83 réponses à ce sujet

[Andronic0s]

Saying that the you have a "choice" in how to react is like saying a slave is "free" because it can choose how to carry out his masters commands, I have to strongly disagree with this, there can be no choice without consequence and there is almost never such a thing in DA2 and I have played games (some of them by Bioware itself) where with choice and all I became emotionally attached to characters and had powerful moments so a lack of choice/Linear path it is not a perquisite for such a thing.

[highcastle]

Halo Quea wrote...

highcastle wrote...



That scene might not have been "good" to you because you couldn't change it, but that's precisely what made it so powerful to me. Leandra got quite a bit of characterization. I was genuinely fond of her. Trying and failing to save her was a defining moment of the game.

It was?   Now this is funny to me because Hawke tries and fails at nearly everything, especially if it was his/her intention to keep someone alive.  Now if Hawke is supposed to go in a kill anything and everything that moves, well then basically he/she succeeds.

It wasn't a defining moment for me because that's nearly EVERY moment in the game.   Hawke doesn't seem to have the ability to "be there" when it counts.  Leandra, Seamus, Viscount Dumar, Grace, Thrask, the Eleven Wife in the Alienage, the Qunari delegates, Anders (oh gawd Anders!).  I could go on and on. 

Hawke definitely fails at times, but that's not to say he fails all the time. He succeeds with Feynriel twice. He can initially save Grace (her later betrayal is a result of her own failings; from Hawke's perspective, he successfully rescued her from the Circle without killing anyone except her boyfriend). He kills the Arishok which is a huge success. He can save Isabela's life. He can save or kill Javaris. He can reunite Charade and Gamlen, which may not save a life in the strictest sense but definitely gives Gamlen a purpose and something to live for. He can save Keran's life and let the poor boy keep his job. He can save Carver's life in the Deep Roads by bringing him to the Wardens (remember, though Anders makes the offer, it's Hawke who has to accept). I could also go on and on about the times Hawke succeeds.

The thing is, most gamers expect to succeed, so they don't remember the victories. But you remember when you fail because it sticks in your mind. And I'd argue the fact that you remember the failures speaks to the quality of the game. Again, that frustration and anger, you're supposed to feel it. You're not supposed to be happy you failed. But it gives Hawke incentive to try harder the next time. It gives him motivation.

The simple fact is that Hawke isn't meant to change anything in Kirkwall, his presense as a sword or staff for hire could be viewed as purely opportunistic.  People in Kirkwall need killing?  Hawke is your man/woman.   Want to solve a crisis before it blows completely out control?  Don't call Hawke.

 

How you role play a character is your own choice, but you can't say Hawke didn't have an impact. He defeated the Arishok, after all, either by sending him away with Isabela, on the battlefield, or in single combat. He single-handedly averted the destruction of Kirkwall. That's a big moment in the game. In fact, that's part of the reason that makes Hawke's failure to save Kirkwall in Act 3 so dramatic. Everyone turns to him because he did it once before, but he can't repeat that success. Failing once does not mean never succeeding, though.

My Hawke was trying to make the city a better place. He was angling for viscount, and only through siding with the mages did he fall short of this goal. I wouldn't call him opportunistic, but he definitely looked out for his family first because he felt it was his responsibility to do so after his father's death and Carver's departure for the Wardens.

Hawke likes to wait, and wait.......and wait some more.   Like waiting for nightfall and following blood trails that any fool could have followed during the day time.   But this is Hawke we're talking about here, a person who wouldn't even get off his/her butt to go tell poor Bethany their mom died.   With Hawke there's never a need to rush, or any  sense of urgency.  Now Hawke LOVES to ask you what your problems are and LOVES offering to help. The problem is that Hawke never actually solve problems.   Hawke will kill your problems for you, but only AFTER they've become UNSOLVABLE.

Err, I'm confused here. Admittedly I've never played with a non-mage Hawke, but I had the option to tell Carver about his mother. Does this not crop up with Bethany? Or did you not explore all dialogue options? I'm really confused.

Regarding Hawke and waiting...again, I'm not sure what to say. 1) You don't know what time of day Hawke returned to his house. It could have been early evening, so by the time he set out to find the blood trail, it was already dark. 2) If you opt to go to DuPuis, there's no waiting involved. You go straight to Darktown right away and do his ritual to find Leandra. My Hawke leapt into action.

In fact, I don't really know when Hawke waits on anything. It all depends on when you choose to do the quests. And let's not forget about gameplay and story segregation. The quests are open enough to let you complete them at your leisure. That doesn't mean in-universe that Hawke just sat around twiddling his thumbs instead of leaping into action. This is one of the caveats of the genre.

Also, Hawke doesn't have to solve every problem with violence. I talked my way out of a skirmish with Fereldens trying to protect Anders in Act 1. I talked my way out of Grace's problems in Act 1. I talked my way out of the slavers trying to abduct Feynriel. Hawke has many ways to solve problems, particularly if you look to companions for help and giudance. I'm not sure why you think you have to kill every problem.

[underyourspell]

I'm not sure I understand the complaint here.

Are we upset because the developers didn't write and code two dozen different storylines and let us choose which parts of each we want to play? They're telling a story, your player character has a certain amount of freedom within that story, and that's how video games work.

The trade-off for characters who are actually realized (for example Leandra and your companions) is that you can't always control exactly what happens to them. Maybe three generations of hardware from now Bioware will be able to offer you an engrossing world where you can do anything you want. Should be fun.

[varcety]

underyourspell wrote...

I'm not sure I understand the complaint here.

Are we upset because the developers didn't write and code two dozen different storylines and let us choose which parts of each we want to play? They're telling a story, your player character has a certain amount of freedom within that story, and that's how video games work.

If I wanted to play a linear third person action game I would have gone for one.
When I pre-purchased DA2 I expected something else.

[Kilshrek]

@highcastle

The problem with your responses is that they're companion dependent (mostly). Having your sibling in the party helps with talking to the Fereldens. Having Varric in your party throws the Templars off the trail. Having Anders in the party saves your sibling. None of this is Hawke's work, it's depending on your party makeup. If you don't bring Anders into the Deep Roads with you your sibling dies. I don't know what happens if you don't bring your sibling for the Ferelden encounter or Varric for the Templars, admittedly, but a lot of the time Hawke is "too late". Feynriel is a good example of the sort of moments I'm talking about, but there really aren't many like that. Seamus dies for what? To prove Petrice is mad? Then she gets shot by a Qunari, for what? To prove that they don't forgive and forget? In front of Aveline? And my trump card, Orsino (if you're pro-mage). Where the heck did that come from, really. Things were going swimmingly against the Templars if you asked me.

My point was that if the story requires someone to die for impact, I'd rather have a little say in it as well, this being the game I'm playing. Instead I'm just being ushered along the story, with little say in major events. Dumar's head rolling towards me was slightly expected, given the RtP trailer, but again I stormed the palace, beat a couple dozen Qunari, only to be too late. And about responding to the event, Hawke doesn't seem all to beat up after Leandra's death. Small moments with some companions, and that's that. On being too late to save the blood mage's wife and the Viscount, "Choose diplomatic/smarmy/aggresive response". I don't know about Hawke but I was pretty frustrated by the end of all that.

[CoolCR]

NO NO NO dont no arishok mentions with positives i just said on the other page

"He kills the Arishok which is a huge success. He can save Isabela's life."

Isabela esacapes anyway even if you give her to the Arishok your choice is noble one but the game makes it pointless, true this happens in real life but honestly games are intence cause the cut the crap of real life.

Most of the people you talk about are tiny bit players Grace is some twisted tervinter mage and Javaris is a greedy dwarf merchent i mean we know nothing about them out side this and you cannot call not killing someone saving them. In the case of Javaris Hawk doesnt say anything about the huge number of bodygards hes killed for abosolutly no reason who its implied are ferelden.

How does hawk save the city im sure Meradith could have taken them on with her temps the first enchanter and all the mages just as easily as hawk can with like three people.

Even if she couldnt doesnt actual seem like the Qun is a terible way to live and might well have saved the city from what happens in act 3.

This is a complaint i have of a lot of game there is hardly ever mercy you just kill and keep killing if it moves kill it. "He succeeds with Feynriel twice" I asked feynriel to let the mage go he killed her anyway. I got him to let his own sister go honestly why would he kill her he's finaly go his revenge and all he should be happy her telling him that she did it for a reward was stuppid she what did she think would happen NPC's should lie more. Thats anothing we hardly ever lie ffs its very effective anders does it to great plot shattering effect.

"Err, I'm confused here. Admittedly I've never played with a non-mage Hawke, but I had the option to tell Carver about his mother. Does this not crop up with Bethany? Or did you not explore all dialogue options? I'm really confused."

Bethany is in the circle we dont see her at all till the end of the game she is taken when you get back from the deep roads. Just 3 letter i think is your only contact.

Modifié par CoolCR, 03 avril 2011 - 07:29 .

[blacqout]

The thing that DAII should have learned from Fable II and Fable III is that when a game takes place over a long period of time, the locales within should also change.

It's pretty amazing that all Kirkwall got was a statue, whereas in Fable III all sorts of changes were made to many locations.

[sphinxess]

varcety wrote...

If comparing to other RPGs, I think Bioware should learn from Vampire: The Masquarade Bloodlines.
I remember how, being a deformed Nosferatu, you couldn't walk(to avoid breaking the masquarade) on the surface and had to spend most of your time in the sewers(or in shadows of the street). Or how the Malkavain PC had unique dialogue options. And so on.
In DA2 being an apostate mage PC has no consequences at all. Nothing. It completely ruins the atmosphere(for me atleast).

To bad a fantastic RPG like this fell to a "this game is bugged" frenzy -

[Nialos]

Kilshrek wrote...

@highcastle

The problem with your responses is that they're companion dependent (mostly). Having your sibling in the party helps with talking to the Fereldens. Having Varric in your party throws the Templars off the trail. Having Anders in the party saves your sibling. None of this is Hawke's work, it's depending on your party makeup. If you don't bring Anders into the Deep Roads with you your sibling dies. I don't know what happens if you don't bring your sibling for the Ferelden encounter or Varric for the Templars, admittedly, but a lot of the time Hawke is "too late". Feynriel is a good example of the sort of moments I'm talking about, but there really aren't many like that. Seamus dies for what? To prove Petrice is mad? Then she gets shot by a Qunari, for what? To prove that they don't forgive and forget? In front of Aveline? And my trump card, Orsino (if you're pro-mage). Where the heck did that come from, really. Things were going swimmingly against the Templars if you asked me.

My point was that if the story requires someone to die for impact, I'd rather have a little say in it as well, this being the game I'm playing. Instead I'm just being ushered along the story, with little say in major events. Dumar's head rolling towards me was slightly expected, given the RtP trailer, but again I stormed the palace, beat a couple dozen Qunari, only to be too late. And about responding to the event, Hawke doesn't seem all to beat up after Leandra's death. Small moments with some companions, and that's that. On being too late to save the blood mage's wife and the Viscount, "Choose diplomatic/smarmy/aggresive response". I don't know about Hawke but I was pretty frustrated by the end of all that.

To your first two: Depending on dialogue choices, Hawke is the one who can talk them down. If you're diplomatic/nice enough times, Hawke can appeal to the Ferelden's sense of kinship. If you're snarky/charming enough times, Hawke can fool the Templars - just like Varric.

Anyway, yeah. Hawke is usually too late. It probably does affect him greatly - I always just thought that's why he seemed so happy to kill things. Letting out all that pent-up anger derived from certain failures. Clearly the man might be a little insane (which explains why my companions comment on that so much).

Modifié par Nialos, 03 avril 2011 - 07:56 .

[highcastle]

Hawke himself can talk people down or convince them of things if you commit to one personality type enough times. For example, an aggressive Hawke can convince the rogue Qunari to turn on the other Tal-Vashoth. A diplomatic Hawke can convince DuPuis to turn on his master. Snarky!Hawke can talk the templars out of storming the cave in An Act of Mercy. Even by turning to his companions, it's Hawke making a decision to ask for aid. Either way you slice it, Hawke is doing something to save people.

Yes there are a few plot-related deaths. How you react to then is your choice. Regarding Leandra, though, there are plenty of moments that show Hawke's grieving: in is talk with Gamlen, when his LI shows up to comfort him, when Aveline offers her condolences. The game doesn't just ignore this. You're supposed to feel wrecked, and to me it came across pretty clearly in the quests following All That Remains. I suppose it's open to interpretation, but I don't see how.

I expect, though, we're never going to agree on this. You seem to want the opportunity to save everybody. Fine, but those aren't the kind of games BioWare makes. They're games are tightly plotted unlike sandbox games like The Elder Scrolls and to a lesser extent Fable (which I think of more as a sim game, to be honest). Depending on the story being told, people die. DA2 wouldn't have been as effective if you could save everyone you met. A major reoccuring theme is loss. You loose your father, your homeland, your first sibling, your second sibling, your mother, maybe your LI, and finally your last home. You lose everything. It's punctuated by a series of smaller triumphs, but ultimately it ends in tragedy. That doesn't make it bad, it makes it different from the traditional RPG.

That being said, you're free not to like it. Not everyone likes a tragedy. But don't suggest the game needs to "learn" from other games. Some of us like that BioWare does things different from the rest of the RPG herd.

[varcety]

Let's just agree that DA2 is not a bad video game, but a very bad RPG game, k?

[Nialos]

varcety wrote...

Let's just agree that DA2 is not a bad video game, but a very bad RPG game, k?

Let's just agree that people have subjective opinions about something, and that no one is ever entirely right, k?

[Auroras]

Fable 3 was a serious disappointment. The plot was awful once you became king/queen, and the whole game was about money.

[varcety]

Let's just agree to disagree, then?

[Nialos]

varcety wrote...

Let's just agree to disagree, then?

I like that idea much more.

[highcastle]

varcety wrote...

Let's just agree that DA2 is not a bad video game, but a very bad RPG game, k?

Er...no.

Let's just agree to disagree, then?

Probably for the best.

[sphinxess]

varcety wrote...

underyourspell wrote...

I'm not sure I understand the complaint here.

Are we upset because the developers didn't write and code two dozen different storylines and let us choose which parts of each we want to play? They're telling a story, your player character has a certain amount of freedom within that story, and that's how video games work.

If I wanted to play a linear third person action game I would have gone for one.
When I pre-purchased DA2 I expected something else.

Having various story alterations in a rpg is a huge advantage over other forms of story telling and what I expected after DA:O . If I want a linear story I'll go read a book

[The Angry One]

Auroras wrote...

Fable 3 was a serious disappointment. The plot was awful once you became king/queen, and the whole game was about money.

Well obviously, don't you know the only way to save the kingdom against the cosmic horror was coin-operated cannons!?

[Nialos]

The Angry One wrote...

Auroras wrote...

Fable 3 was a serious disappointment. The plot was awful once you became king/queen, and the whole game was about money.

Well obviously, don't you know the only way to save the kingdom against the cosmic horror was coin-operated cannons!?

Coin-operated? Hell, I bet they also shot the bloody things grapeshot style. At least, that's what I tell myself as justification for being landlord the entire game.

[C9316]

If anything can be learned from Fable 3 it is to never buy a game from LionHead ever again.

[The Angry One]

C9316 wrote...

If anything can be learned from Fable 3 it is to never buy a game from LionHead ever again.

You'll buy Fable 4. You know you will.

[C9316]

The Angry One wrote...

C9316 wrote...

If anything can be learned from Fable 3 it is to never buy a game from LionHead ever again.

You'll buy Fable 4. You know you will.

No......shut up

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

sphinxess wrote...

varcety wrote...

underyourspell wrote...

I'm not sure I understand the complaint here.

Are we upset because the developers didn't write and code two dozen different storylines and let us choose which parts of each we want to play? They're telling a story, your player character has a certain amount of freedom within that story, and that's how video games work.

If I wanted to play a linear third person action game I would have gone for one.
When I pre-purchased DA2 I expected something else.

Having various story alterations in a rpg is a huge advantage over other forms of story telling and what I expected after DA:O . If I want a linear story I'll go read a book

it did have story alterations. they just werent the alterations YOU wanted.