57020 réponses à ce sujet

[ForgeDark]

ademska wrote...

highcastle wrote...
Contrast that with DA2, where Hawke's emotions are on center stage. Half the game is him reacting to various events. I get that people want agency and maybe disliked the lack of it, but to me that was one of the joys of the game. It was a deconstruction of many typical RPG concepts, and indeed even the notion of the epic or the Hero's Journey. More than that, NPCs treated Hawke like a person. His emotions mattered. They drove the game. Thus, I cared very deeply for Hawke, his family, his friends, his relationships, etc.

i think this actually touches on the core reason for a lot of the divide between people who prefer one system over the other.

the warden is completely customizable. you can shape and mold him or her from any background into any character, and the luscious dialogue options aren't limiting. it's a game built for people who want the ultimate role-playing experience.

da2, on the other hand, gives us hawke. hawke's gender and class is customizable, yes, but he/she has a defined background, a family -- even, technically, a face. his/her personality varies, as do his/her political opinons, but the overall character still fits within a paradigm.  part of this is merely the by-product of playing a character in a low fantasy whose actions do not directly affect the entire world, but part of it is that hawke, like it or not, is a person written to behave in specific, limited ways.

i think the fact that you play through the intro with a set appearance that cannot be altered is the biggest drive home for me.  hawke is a character, not a construct. you can interpret, and to some extent play, him or her differently, but he's not supposed to be an analogue of the warden.

i like pre-defined protagonists and linear narratives, i like getting into heads and figuring out plots and reconciling my personal ideas with the confines of the canon, so i don't count this is a negative point at all... but i can see why many do.

I also think people overestimate the difference one person can really make on the world. I think DA2 is far more realistic really, even that doesn't make the game everyone likes. So a 'choice' in the game doesn't really need to effect the outcome: you might respect the Arishok, but that isn't realistically going to change how he behaves. Whereas your actions can make your friends change, which is what happens in DA2. I really see DA2 as the story of Anders from the point of view of his friend. The things Hawke does are always going to be limited, because the big world changing thing happens from the actions of another. Some people think that makes it a  bad game, but I think it makes it a good one. I kind of like seeing the futility of my Hawkes efforts to change Kirkwall, regardless of whether I'm playing pro-mage or pro-templar. But what you do see is your friends evolving and changing depending what kind of person your Hawke is. 

[DreamerM]

ElleMullineux wrote...

(snip) Whilst I enjoyed DAO I would never have entered fandom for it - there was simply enough of it available in game to satisfy me... (snip)
DA2 on the other hand has suckered me in massively because of the gaps and the narrative space. (snip)

I understand entirely what you mean here. Oh how I understand.  My will-be-incomplete-forever PROTOTYPE screenplay will stand as a testiment to how powerful the urge to fill in those narrative gaps can be. But I'm also objective enough to know that this phenomenon is NOT the ideal.

Origins is the ideal. A story should be so fullfilling in and of itself that you do not need to invent another, more interesting imaginary one in your head that you inevitably love because it's YOURS, you understand it, you're making the connections, you're the one who really understands this world.

Because it's your creation. Not Bioware's.

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I agree, I actually think the
conversations in DAO are far more forced than in DA2. In DAO characters
barely react to the things you do, and the conversations are just a get
to know me session.

I think that's the more the fault of the animators then the characterizations. I did get royally sick of seeing every stinking character shrug their arms in the same exact way no matter what they were talking about.

As for the "get to know me sessions" that was what was missing from Dragon Age 2: they threw us right into the character's deepest, most personal conflicts without giving us a chance to get to know them first. You might call it busywork, but I needed a foundation on who "Anders" was, who "Justice" was, and what the hell happened when he went glowy and angry and why he hated Templars so much BEFORE I could reasonably tell him whether or not his spirit posession thing was a good idea. I think you have to make a stand on that in the second conversation you ever have with him. You just gotta pick an opinion and go with it. If there's a reason, it's kept offscreen. That was a common feeling in that game: it kept asking me my opinion about things that I not only didn't understand, but didn't know why I would care about.

I know I replayed that conversation with Anders no less then ten times, every conscievable way (friendly, witty, angry, all the mixes) trying to get some sort of handle on what the hell he was talking about, some core to understanding him. Finally I just picked the options that netted me the most friendship points, because I realized he wasn't going to give me any answers. If he has a reason for being the way he is, it is kept off camera, out of sight. This makes it fun to speculate over, but also means it might not really exist.

[kromify]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I also think people overestimate the difference one person can really make on the world. I think DA2 is far more realistic really, even that doesn't make the game everyone likes. So a 'choice' in the game doesn't really need to effect the outcome: you might respect the Arishok, but that isn't realistically going to change how he behaves. Whereas your actions can make your friends change, which is what happens in DA2. I really see DA2 as the story of Anders from the point of view of his friend. The things Hawke does are always going to be limited, because the big world changing thing happens from the actions of another. Some people think that makes it a  bad game, but I think it makes it a good one. I kind of like seeing the futility of my Hawkes efforts to change Kirkwall, regardless of whether I'm playing pro-mage or pro-templar. But what you do see is your friends evolving and changing depending what kind of person your Hawke is. 

yuh... sometimes dao boggled me a bit in the responsibilities they heaped on one person. 

The Landsmeet

> 2 contestants for the throne!? maker's breath, how do we sort this one out, guys? never had this problem before!
> uh...? warden? you're uninvolved right?
warden. me? yeah totally uninvolved! completely. *hides engagment ring*
> alright then. who should rule ferelden?
> (persuade) me and my fiance boyfriend random bloke who keeps following me.   


edit for spelling fail  

Modifié par kromify, 20 juin 2011 - 10:42 .

[highcastle]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I also think people overestimate the difference one person can really make on the world. I think DA2 is far more realistic really, even that doesn't make the game everyone likes. So a 'choice' in the game doesn't really need to effect the outcome: you might respect the Arishok, but that isn't realistically going to change how he behaves. Whereas your actions can make your friends change, which is what happens in DA2. I really see DA2 as the story of Anders from the point of view of his friend. The things Hawke does are always going to be limited, because the big world changing thing happens from the actions of another. Some people think that makes it a  bad game, but I think it makes it a good one. I kind of like seeing the futility of my Hawkes efforts to change Kirkwall, regardless of whether I'm playing pro-mage or pro-templar. But what you do see is your friends evolving and changing depending what kind of person your Hawke is. 

This. So much this!

I don't really care if all my choices are big, world-defining things. If they influence the people my character cares about, though, that's something pretty important. I come from a tabletop background where interacting with and shaping the various characters is half the fun. DA2 captured that aspect better than any other cRPG I've played in a long time.

I also disagree with the people who say Hawke's predefined. If having a family makes a character predefined, than every origin (except perhaps the mage) is predefined. DAO also had the same personality lines. They just weren't voiced, so you could read something of your own intent in them at times. I've played wildly different Hawkes when it comes to their personalities and choices and reactions. If Hawke were defined by the game, there'd be no variance. Everyone would treat him the same, he'd react to events in the same way, etc. That doesn't happen.

[LT123]

*wall of text incoming. Warning. Warning.*

I liked being able to have a bunch of different Wardens with different backgrounds, and not even the ones from the same origins are the same. DA feels different to me than BG2 too did. I think the fact that there's more than one male LI. In BG2, Anomen (For the Order!) was the only option. And you could only make fun of him once, or he'd get mad and stomp off, and that was the end of the romance. I usually play females, so getting to joke with Alistair and Zev- and Carth in KOTOR-was fun.

I also liked that companions reacted more to events in DA2. My first playthrough in DAO was an Alistair-romanced Warden-Commander ending, and that went something like this.

*Alistair dies*
*skip to coronation/celebration*
Warden: (You're such a idiot, Alistair. )
Anora: *babble babble Hero of Ferelden babble babble have a boon*
Warden: (Don't care. My soul is filled with angst and pain.) *picks boon*
Anora: *blares this song from speakers*
Origins NPC: Thanks for the land! Laters!
Companions: Well, I'm off to Orlais/Antiva-even though I just said I'd be the Warden mascot/to live with Felsi/to be the court mage! Laters!
Wynne: *babble Hero of Ferelden*
Warden: I'm not the one who killed the archdemon, and I'm stabbing the next person who calls me that.
Wynne: Better a living hero than a dead one!
Warden: I WILL STAB EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AND BURN THE PALACE TO THE GROUND. NO ONE IS ACKNOWLEDGING MY ANGST.

And then that Warden went off to Amaranthine.
Anders: So, what do Wardens do when they're not killing darkspawn.
Warden: We die young and are forgotton. *angsts*
Anders: Uh. That's depressing.

And then in DA2 you got the reactions to Leandra, which were different for each LI and Aveline-but Sebastian doesn't show up whyyyyyyy. And Hawke could also react in different ways. I love that she/he can yell at Aveline about it.

TDLR: I ramble about being able to create totally different Wardens even if they're the same gender and from the same origin, about the Warden-Commander ending and praise the increased companion reactions in DA2.

[kromify]

nice work on chapter 15, HI-C!

Calling you HI-C totally makes me want to slap some bling on your ship and paint it black. to RnB music.

[highcastle]

DreamerM wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

(snip) Whilst I enjoyed DAO I would never have entered fandom for it - there was simply enough of it available in game to satisfy me... (snip)
DA2 on the other hand has suckered me in massively because of the gaps and the narrative space. (snip)

I understand entirely what you mean here. Oh how I understand.  My will-be-incomplete-forever PROTOTYPE screenplay will stand as a testiment to how powerful the urge to fill in those narrative gaps can be. But I'm also objective enough to know that this phenomenon is NOT the ideal.

Origins is the ideal. A story should be so fullfilling in and of itself that you do not need to invent another, more interesting imaginary one in your head that you inevitably love because it's YOURS, you understand it, you're making the connections, you're the one who really understands this world.

Because it's your creation. Not Bioware's.

A wealth of literary critics will disagree with you on this one. Generally speaking, the "best" stories (or at least those that garner the most praise and study) are those that don't answer every question, that leave gaps. That's why literary interpretation began. And yes, fanfic can be a form of interpretation at times. In that sense, gaps are the ideal. They spark debate. They make people ask questions. They allow those people to come up with different answers. This is the heart of art criticism. And if we're going to argue that video games are art, we need to be able to design stories that leave us asking questions.

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I agree, I actually think the
conversations in DAO are far more forced than in DA2. In DAO characters
barely react to the things you do, and the conversations are just a get
to know me session.

I think that's the more the fault of the animators then the characterizations. I did get royally sick of seeing every stinking character shrug their arms in the same exact way no matter what they were talking about.

As for the "get to know me sessions" that was what was missing from Dragon Age 2: they threw us right into the character's deepest, most personal conflicts without giving us a chance to get to know them first. You might call it busywork, but I needed a foundation on who "Anders" was, who "Justice" was, and what the hell happened when he went glowy and angry and why he hated Templars so much BEFORE I could reasonably tell him whether or not his spirit posession thing was a good idea. I think you have to make a stand on that in the second conversation you ever have with him. You just gotta pick an opinion and go with it. If there's a reason, it's kept offscreen. That was a common feeling in that game: it kept asking me my opinion about things that I not only didn't understand, but didn't know why I would care about.

I know I replayed that conversation with Anders no less then ten times, every conscievable way (friendly, witty, angry, all the mixes) trying to get some sort of handle on what the hell he was talking about, some core to understanding him. Finally I just picked the options that netted me the most friendship points, because I realized he wasn't going to give me any answers. If he has a reason for being the way he is, it is kept off camera, out of sight. This makes it fun to speculate over, but also means it might not really exist.

Well, Anders is secretive in this game. That's his defining personality trait. And I personally can't play the way you do, relying so much on meta-knowledge. I try to play a character. And I know that my character has just met Anders--a fugitive mage who would be weary of being turned over to the templars--and thus Hawke anticipates that Anders won't tell him his whole life story or even answer all his questions right away.

Also, I think who Anders is was established pretty definitively in his opening cinematic. He's a healer. He's tormented. Before a word is spoken, we see him at work, then see him combat Justice. It's bold mix. You don't need things spelled out for you. Sometimes you can make judgments based on what your eyes tell you.

[ademska]

highcastle wrote...

I also disagree with the people who say Hawke's predefined. If having a family makes a character predefined, than every origin (except perhaps the mage) is predefined. DAO also had the same personality lines. They just weren't voiced, so you could read something of your own intent in them at times. I've played wildly different Hawkes when it comes to their personalities and choices and reactions. If Hawke were defined by the game, there'd be no variance. Everyone would treat him the same, he'd react to events in the same way, etc. That doesn't happen.

oh, lol, i didn't mean absolutely defined as if he were, idk, a final fantasy completely linear protagonist.  i meant in comparison to the warden, who is almost a complete blank slate. warden choices are far less limiting, and while part of that is gameplay device, i also see it as intentionally narrowing the confines of exactly who hawke is.

he's certainly subjective, and that's what i meant by "you can interpret and play him differently", but the fact is that hawke's background, by virtue of it being the only one, is FAR more fleshed out than origins stories.  he has substantial interaction with his family, the whole first act is built around his history, etc etc.

[highcastle]

kromify wrote...

nice work on chapter 15, HI-C!

Calling you HI-C totally makes me want to slap some bling on your ship and paint it black. to RnB music.

What, no festooning it with ruffles?

(And thanks for the feedback!)

[highcastle]

ademska wrote...

highcastle wrote...

I also disagree with the people who say Hawke's predefined. If having a family makes a character predefined, than every origin (except perhaps the mage) is predefined. DAO also had the same personality lines. They just weren't voiced, so you could read something of your own intent in them at times. I've played wildly different Hawkes when it comes to their personalities and choices and reactions. If Hawke were defined by the game, there'd be no variance. Everyone would treat him the same, he'd react to events in the same way, etc. That doesn't happen.

oh, lol, i didn't mean absolutely defined as if he were, idk, a final fantasy completely linear protagonist.  i meant in comparison to the warden, who is almost a complete blank slate. warden choices are far less limiting, and while part of that is gameplay device, i also see it as intentionally narrowing the confines of exactly who hawke is.

he's certainly subjective, and that's what i meant by "you can interpret and play him differently", but the fact is that hawke's background, by virtue of it being the only one, is FAR more fleshed out than origins stories.  he has substantial interaction with his family, the whole first act is built around his history, etc etc.

I guess that's the thing: I don't like complete blank slates in cRPGs. They come across as avatars, there for the player to impose his own views on rather than build a character. It'd be different if this were a tabletop game played with other people. Then every time I make a comment or a choice, I get personal feedback. But computers aren't smart enough to be that reactive. So if I want a personal connection to a character, if I want to feel like there are emotions at play here, yes some of the agency needs to be taken away from me.

I also thought the parts of the game that touched on Hawke's family were the strongest in the game, and indeed in the series. I wanted that in Origins. I was the Cousland constantly trying to go after my brother, only for everyone to railroad me into going after the treaties instead. I was the Dalish elf who just wanted to get back to their clan. DAO ignored those personal connections in favor of an epic narrative. Fine if you like epics. Not so fine if you're looking for a story that features internal growth and change.

(I still really liked DAO. Sometimes I feel like that doesn't come across. I enjoyed it. It was good. But I liked DA2 better.)

[kromify]

highcastle wrote...

kromify wrote...

nice work on chapter 15, HI-C!

Calling you HI-C totally makes me want to slap some bling on your ship and paint it black. to RnB music.

What, no festooning it with ruffles?

(And thanks for the feedback!)

you don't have enough sails already? *adds ruffles to sails.*  i'm not sure they catch the wind in quite the right way  

[maxernst]

Highcastle wrote...

DreamerM wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

(snip) Whilst I enjoyed DAO I would never have entered fandom for it - there was simply enough of it available in game to satisfy me... (snip)
DA2 on the other hand has suckered me in massively because of the gaps and the narrative space. (snip)

I understand entirely what you mean here. Oh how I understand.  My will-be-incomplete-forever PROTOTYPE screenplay will stand as a testiment to how powerful the urge to fill in those narrative gaps can be. But I'm also objective enough to know that this phenomenon is NOT the ideal.

Origins is the ideal. A story should be so fullfilling in and of itself that you do not need to invent another, more interesting imaginary one in your head that you inevitably love because it's YOURS, you understand it, you're making the connections, you're the one who really understands this world.

Because it's your creation. Not Bioware's.

A wealth of literary critics will disagree with you on this one. Generally speaking, the "best" stories (or at least those that garner the most praise and study) are those that don't answer every question, that leave gaps. That's why literary interpretation began. And yes, fanfic can be a form of interpretation at times. In that sense, gaps are the ideal. They spark debate. They make people ask questions. They allow those people to come up with different answers. This is the heart of art criticism. And if we're going to argue that video games are art, we need to be able to design stories that leave us asking questions.

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

But games are not literature.  They're a different narrative form.  The unique characteristic of games as  is that the player can shape the narrative, which you cannot in a conventional film, book, or play.  If games are to be considered as art, they need to take advantage of what they have that no other narrative does.  If your gameplay doesn't shape the story, why use the form at all?  In a film or book, you don't necessarily have to empathize with the protagonist, but in a game, I think it's crucial.  And any time you define the protagonist, you run the risk of alienating the player.  The Witcher's unplayable as far as I'm concerned, because I have no interest in spending any more time (I went as far as chapter 3) with such an unpleasant character.

The problem with Hawke is that he's like roleplaying Othello.  Would you find it fun to play a game where you were forced to trust Iago and murder Desdemona?  The problem is not that Hawke is powerless, it's that he fiddles while Rome burns in Act 2.  If you tried everything you could to keep your family safe and avoid the bloodbath in Kirkwall, and still failed, it wouldn't bother me so much.  What I don't like about DA2 is that Hawke doesn't try, which I find kind of contemptible.

Modifié par maxernst, 20 juin 2011 - 11:05 .

[highcastle]

kromify wrote...

highcastle wrote...

kromify wrote...

nice work on chapter 15, HI-C!

Calling you HI-C totally makes me want to slap some bling on your ship and paint it black. to RnB music.

What, no festooning it with ruffles?

(And thanks for the feedback!)

you don't have enough sails already? *adds ruffles to sails.*  i'm not sure they catch the wind in quite the right way  

Bah! Somehow the Black Pearl managed to catch the wind with its sails all full of holes.



A few ruffles are nothing compared to that!

[ademska]

highcastle wrote...

I guess that's the thing: I don't like complete blank slates in cRPGs. They come across as avatars, there for the player to impose his own views on rather than build a character. It'd be different if this were a tabletop game played with other people. Then every time I make a comment or a choice, I get personal feedback. But computers aren't smart enough to be that reactive. So if I want a personal connection to a character, if I want to feel like there are emotions at play here, yes some of the agency needs to be taken away from me.

I also thought the parts of the game that touched on Hawke's family were the strongest in the game, and indeed in the series. I wanted that in Origins. I was the Cousland constantly trying to go after my brother, only for everyone to railroad me into going after the treaties instead. I was the Dalish elf who just wanted to get back to their clan. DAO ignored those personal connections in favor of an epic narrative. Fine if you like epics. Not so fine if you're looking for a story that features internal growth and change.

(I still really liked DAO. Sometimes I feel like that doesn't come across. I enjoyed it. It was good. But I liked DA2 better.)

no, i feel the exact same way.  it's why i can roleplay the crap out of origins and love it to tiny tiny pieces but i will never ever be invested in it like i am in da2. hawke matters, he feels, and that's because he's not a blank slate. i love low fantasy, stories about characters and other characters and how they all interact with each other in the face of realistic circumstances over which they have so little influence.

to be honest, it's really disheartening that people want to abandon the da2 format completely for da3, given how the plot's likely to play out.  i want dragon age 3, not dragon age: more origins

[DreamerM]

highcastle wrote...
A wealth of literary critics will disagree with you on this one.

A wealth of literary critics will be wrong. There is such a shortage of perfectly executed stories in this world that I think we should treasure them where we find them, not criticize them for giving us nothing to criticize.

highcastle wrote...
Well, Anders is secretive in this game. That's his defining personality trait. And I personally can't play the way you do, relying so much on meta-knowledge. I try to play a character.

I try and play a character too, but I need INFORMATION if I'm going to make choices in keeping with my character's defined personality. Especially if the responses available are spelled out as "nice, snarky, mean" and none of the words are quite what I want to say or what I'm trying to say.

highcastle wrote...
And I know that my character has just met Anders--a fugitive mage who would be weary of being turned over to the templars--and thus Hawke anticipates that Anders won't tell him his whole life story or even answer all his questions right away.

All the more reason we should be able to have more then one conversation with the guy before he starts caring about our opinion about the most important choice he's ever made in his life. Yes Anders is "secretive" but Hawke has YEARS to win his trust and get him to open up. It's really too bad it all happens off camera.

highcastle wrote... Before a word is spoken, we see him at work, then see him combat Justice. It's bold mix. You don't need things spelled out for you. Sometimes you can make judgments based on what your eyes tell you.

My eyes told me he thought my arrival in his clinic was a threat and responded in a way that would surely have sent anyone less awesome then me running back out the door....to the nearest templar, talking about the crazy-ass eyes on that healer. On second thought, no, templars might mean no more healing. But still, that guy, there's something wrong with that guy.

The fact that Justice/Vengence reacted to something as simple as an unannoucened clinic visit never made any sense to me. I know I'm well-armed for a refugee, but so are the bandits he probably patches up after each round of gang violence. And I can't imagine he makes a habit of letting Justice out when he's working: the refugees might appreciate the attentions of a skilled mage, but a glowy-eyed Abomination might be another matter.

...thinking about this critically, I came to the conclusion that ONLY reason you catch a glimpse of Justice in that first scene was because The Plot demanded you understand as fast as possible that "something is off about that guy." And that disapointed me.

[ademska]

maxernst wrote...
But games are not literature.  They're a different narrative form.  The unique characteristic of games as  is that the player can shape the narrative, which you cannot in a conventional film, book, or play.  If games are to be considered as art, they need to take advantage of what they have that no other narrative does.  If your gameplay doesn't shape the story, why use the form at all?  In a film or book, you don't necessarily have to empathize with the protagonist, but in a game, I think it's crucial.  And any time you define the protagonist, you run the risk of alienating the player.  The Witcher's unplayable as far as I'm concerned, because I have no interest in spending any more time (I went as far as chapter 3) with such an unpleasant character.

The problem with Hawke is that he's like roleplaying Othello.  Would you find it fun to play a game where you were forced to trust Iago and murder Desdemona?  The problem is not that Hawke is powerless, it's that he fiddles while Rome burns in Act 2.  If you tried everything you could to keep your family safe and avoid the bloodbath in Kirkwall, and still failed, it wouldn't bother me so much.  What I don't like about DA2 is that Hawke doesn't try, which I find kind of contemptible.

see, i understand where you're coming from, but i personally find myself far less emotionally invested in a game without at least some predefining characteristics from which to base how i steer the narrative. for me, it's easier to empathize (during the gameplay experience) with a character who exists outside my own imagination.

you may not personally like the character, which you're well within your rights to feel, but that's not the fault of the narrative device, it's the fault of the character himself. you don't like hawke, which is understandable, but apply that to shepard or anyone else you might enjoy and it becomes unsound. would mass effect have been a better game if shepard had been completely undefined?

[kromify]

highcastle wrote...

kromify wrote...

highcastle wrote...

kromify wrote...

nice work on chapter 15, HI-C!

Calling you HI-C totally makes me want to slap some bling on your ship and paint it black. to RnB music.

What, no festooning it with ruffles?

(And thanks for the feedback!)

you don't have enough sails already? *adds ruffles to sails.*  i'm not sure they catch the wind in quite the right way  

Bah! Somehow the Black Pearl managed to catch the wind with its sails all full of holes.



A few ruffles are nothing compared to that!

that's after it got jenga'd on the high seas. HI-C's ship can't get high sea'd so the ruffles are safe, thank the maker.

did you know that most people can't tell the differece between pirate speak and farmer? 

[highcastle]

maxernst wrote...

But games are not literature.  They're a different narrative form.  The unique characteristic of games as  is that the player can shape the narrative, which you cannot in a conventional film, book, or play.  If games are to be considered as art, they need to take advantage of what they have that no other narrative does.  If your gameplay doesn't shape the story, why use the form at all?  In a film or book, you don't necessarily have to empathize with the protagonist, but in a game, I think it's crucial.  And any time you define the protagonist, you run the risk of alienating the player.  The Witcher's unplayable as far as I'm concerned, because I have no interest in spending any more time (I went as far as chapter 3) with such an unpleasant character.

The problem with Hawke is that he's like roleplaying Othello.  Would you find it fun to play a game where you were forced to trust Iago and murder Desdemona?  The problem is not that Hawke is powerless, it's that he fiddles while Rome burns in Act 2.  If you tried everything you could to keep your family safe and avoid the bloodbath in Kirkwall, and still failed, it wouldn't bother me so much.  What I don't like about DA2 is that Hawke doesn't try, which I find kind of contemptible.

Games are unique in how they present stories, yes. But saying they're the only medium that allows the reader to shape the story is a fallacy. Especially when you get into postmodernism. The novel White Teeth by Zadie Smith is a great example of this. While the story is presented fairly innocuously, the ending is left entirely up to the reader to decide. Smith presents us with a series of endings. The French Lieutenant's Woman does something similar. Written on the Body seems straightforward, but the ending is so bizarre, it's up to the reader to decide what exactly happened (if anything). Postmodernism denies boundaries between the text and the reader. It also disavows the notion of one true interpretation (or even one true reality). But this isn't really a forum for literary thought, so I'll drop it for now.

I don't see how Hawke is unsympathetic. He's largely defined by the player. Aside from his origin story, his personality and reactions are up to the player. So if you don't like how he responds one way, pick something else, I guess?

To me, it sounds like you're largely frustrated by Hawke's inability to change the course of the game. I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Have you played Red Dead Redemption? That game ended on a major down note the player couldn't avoid, too. I consider it one of the best moments in gaming, same as the Chantry jenga. I felt something. Punched in the gut, maybe. And any work that can make me feel like that--helpless and small--is pretty damn impressive.

So many games make us into larger-than-life heroes that always save the day. It happens so often, I no longer feel any sense of triumph from it. It's just expected. That DA2 kicked us in the teeth when we tried to do just that made it a much more satisfying experience because I felt something. Even if that something was rather lousy that I couldn't change things.

And isn't that closer to reality, anyway? How many of us can really change everything we want to?

And speak for yourself about Hawke not trying. My Hawke tried to become viscount. My Hawke wanted to change things. But in the end, he was still one man in a city full of crazy, and the city won out. He did try. He failed. That's a great story right there. You're right, it would have been weaker if Hawke sat on his hands the whole time. But he doesn't have to. What he chooses to do is all in the player's hands.

[mellifera]

ipgd wrote...

I... think Garrus is kind of boring.

[highcastle]

DreamerM wrote...

highcastle wrote...
A wealth of literary critics will disagree with you on this one.

A wealth of literary critics will be wrong. There is such a shortage of perfectly executed stories in this world that I think we should treasure them where we find them, not criticize them for giving us nothing to criticize.

Wish I could use that one in debates. Or in lit classes for that matter. 

You're talking to a lit major here. I'm not going to get into whether there's a shortage of great stories out there (there's not), but I do object to your definition of what makes a "good" story. Perhaps you like everything tied up in a little bow. Generally speaking, though, it's considered preferable for a story to leave some threads hanging. I suggest reading up on literary criticism if you want to know why. I'm not going to write out a thesis paper on it here.

highcastle wrote...
Well, Anders is secretive in this game. That's his defining personality trait. And I personally can't play the way you do, relying so much on meta-knowledge. I try to play a character.

I try and play a character too, but I need INFORMATION if I'm going to make choices in keeping with my character's defined personality. Especially if the responses available are spelled out as "nice, snarky, mean" and none of the words are quite what I want to say or what I'm trying to say.

But Hawke doesn't have any more information than you do. And that's what the paraphrase system is there for, to give you an idea of intent. I'm confused by what you're complaining about here. You want more personalities? I wouldn't be opposed to that, though I never felt limited by what DA2 offered. Still, options are good. I like options.

highcastle wrote...
And I know that my character has just met Anders--a fugitive mage who would be weary of being turned over to the templars--and thus Hawke anticipates that Anders won't tell him his whole life story or even answer all his questions right away.

All the more reason we should be able to have more then one conversation with the guy before he starts caring about our opinion about the most important choice he's ever made in his life. Yes Anders is "secretive" but Hawke has YEARS to win his trust and get him to open up. It's really too bad it all happens off camera.

I've written about this before. Anders cares about Hawke the moment Hawke sees him at his worst (when Justice completely assumes control in Tranquility) and doesn't run screaming away or hand him over to the templars. Instead, Hawke still sees him as a person when Anders is starting to think of himself as a monster. So he trusts Hawke's judgment and aligns his moral compass in many ways to Hawke's. Anders goes very quickly from ambivalent to all-in. And I'm not sure more conversations would change that.

highcastle wrote... Before a word is spoken, we see him at work, then see him combat Justice. It's bold mix. You don't need things spelled out for you. Sometimes you can make judgments based on what your eyes tell you.

My eyes told me he thought my arrival in his clinic was a threat and responded in a way that would surely have sent anyone less awesome then me running back out the door....to the nearest templar, talking about the crazy-ass eyes on that healer. On second thought, no, templars might mean no more healing. But still, that guy, there's something wrong with that guy.

The fact that Justice/Vengence reacted to something as simple as an unannoucened clinic visit never made any sense to me. I know I'm well-armed for a refugee, but so are the bandits he probably patches up after each round of gang violence. And I can't imagine he makes a habit of letting Justice out when he's working: the refugees might appreciate the attentions of a skilled mage, but a glowy-eyed Abomination might be another matter.

...thinking about this critically, I came to the conclusion that ONLY reason you catch a glimpse of Justice in that first scene was because The Plot demanded you understand as fast as possible that "something is off about that guy." And that disapointed me.

Look at it this way: Anders is exhausted from healing. It consumes a lot of his energy. So he's in a weakened state less able to keep Justice at bay. Justice, however, is always there beneath the surface. He surges forward when Anders is weakened. And it speaks to just how much control Anders has that even utterly spent from his duties as a healer, he still regains his composure.

ETA: @kromify: Rofl!

And I think that's it for me tonight. It's past midnight and I'm supposed to be productive tomorrow. Interesting debate as always!

Modifié par highcastle, 20 juin 2011 - 11:30 .

[maxernst]

ademska wrote...

maxernst wrote...
But games are not literature.  They're a different narrative form.  The unique characteristic of games as  is that the player can shape the narrative, which you cannot in a conventional film, book, or play.  If games are to be considered as art, they need to take advantage of what they have that no other narrative does.  If your gameplay doesn't shape the story, why use the form at all?  In a film or book, you don't necessarily have to empathize with the protagonist, but in a game, I think it's crucial.  And any time you define the protagonist, you run the risk of alienating the player.  The Witcher's unplayable as far as I'm concerned, because I have no interest in spending any more time (I went as far as chapter 3) with such an unpleasant character.

The problem with Hawke is that he's like roleplaying Othello.  Would you find it fun to play a game where you were forced to trust Iago and murder Desdemona?  The problem is not that Hawke is powerless, it's that he fiddles while Rome burns in Act 2.  If you tried everything you could to keep your family safe and avoid the bloodbath in Kirkwall, and still failed, it wouldn't bother me so much.  What I don't like about DA2 is that Hawke doesn't try, which I find kind of contemptible.

see, i understand where you're coming from, but i personally find myself far less emotionally invested in a game without at least some predefining characteristics from which to base how i steer the narrative. for me, it's easier to empathize (during the gameplay experience) with a character who exists outside my own imagination.

you may not personally like the character, which you're well within your rights to feel, but that's not the fault of the narrative device, it's the fault of the character himself. you don't like hawke, which is understandable, but apply that to shepard or anyone else you might enjoy and it becomes unsound. would mass effect have been a better game if shepard had been completely undefined?

For me, yes.  because even if I liked a game with a fixed character, I would never have any reason to replay it.  I already know what Shepard does in ME.  It would be like replaying Grim Fandango or The Longest Journey.  Fine games, sure, for one playthrough.  And yes, I realize Shepard could make other choices.  But why should he?  I'd be doing it just for curiosity, not because I felt this Shepard was different.

And to be quite honest, I don't think I have ever liked a real roleplaying game with a fixed protagonist all that much, unless you count Planescape: Torment.  But since you don't know anything about your past, you can shape him pretty much any way.  For games like Thief or Half-Life it doesn't bother me, but you dont' really interact with the world in the same way in those games, and they're more about the gameplay than the narrative.  It saddens me that game companies seem to be abandoning player choice in the pursuit of making games more cinematic, rather than making games that explore more open-ended narratives.  I realize it's hard to balance player freedom and having a story line and a world that reacts to you in significant ways, but the fact that it's hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing, which is what Bioware seems to have decided.  It wouldn't bother me so much except that Bioware's one of the very few companies that tries to do that.  Obsidian is probably my only hope for making a new RPG that I like as much as DA:O, unless Bethesda starts making much richer, deeper games. 

So while I don't think DA2 is really a bad game, it's a game I find far less satisfying than DA:O.  And it seems that the difference in our point of view will always be insurmountable.  But game companies are trending your way, not mine.

[maxernst]

highcastle wrote...

maxernst wrote...

But games are not literature.  They're a different narrative form.  The unique characteristic of games as  is that the player can shape the narrative, which you cannot in a conventional film, book, or play.  If games are to be considered as art, they need to take advantage of what they have that no other narrative does.  If your gameplay doesn't shape the story, why use the form at all?  In a film or book, you don't necessarily have to empathize with the protagonist, but in a game, I think it's crucial.  And any time you define the protagonist, you run the risk of alienating the player.  The Witcher's unplayable as far as I'm concerned, because I have no interest in spending any more time (I went as far as chapter 3) with such an unpleasant character.

The problem with Hawke is that he's like roleplaying Othello.  Would you find it fun to play a game where you were forced to trust Iago and murder Desdemona?  The problem is not that Hawke is powerless, it's that he fiddles while Rome burns in Act 2.  If you tried everything you could to keep your family safe and avoid the bloodbath in Kirkwall, and still failed, it wouldn't bother me so much.  What I don't like about DA2 is that Hawke doesn't try, which I find kind of contemptible.

Games are unique in how they present stories, yes. But saying they're the only medium that allows the reader to shape the story is a fallacy. Especially when you get into postmodernism. The novel White Teeth by Zadie Smith is a great example of this. While the story is presented fairly innocuously, the ending is left entirely up to the reader to decide. Smith presents us with a series of endings. The French Lieutenant's Woman does something similar. Written on the Body seems straightforward, but the ending is so bizarre, it's up to the reader to decide what exactly happened (if anything). Postmodernism denies boundaries between the text and the reader. It also disavows the notion of one true interpretation (or even one true reality). But this isn't really a forum for literary thought, so I'll drop it for now.

I don't see how Hawke is unsympathetic. He's largely defined by the player. Aside from his origin story, his personality and reactions are up to the player. So if you don't like how he responds one way, pick something else, I guess?

To me, it sounds like you're largely frustrated by Hawke's inability to change the course of the game. I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Have you played Red Dead Redemption? That game ended on a major down note the player couldn't avoid, too. I consider it one of the best moments in gaming, same as the Chantry jenga. I felt something. Punched in the gut, maybe. And any work that can make me feel like that--helpless and small--is pretty damn impressive.

So many games make us into larger-than-life heroes that always save the day. It happens so often, I no longer feel any sense of triumph from it. It's just expected. That DA2 kicked us in the teeth when we tried to do just that made it a much more satisfying experience because I felt something. Even if that something was rather lousy that I couldn't change things.

And isn't that closer to reality, anyway? How many of us can really change everything we want to?

And speak for yourself about Hawke not trying. My Hawke tried to become viscount. My Hawke wanted to change things. But in the end, he was still one man in a city full of crazy, and the city won out. He did try. He failed. That's a great story right there. You're right, it would have been weaker if Hawke sat on his hands the whole time. But he doesn't have to. What he chooses to do is all in the player's hands.

But it's NOT.  There's no reason at all that he couldn't try to track the Lyrium idol after Bartrand's death.  He should know how dangerous that thing is.  Maybe he would fail, but simply saying, oh, well, not my problem anymore, is inexcusable. Maybe Meredith would still act the same way without the idol.  But at least he could try.

There's no reason for him to let Mother Petrice talk him out of talking to Elthina.  In fact, I can't even come up with any rationale for it, unless he's eithersuicidal or just plain stupid.  Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything, but you have information she doesn't and you withold it from her.  You never tell her that Templars (or mother Petrice) are forging her signature and that they're abusing the rite of tranquility.  Even if you think Mother Petrice's news of this rally is so important, why don't you ask somebody with real power like Elthina or the Viscount to accompany you to see it?  And if for some inexplicable reason, Elthina refused to see me, I'd either write her a letter or go back and get the Viscount himself to come with me.  Maybe she still wouldn't do anything, but then it would be her fault, not mine for lack of trying.

[tmp7704]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I also think people overestimate the difference one person can really make on the world.

Ohai Anders, what world will you be setting ablaze today?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

It's funny when people talk about Hawke's reactions being determined by the player, because I usually feel like Hawke's reactions in fic are contrary to those emotions portrayed by the lines available and the delivery of those lines.

I have not, so far, read a single long-running fanfic I liked in which Hawke is not significantly ooc at several times in the story. In some, he manages to stick 100% to the lines said onscreen during scenes from the game, and behaves ooc only during scenes offscreen... but Hawke still consistently behaves differently than his/her established personality in fic, which to me clearly indicates that Hawke's default personality is too limited. Maybe most fic writers don't consider their particular Hawkes ooc, but as someone who has previously been employed as a writer for games who was required to maintain character tone between quests and conversations, I often read fic and think "Yes, why couldn't Hawke have been written more like this?" Hi-C even does this, going so far as to "break scene" at the end of his fic... a breaking of scene that I feel is much more emotionally interesting and real than the default scene.

When I play Mass Effect, I feel like I'm discovering Shepard's personality through the lines she delivers... when she says or does something, I add it to my picture of Commander Shepard, the character. My picture of her is made up of the puzzle created by all the lines she has said and actions she has taken laid out on the table of her vaguely defined origin story. I know that she likes old SF novels because of a banter with Ashley and Kaidan. I know that she is, at first, pretty much just pursuing casual sex with Garrus because of how she interacts with him. I'm not deciding that and picking options related to it, I'm learning it by experiencing it.

When I play DAO, I feel very free to determine what kind of character I'm playing. I'm not figuring out who she is based on what she does or how she reacts, I'm picking what she does and how she reacts, and I'm picking from a wide range of selections. I'll admit that I didn't get 'into" DA:O in the same way beause I was used to Mass Effect, and missed the voice. At the same time, though, when the PC is asking Alistair about the Chantry and sex, she can display so many very different attitudes that speak volumes about her attitude toward romance. I'm really steering and determining how she thinks and feels.

The problem I had with DA2 is that it did neither what ME does (creating a strong character and giving you the opportunity to truly understand her through the medium of story,) nor what DA:O did (create a wealth of divergent paths and decisions that allow you to define the personality of your own protagonist.) Instead, DA2 gave you a character who was both limited and whose decisions weren't powerful enough to teach you much about her.

Shepard is a man of action. I learn about my Shepard through her actions, the "why" she would do certain things add up until you make an inevitable conclusion about her based on everything she's wrought, based on what she has prioritized over what else.

The Warden is a woman of reaction. A lot of what defines the character is the wealth of reactions he can have to any situation. She's presented with lose/lose choices where the resulting decisions feel like damage control, but it's in that damage control that you can see what she actually prioritized.

Hawke... is Hawke. A lot of time his decisions come down to three different ways of expressing the same emotion, and have litte to no real effect on the world. Her romantic interactions are neither consistent with a strongly pre-established character nor flexible enough to allow the shaping of unique reactions.

Hawke is neither a fully-fleshed out character like Shepard nor a suite of expansive tools with which to created a character like the Warden. Hawke someitmes feels like a dummy set of emotions and experiences against which fic writers must push to make something legitimately theirs.

In a lot of ways, DA2 is like the Rocky Horror Picture show. There are all these gaps and incosistences over which we must shout... and the shouting is the fun. It's most of the fun. The shouting and the making up new things to shout. When we get to the bits we like, we sing along.

In Mass Effect, I'm watching a movie I generally enjoy, and where I can shape the protagonist to adhere to my vision of a hero. In DA:O, I'm telling a story, navgating creating a whole new perspective through which to see a world. In DA2 I'm shouting at the screen and singing along with the songs, but at this point I'm more interested in what's happening in the threater than on the screen.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 21 juin 2011 - 12:16 .