96 réponses à ce sujet

[Torax]

We just have to let go the part about npcs not recognizing certain things about the Player and their Companions. It happens in rpg's and mmo's. A guard isn't going to flip out at a Mage Player, a jedi or even a Warlock with their Demon Pet in tow. It's just what they have to allow so that the player is not punished by playing one specific class. At most you get different dialog options based on being a mage. This is how it was in Origins and is how it is in DA2. The only other difference that Origins had was some dialogue options based on the origin you are from. But even then it's only really specific to certain zones. Castless and Noble dwarves are not brought up in the Dalish Camp for example.

Modifié par Torax, 18 avril 2011 - 06:58 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

Torax wrote...

We just have to let go the part about npcs not recognizing certain things about the Player and their Companions. It happens in rpg's and mmo's. A guard isn't going to flip out at a Mage Player, a jedi or even a Warlock with their Demon Pet in tow. It's just what they have to allow so that the player is not punished by playing one specific class. At most you get different dialog options based on being a mage. This is how it was in Origins and is how it is in DA2. The only other difference that Origins had was some dialogue options based on the origin you are from. But even then it's only really specific to certain zones. Castless and Noble dwarves are not brought up in the Dalish Camp for example.

First, Baldur's Gate 2's cowled wizards would like to have a word with you about casting spells in a city.

Second, in Origins you were a Grey Warden during the Blight. They built a marvelous reason to allow you to be outside the Circle and free as a mage.

[Torax]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Torax wrote...

We just have to let go the part about npcs not recognizing certain things about the Player and their Companions. It happens in rpg's and mmo's. A guard isn't going to flip out at a Mage Player, a jedi or even a Warlock with their Demon Pet in tow. It's just what they have to allow so that the player is not punished by playing one specific class. At most you get different dialog options based on being a mage. This is how it was in Origins and is how it is in DA2. The only other difference that Origins had was some dialogue options based on the origin you are from. But even then it's only really specific to certain zones. Castless and Noble dwarves are not brought up in the Dalish Camp for example.

First, Baldur's Gate 2's cowled wizards would like to have a word with you about casting spells in a city.

Second, in Origins you were a Grey Warden during the Blight. They built a marvelous reason to allow you to be outside the Circle and free as a mage.

Yet in Origins it's not even brought up much ever unless your character brings it up. Like mentioning to Templar in Lothering about any sanctioned magic that he may find. Morrigan interjects and the Templar just ignores it for sake of not causing problem for the player. That conversation can take place without you ever saying you were a warden and also without even pointing out killing the bandits. I'm just pointing out that most games ignore the player and their companions. It's not a new thing...

[Karibe]

When Carver joins the templars out of spit because you didn't take him into the Deep Roads, when clearly your mother was expressing how she didn't want both of you to go in case something happened which it did. And KNOWING your family has magic in its blood line and his twin was a mage he joins the templars regardless. Honestly should have been an option to knock him out or something. Let alone when you save him in act 3 he gives you that whole well you saved me again guess im back in your shadow should have yet been another option to hit him or call him a dumb **** for acting like he does. At some point he should have grown up.

[bleetman]

Torax wrote...

But even then it's only really specific to certain zones. Castless and Noble dwarves are not brought up in the Dalish Camp for example.

Why would the Dalish appreciate the difference between a casteless dwarf and a noble? I doubt they're even aware of how dwarven society operates, or care to find out. Your choice of Origin tends to be brought up in DA1 when it's appropriate.

/nit pick

This whole thing does remind me of Dantooine in KotOR2, come to think of it. Walk around with a lightsaber out or otherwise let slip your jedi status and virtually everyone there immediately regards you with suspicion and mistrust, if they'll speak to you at all. Whilst DA1 never went that far, there was the occasional character who'd alter how they reacted to you once informed you had magic. Nobody in DA2 seems to bat an eyelid.

Torax wrote...

Yet in Origins it's not even brought up much ever unless your character brings it up. Like mentioning to Templar in Lothering about any sanctioned magic that he may find. Morrigan interjects and the Templar just ignores it for sake of not causing problem for the player.

Morrigan doesn't out herself as an apostate, she asks what he'd do were she an apostate. Sure, he could infer something from that if he wanted, but he also makes clear that the approaching horde is a bigger concern to him right now anyway. Besides which, the party doesn't engage in epic fireball battles in the streets of Lothering, or any human settlement I can remember. Denerim fighting is restricted to back alleys and the like.

Not that I'm saying Origins managed character reaction to mages perfectly, but it did try. DA2 just doesn't.

Modifié par bleetman, 18 avril 2011 - 07:24 .

[Torax]

@ bleetman,

My main thing is people can't hold something like that accountable to DA2 since it was virtually the same way in Origins. Anyone who is against you being a mage is just a scripted change pretty much. It's easy to look at Origins with Rose Colored Glasses it seems compared to DA2.

[bleetman]

Torax wrote...

Anyone who is against you being a mage is just a scripted change pretty much.

Well, yeah. How else are they meant to accomplish incidental character mistrust of your magical ability?

Besides, the core theme of Origins tended to have nothing to do with mages being crushed under the heel of an oppressive templar regime, whilst DA2 shifts it to the spotlight. As a result, the majority of characters being totally indifferent to the adventures of mage!Hawke and his/her merry band of apostates gets a bit more poignant.

Modifié par bleetman, 18 avril 2011 - 07:44 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

My main thing is people can't hold something like that accountable to DA2 since it was virtually the same way in Origins

Even if it was virtually the same way in Origins, which I argue strongly that is was not, but let's give you that...I hate the idea that people give DA2 a pass if Origins got it wrong.

What a stupid argument. This is a sequel to a videogame. Isn't one of the things a 2nd installment of a videogame series supposed to do is fix things they got wrong, rather than just perpetuate them?

Please DA2 apologists, if defending something wrong with DA2, do not resort to "well DAO did that, so why is it so bad here?". DAO is not perfect, it too has things it could have improved on, maybe say, in the sequel.

And especially if that sequel focuses on the opression of Mages as it's main plot point makes it kind of ridiculous to virtually ignore that the main character is a MAGE (and can be a blood mage - see sig).

Origins was about the Blight.

[bleetman]

Filament wrote...

And you do fight Loghain's men in that overly crowded tavern.

Heh, this is true.

Morrigan's line for me was along the lines of:

"Say I was one of these unsanctioned mages, what would you do to me?"

I may be remembering it incorrectly, 'course.

[Torax]

"Let us pretend that I was such a mage. What would you do to me, hmm?"

The link for amusement  

Edited to add the Warden in that video is wearing the Phoenix Armory. It's an awesome set that can be recolored for female rogues. I do enjoy that set and the matching bows and daggers are awesome.

Modifié par Torax, 18 avril 2011 - 08:09 .

[bleetman]

Right. That

[Foolsfolly]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

My main thing is people can't hold something like that accountable to DA2 since it was virtually the same way in Origins

Even if it was virtually the same way in Origins, which I argue strongly that is was not, but let's give you that...I hate the idea that people give DA2 a pass if Origins got it wrong.

What a stupid argument. This is a sequel to a videogame. Isn't one of the things a 2nd installment of a videogame series supposed to do is fix things they got wrong, rather than just perpetuate them?

Please DA2 apologists, if defending something wrong with DA2, do not resort to "well DAO did that, so why is it so bad here?". DAO is not perfect, it too has things it could have improved on, maybe say, in the sequel.

And especially if that sequel focuses on the opression of Mages as it's main plot point makes it kind of ridiculous to virtually ignore that the main character is a MAGE (and can be a blood mage - see sig).

Origins was about the Blight.

Speaking only for myself, I always handwaved that issue away by saying "Grey Warden business supersedes the law." Warden's are above the law for a lot of things and working with apostates felt like a natural fit.

It's really hard to handwave it away when you have a Blood Mage and an Abomination with you tearing up the city streets every night.

[Alamar2078]

I think I see part of the problem. Everyone refers to "my Hawke" this or "my Hawke" that. In reality [if I can use that word here] Hawke is owned by the writers and not the player ... the writers are just leasing Hawke out to you.

[Benchmark]

The biggest plot point that I couldn't get over was that my Hawke never went to visit his sister in the circle. Momma Hawke did when they were dirt poor. Champion living in Hightown mansion Hawke doesn't visit her for 6 years.

Really? I would have been wanting to know everything about the damn circle. Finding every abusive Templar and Blood mage and making sure they were reported to Elthina, Meredith, Dumar, Orsino, and posted on giants signs that just say "don't" all around the city.

If that didn't work, well Hawke is amazingly good at getting away with gratuitous violence...

[Deztyn]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...
I almost get why she wants to go in Chapter 1 end, I can see where she is tired of runnign/hiding and just wants to give her family some chance to be at peace in their new home. But no, by the time she is kidnapped there is no reason she would want to go back there instead of being a free mage under your protection.  She could help the Circle from the outside the way Hawke has been doing with out fear of being raped or attacked or kidnapped again. It makes zero sense that Hawke would let her go back even if she wanted to, given how he lost his mother and wants to protect his sister.

In any case, there wasn't even a dialogue option to discuss it. Just...oh back you go to the Circle, guess I can't say anything or stop it.

And it was BEYOND ridiculous that you couldn't even go talk to her in Chapter 2 or 3 at the Gallows when they rub in your face that your other family members can. Not even after y our mother's death, which was the biggest WTF moment in the entire game for me...and that is saying something.

Gah.

I think it was a missed opportunity. Mages who believe in the circle have no representation in the game. Bethany's Act II letter indicated she might lean that way, but it never goes anywhere. The story suffers for it, making sure all we get to see is the extremes on each side.

[caridounette]

Torax wrote...

@ bleetman,

My main thing is people can't hold something like that accountable to DA2 since it was virtually the same way in Origins. Anyone who is against you being a mage is just a scripted change pretty much. It's easy to look at Origins with Rose Colored Glasses it seems compared to DA2.

I wouldnt not say that Origins handled magic better then DA2. But DA2 actually revolves around magic and its consequences. Why make a game about something you have a hard time to render as an interactive media. There would not have been so much complaints if the story had stucked to lets say Qunari issues. we would have jsut handwaved the consequences of using magic like we did in Origins (because i understand it is a complicated issue and resolving it would take lots of resources). By making the game revolve around magic, the devs tackled an issue they did not have the upperhand on, and on many aspects, they lost.

It has nothing to do with Origins being better, it jsut swept the issue under the rug with more class.

[Auridesion]

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I'm mostly just responding to the first post. (Meaning, I might end up reiterating things that have already been mentioned.)

As for the OP's thoughts on Bethany and the Circle -- there's a conversation you can have with her where she actually mentions that she wonders if things wouldn't be better if she joined the Circle. And, after reading her codex entry, I pretty much got the impression that the only reason she never ran away to the Circle was for the benefit of Mother. She's religious, and she scared that being an apostate is an offense against the Maker. So, I don't feel as though it's totally out of left field for Bethany to end up at the Circle. If I'm going to complain at all about what the game forces on me regarding my siblings, it's that I don't get to have an effect on one of them dying in the beginning. Who dies is based on my class, not any decisions I make in that moment of the game. I would love to have had the option to keep Carver instead of Bethany with my Hawke as a Rogue. And I would love to have had the option to keep Bethany with my Hawke as a Mage. But most importantly, I would LOVE to have had the option to keep them both.

I understand why little things like that have to happen in DA2, though. Because the entire game is building up to Hawke's decision whether to side with the mages or the templars. With one of your siblings gone at the beginning of the game, you're left with the one who can challenge your "obvious" choices later on. As a mage, having Carver as the surviving sibling, is a challenge against the obvious reasons you might have to side with the mages, being one yourself. The more vocal you become about supporting fellow mages, the further you push your brother away from you. For the warriors and rogues... having Bethany around gives you an obvious reason to feel sympathetic towards the mages of Kirkwall, because your sister is one. The three different fates of your surviving siblings are meant to give us the opportunity to balance the ultimate decision we make in the climax with the tenor of our relationship to the brother or sister we have left. Basically, if Bethany is forced to join the Circle -- it gives your character obvious motivation to side with the mages in the end. If Carver is a templar at that point, it gives you a moment of pause about whether or not you really want to side against the templars. If you let them die in the Deep Roads, you're character won't have to worry about protecting a sibling when choosing a side. And if they are a Grey Warden, they can support you either way you choose.

If anything, I can at least appreciate the intent of the design here: Decisions have consequences. Your decisions about who should go with you into the Deep Roads will affect the plot in ways you might not like later on; just as our decisions in life can.

But, to answer the question of whether or not I felt that the game forced my character to do or not do things that went against the nature of my character, I can really only think of one that seriously bothers me, and that's the business with Sister Petrice in Act I for the "Shepherding Wolves" quest. The game gives me the the option to say, "No, I don't think I wanna do this." And yet, I'm forced to do it before I can move on in the plot, even if I've already got enough money and the maps to head into the Deep Roads. If I have Varric in my party, he'll even agree with me when I say I don't think it's a good idea -- and yet, if I try to leave for the expedition without doing it, he's the one who says we should finish up that business with Petrice before we go.

If the idea is that I'm still trying to scrounge up enough coin to help fiance the expedition, then I can see justifying doing it even if I think it's a bad idea -- because that's the entire premise of ACT I, pretty much. My other complaint, is that other than introducing the dynamic of how Qunari treat their mages into the game, and showing us what kind of person Sister Petrice really is (foreshadowing her role in ACT II), the quest/mission itself isn't super vital to the storyline, in my opinion.

[Avilia]

Lots. All the points brought up already in this thread.

Because its fresh in my mind - Grace. That lady wears some serious plot armour. The Act 1 quest she's involved in frustrates me so much I have to leave it to last to do. Seriously.

Grace: "You've just killed my boyfriend for being a blood mage!"...."Right, kill the Templar for me so we can escape."

Hawke: "Er, no."

Grace: *pouts* "Well fine then."

Then the game proceeds to try its best to stop you handing her over to the Templars. Let's make one Templar as obnoxious as possible and the other (the one Grace wanted you to kill btw) as nice as possible.

Ah okay. I'm not getting any sort of message from the game here...what is it you want me to do?

Sorry for the rant but that quest just makes me go "ARRRGH".

Modifié par Avilia, 18 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[Auridesion]

Avilia wrote...

Lots. All the points brought up already in this thread.

Because its fresh in my mind - Grace. That lady wears some serious plot armour. The Act 1 quest she's involved in frustrates me so much I have to leave it to last to do. Seriously.

Grace: "You've just killed my boyfriend for being a blood mage!"...."Right, kill the Templar for me so we can escape."

Hawke: "Er, no."

Grace: *pouts* "Well fine then."

Then the game proceeds to try its best to stop you handing her over to the Templars. Let's make one Templar as obnoxious as possible and the other (the one Grace wanted you to kill btw) as nice as possible.

Ah okay. I'm not getting any sort of message from the game here...what is it you want me to do?

Sorry for the rant but that quest just makes me go "ARRRGH".

I've noticed that this situation is pretty much mostly about the revenge Grace wants on you later.  Basically, the whole point is to set up the brawl you face with them later on when either a sibling or companion has been snatched away from you. The first encounter with her is designed to give us the illusion of a choice, which will affect how our companions feel about what we do/say, but ultimately we're more or less forced into a situation which "justifies" Grace's motivations for revenge regardless of how you handled the situation. 

[Avilia]

Exactly! One reason why it frustrates me. I'm all for the illusion of choice, Origins was full of that, but this is just...annoying. After one play through you know that no matter what you do, she's going to go after you. If they wanted to push the plot along surely they could have found a less obvious way to do it.

*waves arms in the air*

Eh, perhaps I'm focusing on this quest particularly because it highlights clearly for me that DA2 doesn't even pretend to let you decide anything. At least Origins hid its plot railroading a bit better...