the base sentence, I'd go somewhere along the lines of:

"And how do you know they're right? They seem like the sort who finds comfort in mindlessly accepting whatever they're told / Perhaps answers to some questions are more complicated than the Chantry would like you to believe."

That's also too long and English isn't my native language, but you get the idea. The guy who's speaking is the rationalist type. He tries to make the PC question what he hears through giving a cold and logical observation that isn't easy to refute. The last sentence is separated from the rest by a slash because I don't remember the context of the conversation and I don't know if it would fit in. Its purpose would be to prevent the two previous sentences from being perceived as a simple attack on the religious folk - which might happen since I used the negative word "mindlessly". He intends to cast doubts.

All things aside, I wouldn't rewrite the sentence. I think it's fine and I still don't know what's wrong with it. "Swallowing a great deal" is indeed a stock phrase and yes, we all use stock phrases all the time. Great writers like Dostoievski also used stock phrases.

 

[hiver]

VD is completely right.

Im finding treatment of religion genuinely fresh in DA.

Back at ITS there was one lengthy thread about religion in games where i was on the side of those who see D&D or alike systems of many active gods as overdone and childish. And that religion presented as an organized belief into unseen higher force could provide different gameplay. More like a faction or factions then anything else.

So naturally this approach agrees with me greatly.

And VD is seriously whooping your silly asses in this argument so further rhetoric as it went so far will only make you both look even bigger arseholes.
I havent followed such an entertaining asswhooping for a long time.

Lesi just repeats what she does every time someone takes her declarations about how some writer is totally bad and his writing shit into actual argument territory.
She did attempt to rewrite a simple description of Isengard and failed so comically it was sad. So i really dont think we will see some new examples from her.


There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character. Insisting on using flowery, complicated sentences like some sort of decree - for most dialogues and characters is really silly.
That way of writing is appropriate for specific type of fiction, maybe a specific character who would have some motivation to be like that or other types of literature. Its just one of the styles available not the best one.
Its really stupid to pretend elegant simplicity in writing doesnt exist. Elegant in the sense that its direct, clear and fits with the context of situation and character in question.

btw
Very nice quotes clockwork knight.
lulzy

 

[DreadMessiah]

VD is completely right.

Im finding treatment of religion genuinely fresh in DA.

Back at ITS there was one lengthy thread about religion in games where i was on the side of those who see D&D or alike systems of many active gods as overdone and childish. And that religion presented as an organized belief into unseen higher force could provide different gameplay. More like a faction or factions then anything else.

So naturally this approach agrees with me greatly.

And VD is seriously whooping your silly asses in this argument so further rhetoric as it went so far will only make you both look even bigger arseholes.
I havent followed such an entertaining asswhooping for a long time. Lesi just repeats what she does every time someone takes her declarations about how some writer is totally bad and his writing shit into actual argument territory.

She did attempt to rewrite a simple description of Isengard and failed so comically it was sad.So i really dont think we will see some new examples from her.


There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character. Insisting on using flowery, complicated sentences like some sort of decree - for most dialogues and characters is really silly.
That way of writing is appropriate for specific type of fiction, maybe a specific character who would have some motivation to be like that or other types of literature. Its just one of the styles available not the best one.
Its really stupid to pretend elegant simplicity in writing doesnt exist. Elegant in the sense that its direct, clear and fits with the context of situation and character in question.

btw
Very nice quotes clockwork knight.
lulzy

 

[hiver]

That's also too long and English isn't my native language, but you get the idea. The guy who's speaking is the rationalist type. He tries to make the PC question what he hears through giving a cold and logical observation that isn't easy to refute. The last sentence is separated from the rest by a slash because I don't remember the context of the conversation and I don't know if it would fit in. Its purpose would be to prevent the two previous sentences from being perceived as a simple attack on the religious folk - which might happen since I used the negative word "mindlessly". He intends to cast doubts.

All things aside, I wouldn't rewrite the sentence. I think it's fine and I still don't know what's wrong with it. "Swallowing a great deal" is indeed a stock phrase and yes, we all use stock phrases all the time. Great writers like Dostoievski also used stock phrases.

this too.

 

[FeelTheRads]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character.

There is a difference between nothing wrong and "fucking brilliant", wouldn't you say?
VD keeps asking people why the line is bad, but he has yet to explain why it is so "fucking brilliant" because apparently nobody understands it correctly besides him.

 

[Soulforged]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character.

There is a difference between nothing wrong and "fucking brilliant", wouldn't you say?

In this case there isn't, because of its consistency and effectiveness, it's brilliant indeed. In which case you'll answer "no it isn't" and you'll have to do the same that was already asked, provide an example of what will be brilliant, since you are implying it isn't then I can assume that you figured a improved version of that sentence, even if it's just a vague notion.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

I think I'll enrage EV a little and link this

Rage -> Contempt -> Pity

I got over the first stage about TVTropes already

 

[Clockwork Knight]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character.

There is a difference between nothing wrong and "fucking brilliant", wouldn't you say?
VD keeps asking people why the line is bad, but he has yet to explain why it is so "fucking brilliant" because apparently nobody understands it correctly besides him.

Well, no one bothers to explain why they dislike it either, beyond vague references to human waste, banality and tedium.

 

[hiver]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character.

There is a difference between nothing wrong and "fucking brilliant", wouldn't you say?
VD keeps asking people why the line is bad, but he has yet to explain why it is so "fucking brilliant" because apparently nobody understands it correctly besides him.

I didnt read VD using that phrase exactly.
If he did and feels he needs to explain it im sure he will.
-in fact he already did explain why he feels its good and appropriate-

Its not that brilliant for me. I would say good. Even very good. And thats the level i require from my reading normally. Getting a unsuspected bonus over that is certainly welcome.

There are far much better examples of less then satisfactory dialogue lines in DA, especially in resolutions of major quests where there are lines that suddenly go really high fantasy generic style, even if whole of the dialogue is surprisingly good and personal.

Sten, with his lines, refusals to answer you, counter questions and short "to the point" retorts is brilliant. For example.

 

[FeelTheRads]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence coming from that character.

There is a difference between nothing wrong and "fucking brilliant", wouldn't you say?

In this case there isn't, because of its consistency and effectiveness, it's brilliant indeed. In which case you'll answer "no it isn't" and you'll have to do the same that was already asked, provide an example of what will be brilliant, since you are implying it isn't then I can assume that you figured a improved version of that sentence, even if it's just a vague notion.

I'm not saying anything. At a first look it seems banal shit, just like Lesifoere thinks. It's VD who thinks it's "fucking brilliant".

Then he adds "Their faith would make you swallow a great deal for small comfort." That's just fucking brilliant and sums up pretty much every religion well. This line is actually deep and loaded with contempt and arrogance of one who considers himself above such foolishness. If you can describe religion better in a single sentence, I would surely like to see that.

I don't know... it seems to me like he just says "religion sucks lol" and apparently VD also understood this since he says " of one who considers himself above such foolishness".
Is there more depth to it than that? That is what I ask VD to explain.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well, no one bothers to explain why they dislike it either, beyond vague references to human waste, banality and tedium.

Why is VD asking for explanations then? He sure didn't provide anything better than "it's like so deep man".

 

[Kingston]

DA > BG2

No.

 

[Hamster]

DA > BG2

No.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Yes.