57019 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Whatever they do, I hope they don't do a repeat of Leliana. If you want a character to always return in a new game, do not make them killable in the previous.

[Nilfalasiel]

Collider wrote...

Whatever they do, I hope they don't do a repeat of Leliana. If you want a character to always return in a new game, do not make them killable in the previous.

Agreed. It's probably easier said than done to tell the developers "well, think your storylines through or at least consider whom you *might* include in future games", but it's true that having Anders, Leliana, Nate and Zevran all return no matter what happened to them previously is a bit baffling. I wouldn't kill either of them, but it prompts unnecessary hating from people who did.

@ AndreaDraco:  He looks like a villain from a Disney cartoon. Gaston from Beauty and the Beast or something (wrong hair colour, but it's just the facial expression).

[Heidenreich]

berelinde wrote...

This is relevent to absolutely nothing we've been talking about, but I have this sudden desire to write an AU fic with the DA2 gang having a pizza party at the Hawke mansion and everybody squabbling about what toppings to order.

Anders would probably eat anything you put in front of him, but if he got to choose, he would probably want extra cheese. He is Fereldan, after all.

Aveline would probably go for the veggie pie. It's healthy and not too spicy.

Bethany woud go along with whatever everyone else decided. She doesn't like to make a fuss.

Carver would get the meat-lovers' special, with extra sausage.

Fenris would probably like anchovies and black olives. It's a Tevinter thing.

Isabela likes sausage. She also likes clams, though, so it would depend on her mood. Whichever she ordered, though, she'd be sure to make a joke about it.

Merrill would want pineapple. She's not afraid of the unusual.

Sebastian wants plain cheese, nothing exotic.

Varric likes his Chicago style with sausage and peppers.

I would like attention to be drawn to the bolded bit.

A correction is order: Fenris does not like fish. At all. "Fish, fish and more fish. Phfech!" Thus, he would pointedly not like anchovies. Instead, replace anchovies, with.. eggplant.

Which is weird, and my Hawke would make faces and Merrill would be like ".... can I try it?" and he's be like "NO" and hoard his pizza and a bottle of wine. In the closest dark corner. Untill my hawke is like "why are you hiding" and drags him back... but still wont eat his pizza. She might be insufferable and pick off the olive slices one at a time to eat though.

I NEED COFFEE.

Also? Pinaapple pizza would be gone, because pinapple pizza is the ****.



Yes I can totally see us NEEDING a DA2 pizza party. And KHS will be getting one. Thanks a lot, Anders thread.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 11 septembre 2011 - 12:54 .

[Arquen]

LOL, indeed... I didn't want to say anything since I try to keep my Fenris comments in the Fenris thread, but yeah .. NO fish.

I would say Fenris would be Wild Mushrooms and Olives. With a side of nice red wine. Muahaha.

On topic: I think they did a lot of hand waiving as far as character choices in DA2. Yet I can't really see how you can make it to some kind of universal standard when you have so many opportunities and choices with the companion's outcomes. In DA2 you can literally end the game with like 2 companions. How can you make up for that kind of variety? I think they HAD to hand waive Anders and Leliana and Nate and Zevran and Alistair simply because it was the only way to even include them.

Then there is the choice to just not include them at all, but I find that rather hollow because honestly I think there is a nice continuity when previous characters make a cameo. Perhaps it does promote "hate" from people who killed off these characters in their playthrough, but I don't think that is a reason to completely ignore them in further developments. I didn't mind that they brought these characters back, and I didn't even like Leliana that much. I didn't rage out when she made an appearance. I guess I just don't understand the big deal about it. Then again perhaps it is because I can see it as a whole and don't specifically tune into ONE character and roleplay them specifically and that's how it went and that's it! The game is about choices, and I do multiple playthroughs to get and see all the choices. So what is to say choice A is better or "more canon" than choice B? If the devs decide choice A allows a character to come back and choice B is not a popular option and doesn't allow the character to come back then why not go with choice A?

I think a lot of the hate for Anders just stems from "he's not my funny/witty/awesome Anders anymore! He's ruined!" -- which, to be fair, is a legitimate statement because he did change, but he isn't "ruined."

[Collider]

The game is about choices, and I do multiple playthroughs to get and see all the choices.

I think that's exactly the argument of people opposed to characters always coming back. If the game is about choices, why are they invalidating some of them so blatantly?

[Nilfalasiel]

Arquen wrote...

On topic: I think they did a lot of hand waiving as far as character choices in DA2. Yet I can't really see how you can make it to some kind of universal standard when you have so many opportunities and choices with the companion's outcomes. In DA2 you can literally end the game with like 2 companions. How can you make up for that kind of variety? I think they HAD to hand waive Anders and Leliana and Nate and Zevran and Alistair simply because it was the only way to even include them.

Then there is the choice to just not include them at all, but I find that rather hollow because honestly I think there is a nice continuity when previous characters make a cameo. Perhaps it does promote "hate" from people who killed off these characters in their playthrough, but I don't think that is a reason to completely ignore them in further developments. I didn't mind that they brought these characters back, and I didn't even like Leliana that much. I didn't rage out when she made an appearance. I guess I just don't understand the big deal about it. Then again perhaps it is because I can see it as a whole and don't specifically tune into ONE character and roleplay them specifically and that's how it went and that's it! The game is about choices, and I do multiple playthroughs to get and see all the choices. So what is to say choice A is better or "more canon" than choice B? If the devs decide choice A allows a character to come back and choice B is not a popular option and doesn't allow the character to come back then why not go with choice A?

I think a lot of the hate for Anders just stems from "he's not my funny/witty/awesome Anders anymore! He's ruined!" -- which, to be fair, is a legitimate statement because he did change, but he isn't "ruined."

Oh, I didn't mean not include them: just make them unkillable. Plot armour is fairly easy to ensure. Leliana is one of my least favourite DA companions, but if they're gonna make her part of the overarching plot, give her plot armour. It just makes more sense that way.

I've seen plenty of haters going "but I slit Zevran's throat/I executed Nate!/Anders is dead in my game! why are they still alive?!" I do agree that that's not the main source of hate for Anders: most of it comes from the "he's ruined" perspective, the "emo whiner" one, and, of course, the "he's a mass murderer who killed hundreds of innocent people" one. But I get the impression that the fact that they made him unkillable doesn't do anything to soften those kinds of stances. It just irks those people further, especially with all the existing criticism regarding the illusion of choice in DA2.

Maybe it's just me though.

[Collider]

Oh, I didn't mean not include them: just make them unkillable. Plot armour is fairly easy to ensure. Leliana is one of my least favourite DA companions, but if they're gonna make her part of the overarching plot, give her plot armour. It just makes more sense that way.

Agreed.

[esper]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

Arquen wrote...

On topic: I think they did a lot of hand waiving as far as character choices in DA2. Yet I can't really see how you can make it to some kind of universal standard when you have so many opportunities and choices with the companion's outcomes. In DA2 you can literally end the game with like 2 companions. How can you make up for that kind of variety? I think they HAD to hand waive Anders and Leliana and Nate and Zevran and Alistair simply because it was the only way to even include them.

Then there is the choice to just not include them at all, but I find that rather hollow because honestly I think there is a nice continuity when previous characters make a cameo. Perhaps it does promote "hate" from people who killed off these characters in their playthrough, but I don't think that is a reason to completely ignore them in further developments. I didn't mind that they brought these characters back, and I didn't even like Leliana that much. I didn't rage out when she made an appearance. I guess I just don't understand the big deal about it. Then again perhaps it is because I can see it as a whole and don't specifically tune into ONE character and roleplay them specifically and that's how it went and that's it! The game is about choices, and I do multiple playthroughs to get and see all the choices. So what is to say choice A is better or "more canon" than choice B? If the devs decide choice A allows a character to come back and choice B is not a popular option and doesn't allow the character to come back then why not go with choice A?

I think a lot of the hate for Anders just stems from "he's not my funny/witty/awesome Anders anymore! He's ruined!" -- which, to be fair, is a legitimate statement because he did change, but he isn't "ruined."

Oh, I didn't mean not include them: just make them unkillable. Plot armour is fairly easy to ensure. Leliana is one of my least favourite DA companions, but if they're gonna make her part of the overarching plot, give her plot armour. It just makes more sense that way.

I've seen plenty of haters going "but I slit Zevran's throat/I executed Nate!/Anders is dead in my game! why are they still alive?!" I do agree that that's not the main source of hate for Anders: most of it comes from the "he's ruined" perspective, the "emo whiner" one, and, of course, the "he's a mass murderer who killed hundreds of innocent people" one. But I get the impression that the fact that they made him unkillable doesn't do anything to soften those kinds of stances. It just irks those people further, especially with all the existing criticism regarding the illusion of choice in DA2.

Maybe it's just me though.

While I agree with your main point I think that Zev and Nate was supposed to be dead if it weren't for those import bugs...
As for Anders, almost all of his ending slides has been explained by now.

[Arquen]

It's funny how you can turn that argument around then -- The game is about choices, so who is to say that the choice of A is greater than the choice of B. If I made choice A in one game, and choice B in another game, then both choices exist. Therefore, if both choices exist, why not accept that choice A exists no matter what. So then... both choices exist and always exist... then why not be able to pick and choose which choices are canon? Your choice still exists.. somewhere, but so do all the others. To say it invalidates your choice in your game is therefore wrong because all choices exist, but not all can be shown.

If there was plot armor then the choice would be truly gone - ala your mother and sibling in DA2. The "illusion" of choice is simply that, but it still makes for a choice, and you still want it. The outcome in the end and in other games may be based on a "universal" choice, but to completely take away personal options cheapens the game moreso than going with a certain "universal" formula that reflects on the whole.

As said, the game is about choices -- because there are so many choices to make creates a paradox where the developers must either take away choice and put you on the choo choo train or allow you to make a choice and then compile all the possible choices to come out with some universal "not wrong" outcome which may or may not allow for characters to return.

ALSO ALSO -- Schrödinger's cat -- that is all

Re-reading this post makes it sound like something out of the twilight zone

Modifié par Arquen, 11 septembre 2011 - 02:09 .

[berelinde]

Arquen wrote...
Re-reading this post makes it sound like something out of the twilight zone

Uh, yeah. I agree with you, but it puts my poor caffeine-deprived brain into stand-by mode until the processors cool down.

[Nilfalasiel]

Arquen wrote...

It's funny how you can turn that argument around then -- The game is about choices, so who is to say that the choice of A is greater than the choice of B. If I made choice A in one game, and choice B in another game, then both choices exist. Therefore, if both choices exist, why not accept that choice A exists no matter what. So then... both choices exist and always exist... then why not be able to pick and choose which choices are canon? Your choice still exists.. somewhere, but so do all the others. To say it invalidates your choice in your game is therefore wrong because all choices exist, but not all can be shown.

If there was plot armor then the choice would be truly gone - ala your mother and sibling in DA2. The "illusion" of choice is simply that, but it still makes for a choice, and you still want it. The outcome in the end and in other games may be based on a "universal" choice, but to completely take away personal options cheapens the game moreso than going with a certain "universal" formula that reflects on the whole.

As said, the game is about choices -- because there are so many choices to make creates a paradox where the developers must either take away choice and put you on the choo choo train or allow you to make a choice and then compile all the possible choices to come out with some universal "not wrong" outcome which may or may not allow for characters to return.

ALSO ALSO -- Schrödinger's cat -- that is all

Re-reading this post makes it sound like something out of the twilight zone

Well, yes, but if the choice wasn't there in the first place, would you really miss it? Or, rather, put it this way: would you be more upset about not having a choice about something at all, or being given a choice, then having that choice invalidated down the line?

I have no problem accepting that, say, Bann Teagan or Morrigan can't die. I'm never given a choice to kill them, and, as far as I'm concerned, they're both part of the overarching plot. As long as there are other choices present (and ones that do have significant impacts), I can accept that there are areas of the game that are simply set in stone. So if, say, there are no points in the game where I can kill Leliana, I wouldn't mind it as much as if there was, and I did pick that choice, and then suddenly had her pop back up, unwanted and unannounced in DA2. I just accept her as necessary to the overall storyline. 

Or maybe it's because I come from a JRPG background, where you're lucky to have any kind of input on the characters' decisions, and thus don't mind a bit of railroading. Just as long as you don't masquerade railroading as a possible choosing point.

Also, just to clear things up, I really don't feel all that strongly about this issue, it's more of a mild irritation at inconsistency than anything else.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 11 septembre 2011 - 02:31 .

[Arquen]

It doesn't matter what choices you make, they all end up at the same destination. You were going to make that choice no matter what...

wait a second... /philosophy mode off...

LOL, the fact is "if the choice wasn't there in the first place, would you really miss it? Or, rather, put it this way: would you be more upset about not having a choice about something at all, or being given a choice, then having that choice invalidated down the line?" -- THIS is very subjective and you aren't going to find a universal answer.

A lot of people were upset that you couldn't save Hawke's mother no matter what or choose which sibling to save no matter what. Your choices define your game, but the game itself and the universal story are not your own. As stated the simple multiplication of choices is impossible to show. One has to accept that choices made in the game may inevitably lead to some univeral "canon." To not have a choice is to simply cheapen the game. It no longer becomes about choices, but a simple story with a simple outcome. No longer able to scatter in multiple directions but stuck in a "doesn't matter what I do.. so why bother" rut.

[LT123]

esper wrote...

While I agree with your main point I think that Zev and Nate was supposed to be dead if it weren't for those import bugs...
As for Anders, almost all of his ending slides has been explained by now.

Ever after=until the Warden wandered off to Antiva/Orlais/to find Morrigan.

Poor guy. His only happy ending slide is a lie.

On a related note, Nate is wielding two daggers in his ending slide, which is a little strange.

[Ashwraith]

LT123 wrote...

Ever after=until the Warden wandered off to Antiva/Orlais/to find Morrigan.

We can't leave these people alone for five minutes, can we?
I swear, one of these days the Warden will get up to make popcorn... and return to find an Old God sitting on the couch, an Exalted March tracking dirt all over the foyer, and Orlais reduced to a pile of smouldering rubble.

Modifié par Ashwraith, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:46 .

[berelinde]

Ashwraith wrote...

LT123 wrote...

Ever after=until the Warden wandered off to Antiva/Orlais/to find Morrigan.

We can't leave these people alone for five minutes, can we?
I swear, one of these days the Warden will get up to make popcorn... and return to find an Old God sitting on the couch, an Exalted March tracking dirt all over the foyer, and Orlais reduced to a pile of smouldering rubble.

So, you got your copy of DA3 early, I take it?

I always figured this was what happened when my Amell Warden went back to Denerim for a few weeks to have some private time with her boyfriend beloved sovereign, King Alistair.

[Arquen]

"There are no happy endings because nothing ends" -- Schmendrik, The Last Unicorn

Oh yeah, I totally went there.

Basically those epilogue slides were kind of hit and miss for me. I assumed that it was a temporary stopping place in the story. That "ever after" never rang in my head like "forever." Perhaps that is just me though. If a story ends than it ends, but I think the best stories are the ones that can live on past their stated ending.

[SurelyForth]

Arquen wrote...

"There are no happy endings because nothing ends" -- Schmendrik, The Last Unicorn

Oh yeah, I totally went there.

Basically those epilogue slides were kind of hit and miss for me. I assumed that it was a temporary stopping place in the story. That "ever after" never rang in my head like "forever." Perhaps that is just me though. If a story ends than it ends, but I think the best stories are the ones that can live on past their stated ending.

The way I saw it was this: the epilogues are closure for those who will never play beyond that very game. That way, everyone gets an ending even if they never pick up the sequels and it leaves BW free to do what they want.

That's one of the reasons why I thought it was weird that DA2 lacked them. There's no sort of closure for Hawke/companions...it's very "the real ending will be DLC."

[Amondra]

SurelyForth wrote...

Arquen wrote...

"There are no happy endings because nothing ends" -- Schmendrik, The Last Unicorn

Oh yeah, I totally went there.

Basically those epilogue slides were kind of hit and miss for me. I assumed that it was a temporary stopping place in the story. That "ever after" never rang in my head like "forever." Perhaps that is just me though. If a story ends than it ends, but I think the best stories are the ones that can live on past their stated ending.

The way I saw it was this: the epilogues are closure for those who will never play beyond that very game. That way, everyone gets an ending even if they never pick up the sequels and it leaves BW free to do what they want.

That's one of the reasons why I thought it was weird that DA2 lacked them. There's no sort of closure for Hawke/companions...it's very "the real ending will be DLC."

I felt the same way.  The ending came and I was sitting there waiting for the 'ending' It was like a cliffhanger, but I am sure Hawke won't be in the third game, so I was a little upset about how they went about with the ending, so I hope the 'ending' comes in a DLC.

[Heidenreich]

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of my Hawke just disapearing into the sunset, and the rest of her life being nothing more then a quiet life on a boat with a sexy pirate and the LI of my choice ;p

[berelinde]

I would rather have no epilogue slides at all than find that they've all been contradicted in the next game. Actually, I thought that was the reason they left them off, this time.

[Heidenreich]

I am an awful person. I was listening to Oasis (who my daughter has now officially dubbed "the harry potter band" >.>) and starting laughing hysterically at "Champagne Super-Nova"

Because its a Champagne Super-Nova in the sky.


and All I could see, was the Chantry Ka-boom.

Terrible person.

[LT123]

It's National Video Games Day, everyone!  Time to do some righteous Grey Wardening!



Or watch Anders beat down darkspawn. That works too.

I'm guessing the ending will be shown in DLC or an expansion pack.

Modifié par LT123, 12 septembre 2011 - 11:44 .

[berelinde]

LT123 wrote...

It's National Video Games Day, everyone!  Time to do some righteous Grey Wardening!



Or watch Anders beat down darkspawn. That works too.

I'm guessing the ending will be shown in DLC or an expansion pack.

When I read that, I thought that you had seen a trailer from an upcoming DLC that featured more Wardens and that the posted image was from the trailer. I have really, really poor reading comprehension skills. I wondered because I know that they will be announcing a new story DLC soon, and it *is* remotely possible that somebody ninja'd the official announcement.

But that's still one of the coolest screenshots ever.

[Arquen]

Yeah more story DLC.. Rumors abound, but who knows what it actually will be like. Obviously Hawke focused, but where in the story is anyone's guess.

Good screenie, though.

You know I have mixed feelings on Da2 ending. Honestly at first I felt cheated. Like "now you must wait and buy Dlc!" I felt it was gimmicky. However, after more playthroughs I found I prefer a "sailing into the sunset" with a promise of a continued story. Better than epilogue slides that ended up being... "wait a minute... what?" And glazed over the bits they could have put in DLC.

I think when Da3 comes out I will mourn Da2 a bit. I just got rather attached to Hawke, and will miss them and the companions. The only thing I really hope is that the Dlc isn't freaking buggy *grumble*Fenrisdialogue*grumble*

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I do hope that there is a DLC/Expansion that at least in some way addresses the actual start of the war, and whether or not Hawke decides to have a significant part in it. I just don't see how anything else story-wise will actually make Hawke more of a... thing for me.

DA:O wins it for me in the protagonist area, DA2 in the companions (well, if you don't count the Awakening companions, who are practically tied. Double Anders, Sigrun vs. Varric, and then Fenris vs Nate? Too close to call.)

I was actually thinking about this in the Fenris thread earlier... and kind of touched on it, but didn't really explore it. Let me sum up for those who don't haunt both: I think that Hawke is a reactive person, and the Warden is a proactive one. The Warden does things, hoping they'll work out... sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. (Sparing vs. killing Loghain, doing the Dark Ritual, choosing the ruler of Ferelden. ending the blight). Hawke is reactive: waiting for something to happen, and then dealing with it, rather than putting things into action. Hawke doesn't blow the chantry, but determines what happens after it blows. I'm not saying that one of these things is inherently superior to the other... they're just different tactics. I can see the Warden ending up in Kirkwall and starting a civil war in the first week, rather than allowing moderate stability to reign for nearly a decade.

That said, this is the reason I'm so conflicted about the relationships. I realized part of this while reading Coffee, Black (naturally). Fenris is the kind of person who needs someone who will react to him, rather than forcing him into action. He needs someone who will just listen, and then ask him what he thinks, but not actually force him into anything. He needs someone just like Hawke, basically. Even Rival Hawke is usually pretty calm when talking with Fenris, often dry and sarcastic, rather than shouty or confrontational.

Anders, on the other hand, needs someone to grab him by the shoulders in Act 1 and say ""I love you! GET HELP." At the very latest, this needs to happen immediately after Ella. Not just "stay, you're stronger than this" and then step back and let him sort it out by himself. He can't sort it out by himself! That only works on Fenrises!

Now me, personally, I'm the grab-you-by-the-shoulders kind of person. I am most assuredly not the kind of person who would be able to sit back for three years while someone who I know is crazy about me gets his head together. I would constantly be trying to talk about it, and if that failed I'd just give up. I envy people who can do that, but it would drive me absolutely nuts. Sure, if they showed up at the end of three years and I happened to be still single, I'd deal with it on a minute-to-minute basis, but I'd be pissed... and I'd probably go right back to being proactive and in-their-face and challenging, and they'd probably flee.

But that makes me realize why so many of my Hawkes gravitate to Fenris initially, and why some meant for Anders got stolen by Fen and Isabella (I still have more Anders-mances than any other, but it took three tries to get Anders an apostate).

I used to be upset that they didn't give us a chance to have Hawke really proactively try to get Anders help. It wasn't until recently that I realized that there are some people who just aren't the type to do something like that, and often that's a good thing. Hawke really seems to believe Anders can handle his own issues. It's not his fault that he's wrong... it's actually more charitable to think that than to think "look, you obviously can't handle this and don't know what's good for you, so I'm going to solve everything." Which is pretty much exactly what my Warden did to poor Alistair, because that's the Warden's way. The Warden thinks she knows better than everyone. Hawke trusts things to go OK, and acts only when things get bad, rather than presuming to control the universe. It's far less egotistical, but there are some problems that it just can't solve.