Guest_Faerunner_*
motomotogirl wrote...
But you shouldn't have to be a jerk to the one you love just because you're a bad ass around pirates and smuglers and blood mages.
This is honestly why I dislike the rigid personality system of DA2. You're reduced to a one-note songbird. The game assumes that just because you're coarse most of the time, it automatically means you're cruel all the time, to every person you talk to, in every aspect of your life. Same with being kind and silly. I'm sure I don't need to say that people aren't that one-dimensional.
I find it ironic that you say this, and then a few posts later you make fun of how the Warden can persuade his or her companions to agree with things that they would otherwise be fundamentally opposed to. Fenris hates mages for (what feels to him like) very good reasons, and he naturally gets angry and defensive when people try to talk him out of his feelings or opinions. Making it so that a few conversations can get him to change his very deeply engrained, fundamental worldview about mage almost cheapens his beliefs (which are very strong) and personality (which is very stubborn).It's okay for Fenris to be annoyed when Hawke supports mages. But there should be an option to either persuade him at the time of the event or go to his house later and talk to him (potentially regaining friendship points). This allows for character growth.
I'm not saying that I miss or even liked having to kill party members because the protagonist does something they oppose. Heck, I'm not even saying that I necessarily want characters to try to kill Hawke, just that they reach a point where they say, "You've crossed the line. I'm done with you." I just don't think it's entirely believable for companions to follow and obey someone that does things they would find horrible or disagreeable.Fenris could still respond to Hawke differently if s/he consistently supports mages, but the player should no longer be forced to kill a certain character at the end of the game just because some silly personality meter wasn't maxed out either way. (I know it's not that rigid, but still.)
With that said, I don't think Fenris is so passionate about mages that he would draw his sword over it. He hates mages, but he also never turns them in without Hawke's input or goes hunting for stragglers on his spare time. He hates Anders and Merrill for being an abomination and a blood mage (respectively), but he also never turns them in and doesn't seem to encourage Hawke to do so either, just to be wary of them.
No, I think the root of his emotional problem is slavery. His hatred of mages stems from the oppression he endured from them the oppression he knows that others like him endure from other mages like his former master. He doesn't hate magic itself much so much as the corruption it gives and the power it represents. Support of slavery, and even cruelty when he opens up about it (which he doesn't do often, as you can see, and it makes him extremely vulnerable by opening up to Hawke about it) is not something I can see Fenris being all right with.
I remember when games had companions that followed the protagonist no matter what as well (NWN), and I assume the whole "approval" system we now find in many RPG's was created based on the idea that companions are people too, with thoughts, feelings, and opinions just like anyone else (NWN 2). They reveal in conversation that they hold certain worldviews, but they just blindly follow a leader that does things that contradict that worldview? Hence the invention of a sort of "approval" system.So in short, I like the personality differences for Hawke, but I think DA:O and ME have done friendship with companions better. And ME best of all; to be honest, I don't like constantly stressing about whether or not I'm pleasing the PC's companions. I like to see their reactions and see how the conversations may play differently, but I don't want to have to worry about losing that character or having to kill him/her.
Obviously the system is flawed no matter which game you play, but once it's been introduced (like it was in Origins), I find it much more believable than the companions that devotedly follow you even if you constantly say and/or do things they should not believably tolerate, or even if it's not in their nature to remain devoted. (Like Bishop from NWN2.)
Is it such a terrible thing to want to have choices that have meaningful consequences in a video game? If I wanted to passively sit back and watch a completed story unfold before me without my input, I could just watch a movie. What makes video games amazing is that you have a level of control over their outcome. What makes RPG's amazing is that you can control your character and (in DA:O especially) your character can influence the world around them. You can influence the story.But the people who rail about not being given enough "choices" in RPG games probably love this kind of stuff. They love it that if you make choice A (free mages) it results in choice B (have to fight Fenris). I guess I prefer the story aspect of the game (the writing, the characters, the relationships) more so than the series of choices being made.
DA2 shows that nothing you do makes a difference in the long run. It doesn't matter what you decide to do in any given situation because, 99% of the time, the situation eventually plays out the same anyway. In the case of character relationships, it doesn't matter whether you treat the character kindly or cruely, respectfully or disrespectfully, because the overall relationship doesn't change. Yes, you may get calm responses versus snippy responses, but you still get the same relationship progression conversations and companions quests and 100% devotion regardless of how you act.
If you're consistently kind, respectful, supportive, helpful, friendly, do things they fundamentally agree with and/or manage to get their friendship to 100%: Congratulations! You've earned their undying loyalty and they'll follow you into the Black City itself.
If you're consistently cruel, disrespectful, aggressive, obstructive, antagonistic, do things that they find morally reprehensible and/or manage to get rivalry to 100%: Congratulations! You've just earned their undying loyalty and they'll follow you into the Black City itself.
You can turn mages into the tower, Anders will still follow you and fall madly in love with you. You can free mages and support slavery (paradoxically), Fenris will still follow you can fall madly in love with you. Do you see where I'm going with this?
I don't want to kill Fenris, but I'd like to know that supporting something that he opposes with every fibre of his being actually bothers him enough for him to do more than just grumble under his breath and then treat Hawke the same as he would if they had the same moral compass.
EDIT: DAMNIT! WHY AM I CONSTANTLY THE FIRST ON A NEW PAGE??
Modifié par Faerunner, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .
Retour en haut
I was just going on what others were saying about the difficulties in rivaling him, and some (I think) said that you have to use the aggressive choices because the kind and snarky ones gave friendship points.
) you have two choices. Be loving and dear with him in conversations and get the friendship points and then rectifiy later in quests or be a complete arse to him basically all the time. I chose option no. 1 and while I didn't think it was immensely difficult, it did prove more challenging than most others (except Isabella, she doesn't like my goody two-shoes style 
).
for poor Fenris.
