Nope. The story in the first game did unquestionably happen. For all we know Hawke may not even be 1 person but a collection of stories of completly ureleated people thrown together because someone thought ferelden needed a hero of epic proportions.[pedantic]The story in the first game was completely made up, too.[/pedantic]
Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:16 .
Did it? I don't recall seeing any mention of the Fifth Blight in any of my history textbooks.aberdash wrote...
Nope. The story in the first game did unquestionably happen.Randy1083 wrote...
[pedantic]The story in the first game was completely made up, too.[/pedantic]
Modifié par Randy1083, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:18 .
jackkel dragon wrote...
The fact that the story may be wrong allows more customization of the story. "Your" Hawke may have been a Psychopath, but "I" was told that he was loving and kind. The "haze" around Hawke's legend allows for things to be told differently by different players without forcing a "canon."
That's how I took it anyway. Take it or leave it...
Mary Kirby wrote...
Haven't you played DAO? Everything in Thedas is shrouded in uncertainty. Every major event in history is just a story, and most of those stories change based on who is telling them. This is a story of some people and events that are very important to Thedas history, told by someone who was there. It's skewed, but it's as true and as false as everything else in history.
Mary Kirby wrote...
jackkel dragon wrote...
The fact that the story may be wrong allows more customization of the story. "Your" Hawke may have been a Psychopath, but "I" was told that he was loving and kind. The "haze" around Hawke's legend allows for things to be told differently by different players without forcing a "canon."
That's how I took it anyway. Take it or leave it...
This is pretty much exactly the idea.
aberdash wrote...
Nope. The story in the first game did unquestionably happen. For all we know Hawke may not even be 1 person but a collection of stories of completly ureleated people thrown together because someone thought ferelden needed a hero of epic proportions.[pedantic]The story in the first game was completely made up, too.[/pedantic]
Unless we actually see hawke outside of what is being told to us it is entirely possible.Grommash94 wrote...
Not possible, because if Thedas is at war when the story ends, and it was caused because of Hawke's actions, then obviously Hawke exists.
Artemis_Entrari wrote...
Mary Kirby wrote...
jackkel dragon wrote...
The fact that the story may be wrong allows more customization of the story. "Your" Hawke may have been a Psychopath, but "I" was told that he was loving and kind. The "haze" around Hawke's legend allows for things to be told differently by different players without forcing a "canon."
That's how I took it anyway. Take it or leave it...
This is pretty much exactly the idea.
Unless I'm just not understanding the concept well enough, that sounds horrible.
So basically even if I decide to make my Hawke a raving mad psychopath who chose all the "evil" options along the way, the narrator could still end up telling a story of how great a human being I am? My choice for my PC will always be irrelevant since the narrator will just always come up with their own version regardless of what I choose to do?
It would be like in DA:O if I decided to side with the werewolves, but then the narrator says that I sided with the elves.
Or am I not getting it?
Modifié par JasonPogo, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:23 .
aberdash wrote...
Unless we actually see hawke outside of what is being told to us it is entirely possible.Grommash94 wrote...
Not possible, because if Thedas is at war when the story ends, and it was caused because of Hawke's actions, then obviously Hawke exists.
Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:28 .
Grommash94 wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Unless we actually see hawke outside of what is being told to us it is entirely possible.Grommash94 wrote...
Not possible, because if Thedas is at war when the story ends, and it was caused because of Hawke's actions, then obviously Hawke exists.
Not really. If Cassandra is looking for a specific person, a bunch of events were caused by said specific person, and Verric has actually met this specific person, then that specific person (Hawke) exists.
JasonPogo wrote...
No you are not getting it. You chose to side with the wolves. So the Dwarf tells a tale of how you sided with the wolves or vice versa. You as the player still get to make all the choices of how the Dwarf tells the tale. Its just that you are realy playing as the Dwarf not as Hawke if you get me.
fchopin wrote...
We don't know that Cassandra is looking for a specific person.
Just think of it as you being the dwarfs imagination and are playing out the events in his head. Thus deciding how he tells the story.Artemis_Entrari wrote...
That's what I want clarification about though. The post I quoted made me think that regardless of my actions (good or bad), the dwarf would always narrate me as a specific way.
So I guess a better question is: Does the dwarf (or whoever is narrating at the time) change his description based on your actions? Or does the narrator have a "default" story it tells, regardless of my actions?
Artemis_Entrari wrote...
JasonPogo wrote...
No you are not getting it. You chose to side with the wolves. So the Dwarf tells a tale of how you sided with the wolves or vice versa. You as the player still get to make all the choices of how the Dwarf tells the tale. Its just that you are realy playing as the Dwarf not as Hawke if you get me.
That's what I want clarification about though. The post I quoted made me think that regardless of my actions (good or bad), the dwarf would always narrate me as a specific way.
So I guess a better question is: Does the dwarf (or whoever is narrating at the time) change his description based on your actions? Or does the narrator have a "default" story it tells, regardless of my actions?
Herr Uhl wrote...
fchopin wrote...
We don't know that Cassandra is looking for a specific person.
Yes, we do know that.
aberdash wrote...
Because people never look for something that doesn't exist...
And can you say with 100% certainty that Verric is not lying about meeting him/her?
And just because events happen doesn't mean the same person caused all of them.
Unless I'm just not understanding the concept well enough, that sounds horrible.
So basically even if I decide to make my Hawke a raving mad psychopath who chose all the "evil" options along the way, the narrator could still end up telling a story of how great a human being I am? My choice for my PC will always be irrelevant since the narrator will just always come up with their own version regardless of what I choose to do?
It would be like in DA:O if I decided to side with the werewolves, but then the narrator says that I sided with the elves.
Or am I not getting it?
Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:38 .
fchopin wrote...
Herr Uhl wrote...
fchopin wrote...
We don't know that Cassandra is looking for a specific person.
Yes, we do know that.
How do we know that? have you a link?
And here's the catch: Someone else is actually making it up. The main characters of Dragon Age 2 are actually Cassandra and Verik, two people ten years down the line from the first game, that have to save a world on the brink of war not by fighting their own battles, but by finding out just what Hawke's been up to since Dragon Age: Origins. In other words, the game is told in flashback, by a not-always reliable third party. Which means that if Hawke's story is flashier, grittier, or more fanciful than the first game, that's okay -- anything that might be a lie probably is. "We wanted to see what happened if a legend is exaggerated," said Laidlaw during the demonstration.
The difference is the events are not happening as we do them. They happened 10 years ago and are being talked about by a dwarf. So in essence you are not playing as Hawke but as the dwarf telling the story.FedericoV wrote...
At the end, honestly, I don't see great differences with DA:O's structure.
Only that the game will span a longer period of time so you will see the consequences of your actions in game and not with the text in the epilogue. Wich is great. And that you would not be able to customize your Hawke as much as you have customized your warden at the beginning.
Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:41 .
aberdash wrote...
The difference is the events are not happening as we do them. They happened 10 years ago and are being talked about by a dwarf. So in essence you are not playing as Hawke but as the dwarf telling the story.FedericoV wrote...
At the end, honestly, I don't see great differences with DA:O's structure.
Only that the game will span a longer period of time so you will see the consequences of your actions in game and not with the text in the epilogue. Wich is great. And that you would not be able to customize your Hawke as much as you have customized your warden at the beginning.
aberdash wrote...
The difference is the events are not happening as we do them. They happened 10 years ago and are being talked about by a dwarf. So in essence you are not playing as Hawke but as the dwarf telling the story.FedericoV wrote...
At the end, honestly, I don't see great differences with DA:O's structure.
Only that the game will span a longer period of time so you will see the consequences of your actions in game and not with the text in the epilogue. Wich is great. And that you would not be able to customize your Hawke as much as you have customized your warden at the beginning.
.
Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:49 .
Guest_Raga_*
Brockololly wrote...
Mary Kirby wrote...
Haven't you played DAO? Everything in Thedas is shrouded in uncertainty. Every major event in history is just a story, and most of those stories change based on who is telling them. This is a story of some people and events that are very important to Thedas history, told by someone who was there. It's skewed, but it's as true and as false as everything else in history.
I get that every story and codex entry is vague in Thedas- I like that. Its just that in Origins with the Warden, our view of events wasn't obscured by having to look at it through the lens of a biased narrator. What we were seeing as the Warden was what the Warden was actually seeing, no? So when we read a codex entry written by Brother Genitivi, it was the Warden reading that book, not some narrator telling us that the Warden maybe/maybe not read the book, which itself is biased by Genitivi.
Take the Urn of Sacred Ashes- it was a weird and odd place, but as the Warden you knew that what you were seeing was actually there, even if the explanation behind it (real Maker influence or just over active Lyrium?) wasn't clear. With DA2, if the Urn of Sacred Ashes was told through a biased narrator it just adds an extra level of uncertainty that I don't care for- how would we know if the Guardian and the trials in the Gauntlet were things the Warden actually did or if they were just the product of the narrator's over active imagination? And thats ignoring the obscurity of the actual powers going on in the Gauntlet....
Modifié par Ragabul the Ontarah, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:53 .
Retour en haut