145 réponses à ce sujet

[Kelleth]

I can imagine that if Hawke chose to go neutral, mages and Templars would both join him/her in the fight.

[FedericoV]

Teddie Sage wrote...

To my eyes, it was the MOST obvious choice, but nope... The games kinda forced you to take a side... Kinda disappointing...

I do agree. Especially for the neutral/sarcastic Hawke that would have been the only choiche. As I said in another topic, it's like the writers has stepped in and said: now that's our story, you ain't free to choose your path and roleplay anymore. Since they have putted so much effort in showing us how both institutions and both leaders were beyond redemption, there was no point to side with one of them.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 11:31 .

[FedericoV]

Gabey5 wrote...

its a game

Yes, remind it to the writers next time .

[Knightly_BW]

FedericoV wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

To my eyes, it was the MOST obvious choice, but nope... The games kinda forced you to take a side... Kinda disappointing...

I do agree. Especially for the neutral/sarcastic Hawke that would have been the only choiche. As I said in another topic, it's like the writers has stepped in and said: now that's our story, you ain't free to choose your path and roleplay anymore. Since they have putted so much effort in showing us how both institutions and both leaders were beyond redemption, there was no point to side with one of them.

After some thinking, even I see a 3rd option as real logical one, I think they more focused on bigger event. They trying to find a way to tie-in DA 2: Story of Hawke to the future set up they have in mind. Possibly what seems too reasonable for us now, will seem less logical in that future.

However I still can't shake the feeling of how absurd for Cullen/Templars to want an apostate (mage hawke) as ruler of the city. More so why Hawke left without a trace after being a Viscount. At least in my both play throughs, he romanced with Fenris and Merrill and had his best friends in Kirkwall; Aveline and Varric. (Maybe leaving with Anders or Isabela make more sense for this disappareance).

[FedericoV]

I would add one thing: it's not a surprise that Orsino is a blood mage who has ties to the killer of your mother. First of all, because 90% of Kirkwall's mages has received some training in blood magic. But most important, if your read all the notes in the lair of Leandra's killer, there is one signed with a not so misterious O. that congratulates with the work of the blood mage... so, I expected Orsino to be a nasty blood mage/abomination. Being a mage, there is no point to side with him since you cannot trust him and his circle, while siding with Meredith is not even to be take in consideration since she considers Magic to be a curse/illness for wich the only cure is death.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[Knightly_BW]

Hah! Here I was thought I am too smart to figure it out by Act 2 finale. Only significant mage in game and interestingly his name begins with O.

[FedericoV]

Asperius wrote...

Hah! Here I was thought I am too smart to figure it out by Act 2 finale. Only significant mage in game and interestingly his name begins with O.

LOL

Infact, I'm feeling completely out of charachter toward him.

Even if you side with templars in Act. 3, your charachter is allways willing to give Orsino the benefit of the doubt and treats the mage with respect trying to find a compromise with Meredith. And I was kind: HOW? I suspect Orsino to be involved in the killing of my mother. I want him dead now, and then we can begin to discuss about the circle. Why I never_ever_ever raise the argument?

In general, I feel out of charachter since Anders blows the chantry (not because of him, I only regret not having pointed toward rivarly or avoided his personal quest for strict metagaming issue... but that's my fault, I should have followed my instinct).

It's how the game develops from there that leaves me so "meh". I have tried both sides and they both feel like I'm playing a different game. I've yet to finish the game with either side and I'm finding very hard to find the motivation, while I was really having a great time untill the very end of act 2 (and even with companion/side quests of Act 3).

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 12:54 .

[M8DMAN]

The Angry One wrote...

Me: "I don't want any part in this"

Anders: "No you must choose a side!!1!one"

Well if ALMIGHTY ANDERS the terrorist says so it must be true,. <_<

Yeah thats called the "But thou must" Trope.

[kyles3]

FedericoV wrote...

I've yet to finish the game with either side and I'm finding very hard to find the motivation, while I was really having a great time untill the very end of act 2 (and even with companion/side quests of Act 3).

My first real "HEY, WHA' HAPPENED?" moment in the game was the beginning of Act 3 with a First Enchanter ranting in the (Templar-controlled) streets. My second was when the tyrannical militant Knight-Commander engaged him in a cartoonish caricature of debate. 

All through the last act I found myself longing for the sort of sober and coherent exchanges one can have with the Arishok. I find supreme irony in the fact that the "heathen oxman" was the only reasonable adversary in the game.

[FedericoV]

kyles3 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

I've yet to finish the game with either side and I'm finding very hard to find the motivation, while I was really having a great time untill the very end of act 2 (and even with companion/side quests of Act 3).

My first real "HEY, WHA' HAPPENED?" moment in the game was the beginning of Act 3 with a First Enchanter ranting in the (Templar-controlled) streets. My second was when the tyrannical militant Knight-Commander engaged him in a cartoonish caricature of debate. 

All through the last act I found myself longing for the sort of sober and coherent exchanges one can have with the Arishok. I find supreme irony in the fact that the "heathen oxman" was the only reasonable adversary in the game.

Yep, I do agree. The confrontation with the Arishock (what a great charachter: he's better than Loghain) should have been the game final. The Orsino/Meredith situation should have been solved before the duel with him, as main plot quest that could have caused the reaction of the Qunari leader in act. 3. Right now, Act 3 feels like an expansion that was developed indipendently from the rest of the game. As I've allready said, you have the feeling that the writers were trying to make a point and cause a reaction and not to make good videogame storytelling (wich should allways be interactive and helps the gameplay, not the opposite like DA2's act. 3). It completely breaks my suspension of disbilief.

Just my two cents.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 01:39 .

[Lithuasil]

I'm still having a hard time seeing Mr. "So I couldn't find my relic for three years, but now that I know it's no longer in Kirkwall, let's burn the city a bit and all get killed" Arishok, as anything other then the savage moron he was :|

[Avissel]

Yeah...being neutral wouldn't have really made much of an ending.

Varric: So...then Hawke left the city and the Mages and Templar all killed each other.
Cassandra: Oh....so then I guess Hawke doesn't matter. Since he didn't take part in the relevant events we cant really use him as a rallying point.

I can't really think of a game where you can truly pick neutrality in the games central conflict.

[FedericoV]

Lithuasil wrote...
I'm still having a hard time seeing Mr. "So I couldn't find my relic for three years, but now that I know it's no longer in Kirkwall, let's burn the city a bit and all get killed" Arishok, as anything other then the savage moron he was :|

You c'ant really say that the reaction of the Arishock was unprovoked or undeserved. We must have played two different games. They killed his unarmed ambassadors. They killed Seamus who converted freely to the Qun. They abducted the Qunari Mage. They forced the issue of the two elves that were no guiltier than Hawke himself of seeking justice where the guards weren't interested in doing so.

Then, I do agree that the confrontation with the Arishock could have used more preparation and have more climax, if only they would have insisted in that way instead of trying to introduce two new "enemies" out of nowhere (without having the necessary time/resources to flesh those charachter in a way that could keep me interested in the story). 

[brain_damage]

You try telling Meredith that she's wrong and she'll slap you silly. With the pointy edge of a sword.


And then she'll wear your face as a hat.

Modifié par brain_damage, 30 mars 2011 - 02:34 .

[Lithuasil]

@FedericoV

You're mixing "a few fanatics that are actively hunted by the viscount" with "the city of kirkwall". Saying the Arishok had any reason to do what he did, is like saying that the US are well within their rights to invade and bombard every single country any Alquaeda member ever set food in.

The qun demanded he get the relic back and remain neutral. He just lost it. An imperfect system, brought down by human failure because the one in charge was a hot-headed moron. That's all there is to it.

[FedericoV]

Avissel wrote...

Yeah...being neutral wouldn't have really made much of an ending.

Varric: So...then Hawke left the city and the Mages and Templar all killed each other.
Cassandra: Oh....so then I guess Hawke doesn't matter. Since he didn't take part in the relevant events we cant really use him as a rallying point.

I can't really think of a game where you can truly pick neutrality in the games central conflict.

They could have find a way to make an ending out of it. Possibilities are endless and since act. 3 has more plot holes than emmenthal cheese it would not have been a great deal at the end. Like, you have to fight both sides with the helping of the city guards (wich is the only good institution in Kirkwall thanks to Avelline) and Kirkwall nobility. You have to face both sides (just like the other two) but you will not become viscount anymore.

Having said that, Hawke is not at the center of the conflict. He has zero controll over it.

[Avissel]

FedericoV wrote...
They could have find a way to make an ending out of it. Possibilities are endless and since act. 3 has more plot holes than emmenthal cheese it would not have been a great deal at the end. Like, you have to fight both sides with the helping of the city guards (wich is the only good institution in Kirkwall thanks to Avelline) and Kirkwall nobility. You have to face both sides (just like the other two) but you will not become viscount anymore.

Having said that, Hawke is not at the center of the conflict. He has zero controll over it.

So, you kill both sides for the city guard.

Hawke is still useless in the greater conflict of the mage vs templar war that starts at the end of DA2. The whole point of the story is to make Hawke a rallying figure for which ever side he choose. Nobody will rally around the guy who solved the issue by killing both sides. Hawke may have ended up important to Kirkwall, but the point of the story was to make him important on the world stage.

It would be like if Origins had a "Wait for the Grey Wardens from Orlai to show up" option.

[Lithuasil]

The main difference being, that Hawke doesn't actually have the choice to remain neutral, where the warden has every reason to lay low, and go get more wardens.

[Avissel]

That's not a difference.

Neither character has the ability to remain neutral to the games central conflict.

[Comrade Bork]

I did not understand why you couldn't side with Thrask and Grace. Yes, Grace was a little crazy, but the idea should not have died there. Why they just decided to burn that bridge without our concent will boggle my mind.

[FedericoV]

Lithuasil wrote...

@FedericoV

You're mixing "a few fanatics that are actively hunted by the viscount" with "the city of kirkwall". Saying the Arishok had any reason to do what he did, is like saying that the US are well within their rights to invade and bombard every single country any Alquaeda member ever set food in.

The qun demanded he get the relic back and remain neutral. He just lost it. An imperfect system, brought down by human failure because the one in charge was a hot-headed moron. That's all there is to it.

Oh, God. It's a game, not real life. A G-A-M-E. Stop with those comparisons, they are insulting for all the people who have died in the recent "wars on terror" (both civilian and military). Wars in real life are made for money, oil and resources. Period. Ideology comes next and only serves as secondary justification for the brainwashed masses who believe them. I won't follow you on that plan: let's talk about DA2, a videogame.

Games fortunately have different level of logic and realism than real life (thanks god!). I think that the Arishock has received enough provocations to react against Kirkwall's elite and general population. From his point of view, I understand his reaction even if I think that a little bit more of work araound it in terms of story could have helped to make it feel less rushed (see my position before on the matter). Is he wrong? Off course, he's wrong. That's why I am his antagonist even if I respect him.

[Avissel]

Comrade Bork wrote...

I did not understand why you couldn't side with Thrask and Grace. Yes, Grace was a little crazy, but the idea should not have died there. Why they just decided to burn that bridge without our concent will boggle my mind.

Because Grace decided to attack you because she blamed all of her problems on you instead of seeing it was caused by herself.

Thrask was arrested.

You can't really side with a prisoner and a corpse.

[Lithuasil]

It can be a game as much as it wants, that doesn't change the fact that real life analogies help getting points across. The Arishok turned on a neutral party trying to help him, without *any* reason to do so.
All I'm saying is - the qunari are more interesting to butcher then darkspawn, but I can't comprehend how one can feel respect for them.

[Avissel]

oops, double post because of fourm update lag.

Modifié par Avissel, 30 mars 2011 - 03:02 .

[Knightly_BW]

Avissel wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
They could have find a way to make an ending out of it. Possibilities are endless and since act. 3 has more plot holes than emmenthal cheese it would not have been a great deal at the end. Like, you have to fight both sides with the helping of the city guards (wich is the only good institution in Kirkwall thanks to Avelline) and Kirkwall nobility. You have to face both sides (just like the other two) but you will not become viscount anymore.

Having said that, Hawke is not at the center of the conflict. He has zero controll over it.

So, you kill both sides for the city guard.

Hawke is still useless in the greater conflict of the mage vs templar war that starts at the end of DA2. The whole point of the story is to make Hawke a rallying figure for which ever side he choose. Nobody will rally around the guy who solved the issue by killing both sides. Hawke may have ended up important to Kirkwall, but the point of the story was to make him important on the world stage.

It would be like if Origins had a "Wait for the Grey Wardens from Orlai to show up" option.

Hawke is a rallying figure? He more feels like dragged-in figure. As I always say anyone can side with one of those factions.

If you think he is the Champion of Kirkwall he disgrace himself with either following a lunatic woman and killing innocent mages or siding and supporting Blood mages/Abominations to defy will of the Maker. I see little to no reason for Seekers to desperately seeking this kinda guy to help them with world class event. Cullen is more important as he turned against his superior to protect mages and ending the conflict.

In my opinion ending a conflict with whatever way you find is more impressive than adding one more blade to one side of it.