206 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Viking]

MountainPuncher wrote...

You know what? 

I felt more strongly about JENKINS dying than I did Bethany or Carver.  You know why?  Because we actually got to have a whole conversation with him first, one that painted him as an endearingly naive rookie with stars in his eyes and aspirations of his own.

And then he died.  Brutally, even.  It wasn't exactly hard to predict, but we actually knew enough about him and his personality to give a damn.  To the player, Bethany and Carver might as well be complete and total strangers by the time they kick the bucket.  

Look at it this way:  Not only will we be dealing with the ramifications that death had on the Hawke family, but we'll have the entire game to get to know the surviving sibling.

So a second playthrough with a different class is going to be downright brutally heartbreaking.  Not only would you witness the death of a character you spent dozens of hours adventuring and bonding with, but you'll also have the knowledge that all the events that surrounded Bethany/Carver in the first playthrough would now never happen.

It's stealth pathos and it's pure genius.

[Homebound]

Im guessing this thread is about having your bro or sis in the game die at the beginning. Im guessing because the demo keeps crashing on me. With that being said, I get from the comparison with that and other bioware red-shirt characters, the main problem is, not enough time was spent getting to know the character that was flagged to die.



with that being said, i still miss Mhairi. T__T

[MountainPuncher]

dgcatanisiri wrote...

MountainPuncher wrote...

You know what? 

I felt more strongly about JENKINS dying than I did Bethany or Carver.  You know why?  Because we actually got to have a whole conversation with him first, one that painted him as an endearingly naive rookie with stars in his eyes and aspirations of his own.

And then he died.  Brutally, even.  It wasn't exactly hard to predict, but we actually knew enough about him and his personality to give a damn.  To the player, Bethany and Carver might as well be complete and total strangers by the time they kick the bucket.  

That was my feeling when I learned that we were going to be already fleeing the destruction of Lothering instead of starting shortly before setting out on the journey. Just an opportunity to speak with your mother, sister, and brother before setting off to strengthen the ties between the player and these characters. Just one conversation is all I was asking for.

Now there's an idea.

What if the game started in Lothering?  Wait, scratch that.

What if it started in Lothering OR Ostagar?  If you're a mage, you're at home with Bethany and the Mother preparing to flee northward, allowing you to have at least one conversation with the soon-to-be-deceased Bethany, while as a warrior or a rogue you'd be at Ostagar with the soon-to-be-ogred Carver, fleeing after Loghain's betrayal.

Either way you're thrust right into the thick of things.  At Ostagar it's making a hasty retreat with a bit of worried banter with Carver, and at Lothering it's a bit of tension packing up the household with Bethany before a weary Carver bursts through the door and tells them they need to get moving pronto.  And then the game would basically proceed as it did in the demo, with just enough contact with the doomed sibling to give us even the faintest scrap of attachment.

To make my stance clear, I'm not going to judge Bioware prematurely and say that they didn't have a reason for killing Bethany/Carver.  I just believe it could have been done slightly differently, and as it stands the scene just doesn't as much punch as it rightfully should have. 

[casedawgz]

Red Viking wrote...

MountainPuncher wrote...

You know what? 

I felt more strongly about JENKINS dying than I did Bethany or Carver.  You know why?  Because we actually got to have a whole conversation with him first, one that painted him as an endearingly naive rookie with stars in his eyes and aspirations of his own.

And then he died.  Brutally, even.  It wasn't exactly hard to predict, but we actually knew enough about him and his personality to give a damn.  To the player, Bethany and Carver might as well be complete and total strangers by the time they kick the bucket.  

Look at it this way:  Not only will we be dealing with the ramifications that death had on the Hawke family, but we'll have the entire game to get to know the surviving sibling.

So a second playthrough with a different class is going to be downright brutally heartbreaking.  Not only would you witness the death of a character you spent dozens of hours adventuring and bonding with, but you'll also have the knowledge that all the events that surrounded Bethany/Carver in the first playthrough would now never happen.

It's stealth pathos and it's pure genius.

Unless Carver joins the Templars, kills your mom, and impregnantes your love interest. Then playing as a warrior serves to just kinda head him off at the pass.

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

Its not bad writting. However im a bit ticked off that i cant choose which one gets to live. That would be awesome!!!!! talk about choice!!! Their is no choice in what was delt to us however. Total BS that we cant choose. This is a Bioware game. Bioware game = freedom of choice.

O and depending on which class you play decides which one you get doesnt count as choice.

[MountainPuncher]

Savber100 wrote...

Totally agree, OP... Bioware just suck at making us feel any emotion when red-shirt characters die.

Makes me weep... Bioware, how could you?

I'd hardly call Bethany or Carver "Red Shirts."

[marshalleck]

Just_mike wrote...

Im guessing this thread is about having your bro or sis in the game die at the beginning. Im guessing because the demo keeps crashing on me. With that being said, I get from the comparison with that and other bioware red-shirt characters, the main problem is, not enough time was spent getting to know the character that was flagged to die.

with that being said, i still miss Mhairi. T__T

Do you really, honestly believe Bioware of all developers would not realize five minutes of gameplay is insufficient for an emotional bond to develop to a character in the game? Come on, Bioware aren't that amateur. Even the worst writers in the video game industry wouldn't struggle with that concept. Bioware did this for a reason, that reason is just not apparent as we haven't gotten through the story. It may well suck regardless, but some people in this thread are making wild leaps to absurd conclusions.

[Arandomindividual]

I wholeheartedly agree with the thread starter. No emotional impact whatsoever.

[marshalleck]

Nemis-Roidsavelt wrote...

Its not bad writting. However im a bit ticked off that i cant choose which one gets to live. That would be awesome!!!!! talk about choice!!! Their is no choice in what was delt to us however. Total BS that we cant choose. This is a Bioware game. Bioware game = freedom of choice.

O and depending on which class you play decides which one you get doesnt count as choice.

It's not and never was intended to be a choice. How could it be a meaningful choice if you don't know the characters? That would be poor form. 

[Grey21]

marshalleck wrote...

Grey21 wrote...

And this on its own isnt supposed to be significant to us (the player). Bioware did this for two reasons:
- So we can have a different party member depending on our own class which results in a more balansed party.

It's not balance reasons. If it were, why would warrior Hawke wind up with three warriors and a mage in the prologue? Think, then post. 

The reason a sibling dies early on is so there is guaranteed to be a mage Hawke in the family, and ONLY one. It's for story purposes. The devs have said this again and again and again. If anyone wants to think the story sucks, well that's their prerogative, but they should at least know the story first, which I am 99% sure none of the non-Bioware posters in this thread do. 

I wasn't talking about the starting group, but about the whole party you'll have later on. As far as that party is concerned I still think killing off Carver if you're a melee character yourself is a good thing (and vice versa).

And you might very well be right about the rest. I wouldn't know because I haven't  read the script of the story so I can't tell you whether or not there is a part in the story where there can only be ''one mage hawke''. But you obviously do so I will take your word for it.

This will then be the third reason for the early demise of our friends and family.

[marshalleck]

Grey21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Grey21 wrote...

And this on its own isnt supposed to be significant to us (the player). Bioware did this for two reasons:
- So we can have a different party member depending on our own class which results in a more balansed party.

It's not balance reasons. If it were, why would warrior Hawke wind up with three warriors and a mage in the prologue? Think, then post. 

The reason a sibling dies early on is so there is guaranteed to be a mage Hawke in the family, and ONLY one. It's for story purposes. The devs have said this again and again and again. If anyone wants to think the story sucks, well that's their prerogative, but they should at least know the story first, which I am 99% sure none of the non-Bioware posters in this thread do. 

I wasn't talking about the starting group, but about the whole party you'll have later on. As far as that party is concerned I still think killing off Carver if you're a melee character yourself is a good thing (and vice versa).

And you might very well be right about the rest. I wouldn't know because I haven't  read the script of the story so I can't tell you whether or not there is a part in the story where there can only be ''one mage hawke''. But you obviously do so I will take your word for it.

This will then be the third reason for the early demise of our friends and family.

You don't have to take my word for anything. David Gaider has gone on at length about how this is primarily a story/plot mechanic.

[Ninotchka]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I see what you're saying, Mister Laidlaw, but I'd say that the death of a sibling SHOULD be an emotionally engaging moment, even if it is 20 minutes into the game. Some more scenes to build up Carver/Beth, a more lingering moment at the actual death ... I don't know

I agree...even a slight change of facial expression (shock/sadness) to show something would have worked, the PC looked too neutral about it...

[DJBare]

I felt nothing for Bethany or Carver, I felt a little tinge for Wesley imagining the corruption going through his blood slowly and painfully killing him, I'm not so sure it was a good idea showing the death of siblings in a quick demo.

[Grey21]

marshalleck wrote...

Grey21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Grey21 wrote...

And this on its own isnt supposed to be significant to us (the player). Bioware did this for two reasons:
- So we can have a different party member depending on our own class which results in a more balansed party.

It's not balance reasons. If it were, why would warrior Hawke wind up with three warriors and a mage in the prologue? Think, then post. 

The reason a sibling dies early on is so there is guaranteed to be a mage Hawke in the family, and ONLY one. It's for story purposes. The devs have said this again and again and again. If anyone wants to think the story sucks, well that's their prerogative, but they should at least know the story first, which I am 99% sure none of the non-Bioware posters in this thread do. 

I wasn't talking about the starting group, but about the whole party you'll have later on. As far as that party is concerned I still think killing off Carver if you're a melee character yourself is a good thing (and vice versa).

And you might very well be right about the rest. I wouldn't know because I haven't  read the script of the story so I can't tell you whether or not there is a part in the story where there can only be ''one mage hawke''. But you obviously do so I will take your word for it.

This will then be the third reason for the early demise of our friends and family.

You don't have to take my word for anything. David Gaider has gone on at length about how this is primarily a story/plot mechanic.

Maybe, but I haven't read/heared anything about that so I will take your word for it instead.

[Savber100]

MountainPuncher wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Totally agree, OP... Bioware just suck at making us feel any emotion when red-shirt characters die.

Makes me weep... Bioware, how could you?

I'd hardly call Bethany or Carver "Red Shirts."

One way or another the death of either character is done for the purpose of the story rather than being an emotional and accurate portryal of a sibling's death. Whoever dies serve to emphasize the random chaos of war and death. Like Jenkins in ME, his was simply there to prove a point rather than be a fully-developed character. The only difference is that in DAII, we're given a CHOICE of who will be the redshirt and who would survive which I feel will give a greater sense of tragedy especially after a second playthrough.

Modifié par Savber100, 23 février 2011 - 07:25 .

[Ninotchka]

DJBare wrote...

I felt nothing for Bethany or Carver, I felt a little tinge for Wesley imagining the corruption going through his blood slowly and painfully killing him, I'm not so sure it was a good idea showing the death of siblings in a quick demo.

I agree - I felt sadder when Wesley died....Aveline had the look of utter sadness in her facial expressions during those scenes...it was more apt then when the PC loses his/her sibling...

But whatever....BW know what they're doing, this is their game, their story.

[scpulley]

I don't mind the deaths thrown at us in the begining although, as a writer, I'll tell you that's a ****** poor way to write a story. However, if we get more meaning from it later then that's different. I'm hoping there is, especially with you being forced to which sibling lives or dies based on class rather than us getting to pick. There better be something later that makes those starting wasted deaths actually mean more or it's just going to be a glaring writing fubar that I'll have to keep turning a blind eye at every time I play the game lol.

[Vahe]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Vahe wrote...

I don't think I am alone in saying that I felt no emotional impact whatsoever when Bethany/Carver died.  None.  I felt the same when Wesley died.

Perhaps the point is not to bring you to wailing tears over the deaths of those characters, but to set up certain things for later, hmm?

If we'd run around here saying "YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO WET YOURSELVES OVER THIS THING WE DO IN THE BEGINNING!" you could happily hoist us on our petard, but we didn't. So our petard remains unhoisted.

The problem with this is that we aren't going to wet ourselves at all, even when "certain things" are set up later.  If we don't care now, we're not going to suddenly care later.  Others have made a good point about Wesley shaping Aveline but our sibling's death is supposed to affect the player character (who we are assuming the role of).  And if Hawke has to deal with it somehow later on, it's just not going to make an emotional impact on the player. 

[JamesX]

If you don't feel anything about your main character's sibling dying to give them a chance to live, then no amount of good writing is going to help.

[Vahe]

JamesX wrote...

If you don't feel anything about your main character's sibling dying to give them a chance to live, then no amount of good writing is going to help.

I am not Hawke.  I am the audience.  I can't feel any emotional attachment to someone I've met for 5 seconds.  Deaths have the biggest impact when you've followed the character for years through all types of conflicts and struggles. 

[nananananaimashark]

shadey wrote...

I was more puzzled at the rather complete lack of emotion by character showed at seeing their brother mushed by an ogre.

After playing the demo twice, i have to agree with this statment the most, a PC in this case hawke, is supposed to draw you into emotion, whether it be anger, sadness, or in this case loss, and his complete lack of expression at the loss of his brother/sister, makes me, as the player wonder if there should any emotional impact whatsoever at the loss of someone your PC has seemingly known all his life.  He just kind of stands there stonefaced whilst we the player are treated to some mediocre voice acting.

[SirGladiator]

I think an earlier comment hit on a superior way of doing things. If they had started the game in Lothering itself, everything nice and peaceful, allow Hawke to have a little bit of quality family time before the horde hits Lothering and they have to make a run for it, the player could develop some attachment to the characters. Then if they'd give us the choice which one to save, instead of just killing one based on class which is quite annoying at best, then everything woud've been done pretty much perfectly.

[Liaskar Amell]

I strongly disagree on the part of Wesley, especially when Aveline kills him. I thought the music and tone was great.



Also, aside from actual mechanics, the idea of "good writing" is completely relative.

[Parkimus]

Well, thinking about it story-wise, I don't think killing off a character in the beginning is necessarily bad writing. I think it's to develop Hawke's character. It's setting up his/her rise to power. At the moment the family is fleeing the Darkspawn, you get the sense that Hawke is leading. A leader is the one who has to make decisions and a battle leader can't grieve over every casualty, even if it is a family member, at least not until the battle is over. And we know that Hawke is going to be champion. So I'm not suggesting that the sibling's death might be the reason he becomes Champion of Kirkwall, but the spark that fuelled the fire. However this is all speculation at this point..

But out of context,  the blank look on Hawke's face when seeing his/her sibling's corpse.., I'm not sure what that's about. Maybe Hawke was in shock or just suddenly felt numb? I guess people react to different situations differently.

Modifié par MankoMeista, 23 février 2011 - 08:17 .

[Revan312]

The reaction/emotional impact during the sibling death scene was beyond lackluster, it bordered on devoid. Wesley's death had more impact and he's the husband of a secondary character..

I mean, not only where the actual expressions and emotive reactions nonexistent, but the lines themselves that both can be chosen for Hawke and those given by Beth/Carver are so dismissive as to be a joke. Mother Hawke, although a wee bit broken up, still seemed to only have the same general reaction you would expect of someone who lost their pet.

I kind of expected something more than a generic "Welp, too bad huh, but we should really get going" said in three different ways... In fact I expected much more..

MankoMeista wrote...
But out of context,  the blank look on
Hawke's face when seeing his/her sibling's corpse.., I'm not sure what
that's about. Maybe Hawke was in shock or just suddenly felt numb? I
guess people react to different situations differently.

I bet if you could find the most grizzled, battle hardened veteran soldier and threw his beloved sibling in front of a bus, he would emote more than Hawke did..

Modifié par Revan312, 23 février 2011 - 08:25 .