109 réponses à ce sujet

[Louis deGuerre]

Pretty much agree with everything op wrote, with one exception. The mother situation wasn't that bad I think.

Killing of a sibling you care nothing about yet in the first scene was very bad. In DAO you spend some time with people before they die and then it does have impact.

The whole idol business was really badly executed. Deux Ex Machina ftw.

Playing as a revolutionary mage is just a bizarre experience. I helped you guys at every turn and thwarted the templars where I could, so you kidnap my sister and then you attack me ? What ? It just went downhill from there.
By the end of the game I just wanted to get the hell out of town and let the crazies fight it out with the fascists, but of course you're railroaded into having to choose a faction and fight for them.
Granted, if you go all pro-templar it isn't that bad, except for the let's-all-go-insane ending. The pro-mage storyline really feels shoe-horned into the game.

Don't get me wrong, there is some excellent writing in DA2, but the overall plot leaves a lot to be desired.

[Raygereio]

Stippling wrote...
The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more. 

It's funny; I expressed many of the same feelings in the rant I posted a while back. If anything, I do hope that BioWare takes this criticism to heart.
DA2 is filled with neat story, plot and character ideas, but for some reason (bad writing, time pressure, poor executive meddling, <insert whatever possible reason here>) none of those ideas mature and work..
That's why I had a bitter taste in my mouth as I sat through the end credits. Hawke didn't do anything in this story. Stuff happened around him and he just stumbled through a movie,.Usually I would write something like that off as a badly written railroad, but the annoying part is that there is so much potential in this story that BIoWare could have used but didn't for whatever reason..
I already gave some possible ways in which I feel the story could have been better in that rant I posted, so I won't bother copy-pasting that.

On the other hand I do apreciate that BioWare took a step away from the hero being the centre of the universe. That was somethat that infurated me in DA:O; that game's dialogue sorely lacked a "say nothing and slowly back away" option half the time. But this is the other extreme, which also isn't good.

[noxsachi]

LobselVith8 wrote...

noxsachi wrote...

Loghain was by far the most engaging part of the story in DAO, I'll give you that. I'm probably the minority here in that I really found DAO's story bland, boring and pedantic, carried only by the excellent companions. I dunno I found Loghain and Meredith really quite similar; ruthless hardliners who went loopy at the ends of their respective careers. I've also only spared him once, at the insistence of a friend, and if I ever replay DAO again, he gets the murder knife, great villain, but I just can't spare him.

I didn't find Loghain and Meredith similar. Loghain was driven to protect the people of Ferelden because of their brutal occupation for over a century by the Orlesian Empire, and Meredith lost her mind to a Lyrium Idol.

noxsachi wrote...

Now I will say that I hate the lolIdol that resolves Meredith's plot. I'd have much rather had her be ruthless. And well I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I believe there was sufficient reason to annul the circle, particularly Orsino being like THERE ARE NO BLOOD MAGES HERE BUT YOU CANT SEARCH MY TOWER NEENER NEENER. That's kind of suspicious. Now could they have been better developed? You bet. I'd have loved about 3-4x more interaction with Orsino and Meredith, but as is, at least siding with the templars makes Orsino going mad make some sense.

Speculation is a poor substitute for facts when people's lives are on the line.

noxsachi wrote...

And before you or Polaris come in here screaming genocide...

I'm addressing that the conflict between the mages and templars is forced.

That last bit was snarky. I'm sorry, I just kinda had to do it. You're no where near as bad as Polaris, its just late and I thought it was a good idea.

The similarities for me come with you talking to Meredith if you side with the Templar in Act III. She reveals her backstory and how her sister was an apostate that they kept from the circle and who turned into an abomination. Because of this one traumatizing act, she sees abominations everywhere, much like Lohgain sees Orlesians everywhere. They both wanted to protect people from what they saw as an overbearing threat, and in many ways they both made it much worse.

And well thats the thing with speculation, it kinda didn't remain speculation, since during the finale there kind of were alot of blood mages and abominations. So well...I felt totally justified annuling those maleficar. I'd have prefered if the build up to the conflict was more sensible, hell I'd have prefered if they really made the choices ambiguous. Have no maleficar if you side with the templar and make it the horrific massacre of innocents, which if you side with the mages have your only allies be blood mages. Maybe that's a bit sadistic, espeically because theres a dearth of 'good' mage characters, but that would really muddy the waters in the choice bit.

I mean I agree that her final stated reason to annul the circle was dumb, but we have no lack of information from act II and III that show it might've been justified. And well if Orsino was so concerned about the lives of his charges, he shouldn't have acted so damn suspicious and let us search the tower. Hell my Hawke was a mage, who hated blood mages. She'd know if there were really blood mages in the circle, and she'd get Meredith to back down if there were no real traces of em. But Orsino's just too self rightous to let the templar do their job...


I guess this is a weakness of mine, but around VA's emoting, the lack of the warden having a voice was a huge disconnect for me. If everyone is silent, then a silent protagonist isn't an issue for me. But its wierd for me to be mute and choose dialogue amongst a rather garolous group. So I mean I can get the whole it isn't assigned a tone so I can imagine it said it any tone I want. In that I guess its just a matter of taste. I much prefer the voiced VA, you prefer the super additional dialogue. Maybe it was my reasoning though I found the warden's dialogue was all either cliche paragon or just super dickish, though I will admit I choose the paragon/lawful good answers 90% of the time. (Sup Alistair, Wynne, Leliana party). So maybe it's my fault for not exploring the dialogue options enough. Though on the topic of dialogue, I really hated how the persude skill was just a magic thing that lets you mind control npcs seemingly. I much prefered how there were some cases I felt I actually was trying to pick dialogue in DAII that would actually presuade, rather than the one that I got from my 4 skill points. Tangential but yeah...

Modifié par noxsachi, 27 avril 2011 - 08:36 .

[Dave of Canada]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Considering the role you're given is Champion and most important person in Kirkwall, influencing the the city - which in turn should have effects on the story - is part of the role you're supposed to be playing.

You're called upon to assist the Templar or the Mages because you're the Champion, you're made Viscount (if sided with Templar) or flee the city because you're being hunted (if sided with Mages) because you're the Champion, you can help start/stop the rebellion and become a rallying cry for the mages (good or bad) depending on your choices and you're part of Flemeth's game.

The game's narrative was how Hawke was there at the start of the uprising, you find out how the uprising started and *gasp* you were there. How Hawke is involved depends on your choices and actions in the finale, which is pretty much all Hawke can do. Champion isn't some sudden permission to do world altering choices, it's a title that gets you called on in the mage / templar tension. World altering decisions wouldn't have worked with the story they were trying to tell.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 avril 2011 - 08:30 .

[FedericoV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

So, let me get this straight cause I do not want to misunderstand you: you like the fact that they remove all the proper roleplaying elements from the franchise?

You define who Hawke is, you do choices and befriend / berival people and see how Hawke is caught up in the whole Templar / Mage mess. I didn't know you had to do world altering choices for it to be considered a roleplaying game.

No. The writers have defined who is Hawke. I have no choice. I do not gave any imput if not for the combat and the cosmetic choices like class, "personality" (that it's just the tone you use to accept the decisions of the writers in game) and best friends/romances. I have not decided anything and the few choices I was given all accounts to nothing at the end.

To be proper roleplaying MY choices should interact with the main plot and change it in one way or the other. Not beacuse the story could not be personal. But because the narrative is the only way to see in game the effect of your choices. Just like the main quests and the Dark Ritual in origins. Choices define the charachters in a RP game. Consequences make the choices more real and define charachters further.

It's pointless to have all those nice superficial choices and countless dialogue option to navigate if the end result is allways the same. At least, it's pointless considering how much time, money and resources they have invested on dialogues and interactions with the NPCs. Not really economical for a linear game. I mean, if dialogues choices account to nothing if not for information, I do not believe that it's smart to spend all those resources there. 

Because, you know, if the end result is allways the same, it means that there is not a great deal of real difference between my Hawke and your Hawke if not for class and equipment. Are we still at class and equipment? I hoped that Bioware wanted to evolve the genre.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 08:43 .

[LobselVith8]

noxsachi wrote...

That last bit was snarky. I'm sorry, I just kinda had to do it. You're no where near as bad as Polaris, its just late and I thought it was a good idea. 

So you apologize and then insult me? I guess it is late...

noxsachi wrote...

The similarities for me come with you talking to Meredith if you side with the Templar in Act III. She reveals her backstory and how her sister was an apostate that they kept from the circle and who turned into an abomination. Because of this one traumatizing act, she sees abominations everywhere, much like Lohgain sees Orlesians everywhere. They both wanted to protect people from what they saw as an overbearing threat, and in many ways they both made it much worse.

Except we're allowed to see the facets of Loghain's personality and we see relatively little of Meredith's.

noxsachi wrote...

And well thats the thing with speculation, it kinda didn't remain speculation, since during the finale there kind of were alot of blood mages and abominations. So well...I felt totally justified annuling those maleficar. I'd have prefered if the build up to the conflict was more sensible, hell I'd have prefered if they really made the choices ambiguous. Have no maleficar if you side with the templar and make it the horrific massacre of innocents, which if you side with the mages have your only allies be blood mages. Maybe that's a bit sadistic, espeically because theres a dearth of 'good' mage characters, but that would really muddy the waters in the choice bit.

I don't think it's a murky choice, it feels like a coerced choice because the attack had nothing to do with Circle mages, but we're forced into a conflict between templars and mages.

noxsachi wrote...

I mean I agree that her final stated reason to annul the circle was dumb, but we have no lack of information from act II and III that show it might've been justified. And well if Orsino was so concerned about the lives of his charges, he shouldn't have acted so damn suspicious and let us search the tower. Hell my Hawke was a mage, who hated blood mages. She'd know if there were really blood mages in the circle, and she'd get Meredith to back down if there were no real traces of em. But Orsino's just too self rightous to let the templar do their job...

It's still an issue of speculation, though, which could have been rectified by addressing the mages in the Gallows directly in the storyline.

[Dave of Canada]

FedericoV wrote...

No. The writers have defined who is Hawke. I have no choice. I do not gave any imput if not for the combat and the cosmetic choices like class, "personality" (that it's just the tone you use to accept the decisions of the writers in game) and best friends/romances. I have not decided anything and the few choices I was given all accounts to nothing at the end.

Reasoning, decisions, how you feel about family and people, how you feel about mages / templar / qunari / chantry, your Hawke's way of handling situations, how you handle quests, who you side with and support.

I've done around four different characters by now, each of them using this so-called "writer" defined Hawke and each of them feel like different characters. Unless you're the type of person who prefer using the non-voiced predefined writer character which is almost exactly the same (using your definition).

To be proper RP my choices should interact with the main plot and change it in one way or the other. Just like Origins side quest or the Dark Ritual.

Why? Isn't roleplaying about... you know, roleplaying instead of doing tough choices? Isn't telling Fenris that you don't care about Ferelden on one character roleplaying that the character you're playing doesn't care about Ferelden? My mage hated Ferelden since youth, he's never thought of going back and says so.

Isn't that roleplaying or is that all imaginary? Does old school D&D have world altering choices?

It's pointless to have all those nice superficial choices if the end result is allways the same.

And I disagree, said "superficial" choices define your character. My Cousland who is overjoyed with ruling Highever compared to my Cousland who loathes it has about the same importance as having a god baby or not.

At least, it's pointless considering how much time, money and resources they have invested on dialogues and the interactions with the NPCs. Not really economical for a linear game.

And I disagree.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 avril 2011 - 08:47 .

[Pandaman102]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're called upon to assist the Templar or the Mages because you're the Champion, you're made Viscount (if sided with Templar) or flee the city because you're being hunted (if sided with Mages) because you're the Champion, you can help start/stop the rebellion and become a rallying cry for the mages (good or bad) depending

The game's narrative was how Hawke was there at the start of the uprising, you find out how the uprising started and *gasp* you were there. How Hawke is involved depends on your choices and actions in the finale, which is pretty much all Hawke can do. Champion isn't some sudden permission to do world altering choices, it's a title that gets you called on in the mage / templar tension. World altering decisions wouldn't have worked with the story they were trying to tell.

The first two key features of the game (on dragonage.bioware.com) suggests otherwise. What you're describing would be just fine if that's what the game advertised, and I wouldn't argue with you if it was, but the fact is it isn't. The game offered a "rise to power" roleplaying experience, instead we got a "man versus nature" narrative experience, all opinions of whether or not the story itself is good or bad aside you have to admit the game isn't letting you play the role it promised.

[Corto81]

noxsachi wrote...

One thing I wanna discuss is how you call DAO a dark fantasy. In no way was DAO a dark fantasy. Sure you had "dark" choices, but the whole point of a dark fantasy is that all the choices suck.

Actually, no.

The so-called "dark" fantasy is just a fantasy world with realistic choices and personalities.
A better term would be "grey" fantasy.

DA:O had tons of grey choices and tons of grey characters.

There are very little choices (grey, black or white) in DA II and the characters are cartoony as hell in their single-mindedness... Anders, Fenris and Sebastian are just some shallow characters that whine and annoy the hell out of you (for comparison, Alistair whined in a funny way cos you felt that's how he is... these dudes just whine to get their annoying point across).
And Merrill has the cognitive process of a 12 year old.

And that's just the companions.
And while some oblivious people still call DA:O STORY generic, DA:O's PLOT (story and plot are two very different things) was about Ferelden politics and your attempts to get back at Loghain and raise an army... Only under the cover of fighting the Blight as the end goal.
And that Loghain, as it turned out when you went on in the game, is deliciously done character, who had his own gigantic flaws, but also redeeming qualities.

Comparing him to Meredith and Orsion is like comparing The Usual Suspects to Scary Movie 3.

Also, the DA:O choices made it felt more immersive... Multiple possible endings for every "part" of the game (4 main quests +  Urn), multiple choices at killing the AD, companions that had soul and depth, gorgeous world you could explore, etc....

Choices in DA2 were just... Not there.

You sided with the mages every single time for 2.9 Acts?
You killed about 90% of Free Marches templar population?
You basically had the end fight over with?
----
Orsino goes: "LOL, gonna turn into an abomination now".
Hawke: "Now? Dude, 2 more templars, and we win."
Orison: "Whatever. I was friendz with the dude that whacked your mom."
Hawke: "Huh? Where tf did that come from?"
Orsino: "C'mon,.... Just press the red hammer icon!!!"
Hawke:  * presses Red-Hammer icon*

----

Bleh.

In the end, I just don't get it.
They took a GOTY, the best RPG since BG series, a HUGE success that sold extremely well, and instead of just improving on it where improvement was possible (graphics, combat speed, class skill trees), they made a rushed attempt at turning DA2 into a shallow action game with some RPG elements, but even that was done sloppy.

No seriously, I don't get it.
You don't trade away half the team that won you the Championship.
If you do make changes, you chip away at the bad bits, not gut the entire core of the team.
(I hope you get the weak-ass sports analogy)

[FedericoV]

Dave of Canada wrote...


Reasoning, decisions, how you feel about family and people, how you feel about mages / templar / qunari / chantry, your Hawke's way of handling situations, how you handle quests, who you side with and support.

How I feel does not affect the story in any way (personally or politically), so what's the point in the context of a video-game? I mean, I supported the mages and wanted to avoid an open conflict with the Arishock... but I have to kill all of them no matter what, even the parties I supported... so what's the point in taking sides? They have not even given me the chance to remain neutral (wich would have been the only reasonable thing to do considering that they were all wrong and that there was nothing that motivate me to take sides in the templar/mage issue).

Moreover... I'm not playing a fantasy CRPG to reason on the nature of justice and tolerance... it could be a nice bonus if done subtely but honestly it's not so in DA2 ("show, don't tell" anyone?). Deus Ex: that's a game where the "serious stuff" was handled well in the context of an interactive video game. 

So, yes there are choices in DA2 and you can speak your mind here and there, but all those choices miss proper consequences, so it's not roleplaying. Just the thin illusion of it. And even if you change your mind anytime, no one cares. So, what's the point to express your opinion? You can metagame DA2 to death and anyone would be happy.

I've done around four different characters by now, each of them using this so-called "writer" defined Hawke and each of them feel like different characters. Unless you're the type of person who prefer using the non-voiced predefined written character which is almost exactly the same.

I believe it. Infact I said in my original post that the few RP moment in the game are so exclusive that you would not even note their existence if you do not read a guide. They are mostly focused on replaibility. But personally I have no time or will to play the game 4 times to see that there is some roleplaying in it. My time is limited and I prefer to try new games. So, I should be able to experience most of it with my first and only playthrough. If the game ask you to play  it 4 times to appreciate the roleplaying in it than it's failing something. A single palythrough should stand on its own legs.

Why? Isn't roleplaying about... you know, roleplaying instead of doing tough choices? Isn't telling Fenris that you don't care about Ferelden on one character roleplaying that the character you're playing doesn't care about Ferelden? My mage hated Ferelden since youth, he's never thought of going back and says so.

No, because there are not real consequences. Only choices. Even if you treat Fenris like s*hit, he will became a rival and still stand by your side.  

Isn't that roleplaying or is that all imaginary? Does old school D&D have world altering choices?

It depended on the GM and the setting . You could tell any kind of story with D&D (or any other P&P RPG).

And I disagree, said "superficial" choices define your character. My Cousland who is overjoyed with ruling Highever compared to my Cousland who loathes it has about the same importance as having a god baby or not.

They define the charachter only in your head. Not in the game I'm playing and experiencing. You're pulling out a Sylvius here .

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[noxsachi]

Corto81 wrote...
The so-called "dark" fantasy is just a fantasy world with realistic choices and personalities.
A better term would be "grey" fantasy.

DA:O had tons of grey choices and tons of grey characters.

There are very little choices (grey, black or white) in DA II and the characters are cartoony as hell in their single-mindedness... Anders, Fenris and Sebastian are just some shallow characters that whine and annoy the hell out of you (for comparison, Alistair whined in a funny way cos you felt that's how he is... these dudes just whine to get their annoying point across).
And Merrill has the cognitive process of a 12 year old.

Mmm, I will agree that yeah plenty of grey characters exist, its just that more or less alongside those grey choices are the white ones. Like Redcliffe really should've been, kill Conor or kill his mother to save him. Thats a grey choice and carries alot of drama with it. However the warden can just run to the Circle and fix everyone, a white choice that many players will do, because hey, everyone is happy. I myself always do this because I mean I like getting the chance to make myself feel all warm and fuzzy. But grey, dark, whatever fantasy is about not allowing those warm and fuzzy choices to exist at all. Its supposed to be uncomfortable. Its sorta like with why they didn't let you save your mother in All that Remains. Is letting her die more interesting for the story? I think so. But 90% of us are going to save her if that was an option because that big group of us wants to be big godamned heroes. One of the lessons of grey fantasy is that big godamned heroes don't exist. Or that those that try to be a hero end up very dead, very fast.

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Considering the role you're given is Champion and most important person in Kirkwall, influencing the the city - which in turn should have effects on the story - is part of the role you're supposed to be playing.

You're called upon to assist the Templar or the Mages because you're the Champion, you're made Viscount (if sided with Templar) or flee the city because you're being hunted (if sided with Mages) because you're the Champion, you can help start/stop the rebellion and become a rallying cry for the mages (good or bad) depending on your choices and you're part of Flemeth's game.

The game's narrative was how Hawke was there at the start of the uprising, you find out how the uprising started and *gasp* you were there. How Hawke is involved depends on your choices and actions in the finale, which is pretty much all Hawke can do. Champion isn't some sudden permission to do world altering choices, it's a title that gets you called on in the mage / templar tension. World altering decisions wouldn't have worked with the story they were trying to tell.

Sorry but you're becomming more and more of a fanboy Dave. Maybe I just didn't notice before or something. Anyway, I am not even going to answer on this post of yours because it reads like an advertisement, and advertisements are not meant to be argued about.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 27 avril 2011 - 09:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

AlexXIV, I don't believe a textbook example of ad hominem falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV, I don't believe a textbook example of ad hominem falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism."

I guess that means that I am off topic then.

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 27 avril 2011 - 09:59 .

[Morroian]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except we're allowed to see the facets of Loghain's personality and we see relatively little of Meredith's.

IIRC we don't see many facets of his character unless we recruit him.

FedericoV wrote...

No. The writers have defined who is Hawke. I have no choice.

We don't have choices in defining who hawke is?

Hawke's role in the overarching story is relatively defined but not who he is. And we ceratinly define who Hawke is to the people around him which is the point of the game being more personal.

FedericoV wrote...

A single palythrough should stand on its own legs.

My first play through my Hawke was a much more vivid character to me than just about any other RPG I've played. AT that point I hadn't started replaying it but have since with very different Hawke's.

Modifié par Morroian, 27 avril 2011 - 10:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Right.  It's denial.  Has to be.  It's impossible for it to be anything else!

Couldn't be that people actually - like - something, could it?  Nah they're probly paid shills or delusional.  That's a lot more plausible and not at all self-serving an explanation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 avril 2011 - 10:11 .

[Morroian]

Pandaman102 wrote...

The main character of a story that takes place in a single city over the course of seven years should simply have more influence over that one city than the main character of a story that takes place across an entire kingdom in under a year has over said kingdom.

I don't know whether David Gaider has taken anything from the TV Series 'The Wire' but it seems to me that despite The Wire being a cop show (sort of) and DA being a fantasy that there are similarities in themes in the way that power is held by institutions and the people in ranking positions in those institutions. Which is why the Warden had power, his power resided in him being the ranking Warden left in Ferelden.

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Right.  It's denial.  Has to be.  It's impossible for it to be anything else!

Couldn't be that people actually - like - something, could it?  Nah they're probly paid shills or delusional.  That's a lot more plausible and not at all self-serving an explanation.

BioWare paid me to play DAII, it's true.

They paid me in fun.

[Viyu]

Just because you can say certain dialogue choices to give Hawke a defined personality doesn't change the overall problem. That Hawke's personality has little impact to the story. And I think that's what's so superficial about giving Hawke a bunch of options to express personality, when personality is hardly relevant to the game's outcome.

[Esbatty]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Right.  It's denial.  Has to be.  It's impossible for it to be anything else!

Couldn't be that people actually - like - something, could it?  Nah they're probly paid shills or delusional.  That's a lot more plausible and not at all self-serving an explanation.

BioWare paid me to play DAII, it's true.

They paid me in fun.

I was paid in Raspy Dalish Tongue, Swarthy Heaving Breasts, and coppery Chest hair.

[mesmerizedish]

Esbatty wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Right.  It's denial.  Has to be.  It's impossible for it to be anything else!

Couldn't be that people actually - like - something, could it?  Nah they're probly paid shills or delusional.  That's a lot more plausible and not at all self-serving an explanation.

BioWare paid me to play DAII, it's true.

They paid me in fun.

I was paid in Raspy Dalish Tongue, Swarthy Heaving Breasts, and coppery Chest hair.

That's exactly what I said. I just said it more succintly.

[FedericoV]

Morroian wrote...
We don't have choices in defining who hawke is?

Not really. As the original poster have pointed out, you can only choose what opinion to express on the things that keep happening to Hawke's family and Kirkwall in general. Opinions that do not have any consequence in the game and that are mostly irrelevant. Since the choices have not any consequence or are not really choices at all, the writers are deciding for me and just give me the option to be sarcastic/diplomatic/angry about what's happening. It seems more like a social network than roleplaying. Pointless opinions and no real agency or motivation.

Hawke's role in the overarching story is relatively defined but not who he is. And we ceratinly define who Hawke is to the people around him which is the point of the game being more personal.

So let's analize the milestone of Hawke's life (not his opinions about those ).

-He flee Lothering: not my choice.
-Her sister/brother dies: I can't do anything about it.
-He joins an expedition in the Deep Roads and become rich: not my choice.
-Her sister/brother dies or leave him: scripted, not my choice. My only chance to affect those events is to have Anders with me. But I loose controll and contact of my brother/sister no matter what.
-Her mother dies: I can't do anything about the outcome of the quest in any way. 
-The Death of Seamus/Viscount/Qunari attack and consequent duel with the Arishock: all of my actions could not change a single event if not for the relationship with Isabella. But it's a poor choice since a) Isabella do not return and you are stuck with the duel or If Isabella returns it means that you have estabilished a strong relationship with her and it would be a nonsense to give her to the Arishock.
-He engages an NPC in a romantic relationship: My choice!!!! Thanks !!! Are you sure? I'm not worthy to interact with your story!
-Killing Anders or not: That's a tough choice, I admit, with real consquences but I feel that the way that brings the player there is really cheap and too storydriven. I mean, you could not change the course of events in any way and it really feel forced since you know that Anders is up to something. Why not giving us the chance to kill him before he became the Gay Fawkes?
-Choosing Templar/Mages: My choice but it does not change anything since you have to kill all of them no matter what. Moreover, I was not given the chance to remain neutral and fight both of them if I wanted to.

Yes, there is a lot of focus on the interaction with the NPCs but for me it still feel more like some Social Network thing than something that defines your charachter since there is no real consequence to your action. In ME2 charachter dies or leave you because of your relation with them. In DA2? They just change express their admiration for you in brief and rushed dialogue scene and not changing opinion too much if not in case of romances. The story can be all personal but I want to have some choice and see real consequences in game. If not, it's just like some sim mini game.

My first play through my Hawke was a much more vivid character to me than just about any other RPG I've played. AT that point I hadn't started replaying it but have since with very different Hawke's.

What can I say: I'm happy for you and I can't question personal feelings. Honestly, I do not felt so. I would have love to feel a contact with Hawke story i n my playtrhough. But it never felt like my story at all. I just felt like a punching bag. It was enjoyable for what it was until the end of act 2. But since the Qunari uprising and the duel with the Arishock it all falls down pretty badly and I lost any kind of emotive connection. I was not interested in what was happening in the game anymore, just wanted to finish asap and see what the next coll spell/skill could do.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 10:35 .

[Pandaman102]

Morroian wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

The main character of a story that takes place in a single city over the course of seven years should simply have more influence over that one city than the main character of a story that takes place across an entire kingdom in under a year has over said kingdom.

I don't know whether David Gaider has taken anything from the TV Series 'The Wire' but it seems to me that despite The Wire being a cop show (sort of) and DA being a fantasy that there are similarities in themes in the way that power is held by institutions and the people in ranking positions in those institutions. Which is why the Warden had power, his power resided in him being the ranking Warden left in Ferelden.

And that's where the "rise to power" theme comes into play, I can understand Hawke being powerless in Act 1, slightly more influential in Act 2, and very influential in Act 3 - with your level of influence building upon your decisions in previous acts - but Hawke is actually utterly powerless throughout the entire game. That's fine if the game was advertised as a story about a single man (or woman) being forced into conflict and having his/her tale exaggerated into legend... but that's not the case. It's very clearly advertised as a rise to power theme where you're supposed to determine how Hawke rises to power with each decision shaping the story.

[FedericoV]

Morroian wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

The main character of a story that takes place in a single city over the course of seven years should simply have more influence over that one city than the main character of a story that takes place across an entire kingdom in under a year has over said kingdom.

I don't know whether David Gaider has taken anything from the TV Series 'The Wire' but it seems to me that despite The Wire being a cop show (sort of) and DA being a fantasy that there are similarities in themes in the way that power is held by institutions and the people in ranking positions in those institutions. Which is why the Warden had power, his power resided in him being the ranking Warden left in Ferelden.

Comparing DA to The Wire is like comparing Moby Dick to Harry Potter...