43 réponses à ce sujet

[SkittlesKat96]

Hawke is an everyday kind of bloke. He arrivated at Kirkwall and made it a better place and protected it from the Qunari invasion and then later defeated Meredith (who had gone completely insane) and ultimately triggered a mage uprising...

I'm still deciding if I think he's hero and whether I think he's important or not, at the moment I'm not totally sure though. Honestly we still have yet to see the result of everything Hawke did.

I suppose he is a hero from saving Kirkwall though, without him Kirkwall would have eventually have been taken over by the Qunari or Meredith and Orsino would have kept fighting and the mages would either completely destroy the city and corrupt the Free marshes/start an army or the mages would have slowly or quickly genocided by Meredith brutally

[DeadInHell]

I suppose part of the problem for me comes from the fact that I never really ended up caring about Kirkwall. By Act 3 I was sick to death of it. With all the places you go in DA:O I expected that the sequel would also take you places. Instead it's all Kirkwall all the time.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you arbitrarily define a hero as 'someone irreplaceable to great things happening', debatable.

But then, there's the minor matter of most historic, and even game, heroes not being irreplaceable. Not even the Warden, your Warden, was irreplaceable: there were always no less than another five anonymous schmucks who would have stepped in had Duncan gone somewhere else.

Heroes don't have to be irreplaceable, nor do they have to be the sole reason a series of events happen. A Hero can still arise in a battle that was won for other reasons: in Mass Effect, all the origin career paths happen regardless of what Shepard you have. Without the War Hero, Elysium still holds: with the Butcher of Torfan, Torfan is still razed. Heroes aren't a category of certain successes: heroes are a cultural recognition.

Hawke may not pander to a player's ego by letting them be the deciding factor in everyone's lives and the fate of all nations, but Hawke is right there involved, and is helping shape those events, and becomes emblematic. Whether the Arishock would have been defeated by Meredith or not, it was Hawke who beat the Qunari. Regardless of whether the final showdown would occur or not, it was Hawke who decided it's shape. Whether or not Hawke had the opportunity not to, Hawke was the symbol of victory, and the ultimate outcome of Kirkwall.

Ok, so you commend the fact that Hawke doesn't "pander to a player's ego", but isn't that kind of what the promotional material for this game was all about? It seems to me that this game was sold on the notion of not only you becoming a legend (sounds like ego pandering to me) but also having meaningful choices. Hawke's choices are all but ineffectual. He is a bit player in the schemes of other NPCs, and even his own companions. He never has his own grand plans. Aveline even confronts him with this during one of their conversations in the Keep. She says something to the effect of "you should start doing something around here". But you can't. You can only be pushed around by various players until making a binary choice at the end of the game that results in pretty much the same end-game, followed by the typical Bioware mysterious disappearance. The closest Hawke gets to any kind of really compelling or important issues while in Kirkwall is when he runs into the Grey Wardens for 30 seconds during the end of Act 2. I assumed that, having done that, we would finally get to be part of something worthwhile in Act 3, but alas. Just a tease.

And, think about what you're saying. In your post you explain the relative unimportance of Shepard's origins. I can't disagree witht the things you're saying there. The same could be said for the origins in Dragon Age. But that's entirely my point. The same things that can be said of the origins in DA:O and the origins in ME can be said of the entire campaign of DA2. The whole game plays out like a massive prologue to the real conflicts and the real stories which they've reserved for further games. And that's the problem I have with Hawke. Shepard and the Warden both had origin stories which led them to a path, but also had compelling tales in which they were meaningful and important figures who made meaningful choices. Hawke's whole game was an origin story, and the real story (concerning Flemeth, the Seekers, the Grey Wardens, Morrigan and the child, and even the Qunari/Tevinter conflicts).

But, my question to you, and to anyone who doesn't feel the same way I do about Hawke, is not just "will you please argue the semantics of heroism with me". My question is why is this tale necessary? What about Hawke and his story needed to be told, and needed to be the focus of Dragon Age 2? To me, the purpose of this game seems only to be to serve as a teaser for coming titles. I don't feel like I got a complete experience with DA2 as I did with say, Origins, or Mass Effect. Those were compelling standalone tales that also wove into a greater fabric of a fictional universe. Dragon Age 2, in my opinion, did not live up to the storytelling standards set by previous games. And Hawke, as a result, did not measure up to the protaganists of other games.

[SexBomb]

My Hawke did even less than this. He sold out Isabela to the Arishok and didn't have the fight him at all. No. He was just a poor, lowly bystander in the mess that is Kirkwall.

by the way; when you do this, while you do get to escape what I believe to be the hardest battle in the game, you also end act 2 in the least dramatic way possible.

Modifié par Thats-Your-Funeral, 29 avril 2011 - 07:39 .

[AlexXIV]

Filament wrote...

Of course he is, Cassandra even said so.

Yeah ... alot of things are said, but not shown. That's why many people think Hawke is not as epic as the Warden. The problem with the narrative is that you get to see Varric and Cassandra all the time instead of getting an epic cutscene. I rather quickly got enough of Varric's tales just because of that. I mean if the assault at the keep would have been half as epic as the battle of Ostagar I would have been happy. But what happened? You walk in there, killing the occational wave of Qunari. If I compare it to the trailer then I have to wonder why they do that if they obviously know how to make epic cutscenes. Also Meredith bursting in and looking angry because hawke just 'stole' the show makes it even more poor. It doesn't feel like it was exceptional or anything.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 avril 2011 - 07:46 .

[ImoenBaby]

Hawke is a hero to some people, like the little girl he rescued from the serial killer of elves. Other people are probably pissed he sided with the mages.

As for being heroic on a worldwide scale...not so much. At least, not from what I can see: who knows how the mage revolution will play out, if it ever does?

Apologies to templar sympathizers.

[Mr.House]

Hawke is a hero, just a different type of hero then the Warden. The Warden is a hero because she/he stopped the Blight, thus saving ALOT of people, where Hawke is a hero to the people in Kirkwall, not a wide scale like the Warden, different type of hero, still a hero.

That's how I look at it anyways.

[nicethugbert]

DA2 is not, nor was it meant to be, a Save The World story like DA:O, so how can The Champion be a hero like The Warden?

He is only a hero to all the little people he saved if you played him that way.

[Majspuffen]

Compared to the Warden? Then no.

Compared to your everyday schmuck? Then yes.


I think one of the problems in this game was that your choices had no influence. The only real choice you get in the game is whether you bring your brother/sister to the Deep Roads and what happens after that. I've talked a bit with a friend regarding the ending of Dragon Age 2. We had quite different endings; I was a mage who sided with the Templars, he was a warrior who sided with the Mages. However - everything pretty much turned out the same.

In Dragon Age: Origins, however, you were faced with choices that had an impact. Everywhere. Circle Tower, Orzammar, Brecillian Forest, Landsmeet. Often it was the "Pick A or B" scenario, but at least it triggered something. The "Pick A or B" scenario in Dragon Age 2 doesn't trigger anything. Heck, you can decide not to help Ander's with rigging the church but he'll still do it. You can deny helping Merrill with her mirror but the quest will end the same anyway. I can't but help thinking that the game wasn't in development long enough.

But, I got side-tracked, didn't I? Looks like I did.

[Danjaru]

Nope, Hawke's no hero. Just as you called, a powerful bystander/mercenary. Which is fine, I don't like playing the main hero in all RPGs.

But at the same time Hawke's been so hyped as "the most important person in the world" and whatnot, the outcome was not what we were promised. And people (NPCs) treat Hawke like a hero and "incredibly important" when he really wasn't much more than a good fighter.

Modifié par Danjaru, 30 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[Dean_the_Young]

BeLikeHan wrote...

Ok, so you commend the fact that Hawke doesn't "pander to a player's ego", but isn't that kind of what the promotional material for this game was all about? It seems to me that this game was sold on the notion of not only you becoming a legend (sounds like ego pandering to me) but also having meaningful choices.

Only if you presumed it meant what you think it meant. It promised you Hawke would be a legend... and Hawke did. It promised you roleplaying... and it did. And it promised you progression over a seven-year period... which it did.

It never promised you a steady stream of world-altering choices, which is what some people have set the standard of 'meaningful choice' to. Why aren't companion choices meaningful? Why isn't whether Hawke's sibling lives or not meaningful? Why aren't sidequests meaningful? Why isn't the fact that Hawke tries something, even if it fails, meaningful? 

What, in fact, makes something meaningful. An epilogue slide about how the world politics change in direction?

Hawke's choices are all but ineffectual. He is a bit player in the schemes of other NPCs, and even his own companions. He never has his own grand plans. Aveline even confronts him with this during one of their conversations in the Keep. She says something to the effect of "you should start doing something around here". But you can't. You can only be pushed around by various players until making a binary choice at the end of the game that results in pretty much the same end-game, followed by the typical Bioware mysterious disappearance. The closest Hawke gets to any kind of really compelling or important issues while in Kirkwall is when he runs into the Grey Wardens for 30 seconds during the end of Act 2. I assumed that, having done that, we would finally get to be part of something worthwhile in Act 3, but alas. Just a tease.

Since every Bioware game ultimately leads to the same endgame setup, no matter the number or style of binary choices,  and every RPG is ultimately about the main character being pushed into quest A by character B in order to advance the plot, pretensions of a lack of choice when there was never a gameplay-determing choice in the franchise bar a single one in Awakening (being able to choose between defending the Keep or Amaranthine), the complaint sounds a little tinny.

Every hero, even the Warden, can ultimately be resolved to 'a bit player in other people's disputes and for the advantage of their own companions.' Zevran wanted his own life. Morrigan wanted the god baby. Leliana wanted to fulfill her vision to the maker and stop being bored. Shale was bored. Oghren was looking for Branka. Sten was looking for his honor. And Alistair? Alistair just didn't want to lead.

What was the Warden's grand independence from other people's plans and visions? To be a pawn in a Dwarven succession dispute. To be sent as the agent of a mad-elf's revenge. To be sent on a hopeless quest into a tower of demons to get you out of the way before the Anullment arrived. To be the pawn in a Human succession crisis. To be saved for a mad woman and her daughter's gambit at godly powers.

And, think about what you're saying. In your post you explain the relative unimportance of Shepard's origins. I can't disagree witht the things you're saying there. The same could be said for the origins in Dragon Age. But that's entirely my point. The same things that can be said of the origins in DA:O and the origins in ME can be said of the entire campaign of DA2. The whole game plays out like a massive prologue to the real conflicts and the real stories which they've reserved for further games. And that's the problem I have with Hawke. Shepard and the Warden both had origin stories which led them to a path, but also had compelling tales in which they were meaningful and important figures who made meaningful choices. Hawke's whole game was an origin story, and the real story (concerning Flemeth, the Seekers, the Grey Wardens, Morrigan and the child, and even the Qunari/Tevinter conflicts).

The whole game is only an origin story if you don't accept the prologue as an origin story: a character is introduced, the family and setting is introduced, and a quick climax and change of fortune sends the character to a far off place far from home, where their true calling exists.

'Meaningful' and 'compelling' are, as always, highly subjective in these sort of contexts. Shepard's origin story amounts to, about, a dozen changed lines over a game sixty+ hours long, and is so vague that even the origin itself is never relevant. As far as relevance goes, Hawke has both the Warden and Shepard beat: Hawke's origin as a Ferelden makes far, far more references within the game than either of the others.

But, my question to you, and to anyone who doesn't feel the same way I do about Hawke, is not just "will you please argue the semantics of heroism with me". My question is why is this tale necessary?

Because Dragon Age exists for the sole purpose of giving Bioware your money.

What about Hawke and his story needed to be told, and needed to be the focus of Dragon Age 2?

See above.

Or, if you're talking about in the Dragon Age Franchise: having decided to continue the Dragon Age franchise into an actualy story line following a stand-alone, story structure was a necessary component for building up the context and setting to DA3 and beyond, in order to get the distant finale they only vaguely implied even existed in DA1. To construct that setting which was radically different from Origins, they could either (a) tell us it happened, or ( let us play it out in a game that makes them money and allows the player to see changes in the world.

To me, the purpose of this game seems only to be to serve as a teaser for coming titles. I don't feel like I got a complete experience with DA2 as I did with say, Origins, or Mass Effect. Those were compelling standalone tales that also wove into a greater fabric of a fictional universe. Dragon Age 2, in my opinion, did not live up to the storytelling standards set by previous games. And Hawke, as a result, did not measure up to the protaganists of other games.

This is a common complaint with middle-stories in trilogies or longer series: they can not, by structural requirements, resolve the plot. The complaint is also common in ME2's forums.

'Every game a stand alone' only works in a universe with no-overarching plot, so that every game, without taking place at the same time in places that never come into contact. Games are free to stand alone because they aren't bound by establishments of the prequel or expectations of the sequel.

But to do so neglects the biggest advantage of the RPG market that Bioware is cornering: the idea of using choices for other games. And this requires, for time-space reasons, games to happen after another (so that choices can propegate and be reflected). Short of simply having entirely meaningless cameos that never affect the story or world in any sense (Hi Morrigan God baby, by Morrigan God baby), this leads to making a story. And a story with more than two parts will always see the  non-last parts carry ideas from the previous parts and prepare them anew for the next. But that requirement is what you're complaining about.


In structure:

Bioware makes RPGs.
Bioware made Dragon Age: Origins without the reliance on it being repeated.
Because Bioware was not relying on DA:O to be repeated, it could not rely on a sequel and instead had to make a game that would stand on its own.
Because DA:O was able to stand on its own, it inspired the desire for more games of the franchise.
Because a game franchise already existed, and critical mass had been achieved in support, Bioware could then plan games that could stand on eachother and not need to stand alone.
Bioware thus chose to make a series of RPG's of the Dragon Age Franchise.
Bioware has a corporate strategy of making RPG's which reflect the choices made in the RPG of the same franchise.
In order to reflect choices made in RPGs of the same franchise, the games must be set after one another.
The proven, effective way to organize a sequence of stories with influential affects on the world is to put together an overarching plot.
A plot can only be resolved at the end of a series.
Any series which requires/desires/aims for more than two parts will not be resolved in the second part.
Because it is not the conclusion act, any and every non-end part will serve to reflect the results of the prior parts in some way and will serve to lead into the next part in some way, especially via cliff hanger or enticement.
This is a historic, proven, and commercially successful writing strategy that makes Bioware money.
Bioware exist to make money.
And Dragon Age exists to make Bioware money.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 avril 2011 - 02:22 .

[AlexXIV]

I heard of DA being a trilogy or franchise about half a year before release and they started working on DA2 before DA:O was released (probably also about half a year before release). So no, it was not meant to be stand-alone. Bioware is unexperienced at making sequels though, espeically those who carry over decisions in a save game import. I think ME is the first Bioware game that ever did it. Now ME was much more streamlined than DA:O. While in both game the final confrontation with the antagonist, DA:O had alot more 'flags'. You could change the entire political landscape of Ferelden.

ME went the save way. They didn't give people alot of choices to begin with. So I guess they realized some time while making DA2/Awakenings that they gave too much freedom, thus having trouble to address all of it in a seque/expansionl. It's a learning process I guess. I don't think it was luck or done better in ME, ME just was the save route while DA was a bit optimistic.

So that's basically why I think DA2 was so streamlined. But they made alot of wrong calls in the minor quests. I think alot of people would have had an easier time to accept the streamlining in the main quest if the side quests at least had been more flexible. I mean it is different to have a hero who can fail, or fails every now or then because ... you simply can't always win. But DA feels like a story about failing. And that's just something that doesn't go well with games. You play games to win. If not always then at least sometimes.

Personally for me the family thing ruined it. That Hawke could not solve the Qunari problem peacefully, or the mage-templar conflict, may be acceptable. But losing eveything is too much. They went way overboard trying to make players connect with the hero by feeling sorry for him/her. They did good in Origins, where every origin is about loss. And there is a general sadness in the whole story because of what Grey Wardens are and what it means to be one, etc. But they make up for it by giving people the chance to win every now and then. In DA2 you never really win, and even if you do then in the next scene you lose again. Players need to be motivated, not demotivated.

[RPGrogue]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well maybe they should have made Hawke the one who embraces destiny and changes the world forever and not the one who fights destiny and gets swallowed whole.

See on my first play through, I got swallowed hole, but on my second he screamed about mage injustice as much as anders. He knew anders was up to no good, but helped him anyway, to be honest it is how you play the game, because my second play through he was in control.

[Chuvvy]

Hawke was a participant. He played a major roll, but he wasn't a hero. Maybe in Act 2 you could be considered a hero, but Act 3? You were just involved, there was no hero for Act 3, which I'd be fine with, had the executed it better.

[Kloreep]

Perhaps not in the sense that the OP is hoping, no. But I'm one of those who like that about the story.

DA2 seems to be set up to float the hero archetype initially and then puncture it. Cassandra comes in to the interrogation believing Hawke to be a mastermind who schemed for years to change Kirkwall and the world. She leaves having been convinced of Varric's story - which I can only assume is meant to be truthful - that, yes, Hawke was just in the right place at the right time in a few instances, just another person handling things as they came. I loved that about DA2, personally.

Wulfram wrote...

Hawke is a hero because when the chips are down they don't run and hide, they step in and play a role. Their response to the Qunari attacking Hightown is to go there, their response to the Annulment of the Circle is to intervene, not stand aside.

Heroism isn't about impact, it's about effort.

Fair call/definition.

Modifié par Kloreep, 01 mai 2011 - 04:48 .

[Auroras]

Nope, Hawke's definitely not a hero. Just a guy/gal who was in the right places at the right times, made the right connections, and randomly disappeared.

[spoe71]

I see a lot of quality discussion going on here. I'll just point out that Hawke, though many consider him/her not of the same heroic caliber as the Hero of Ferelden, is still a hero in his own right. I think what a lot of people have failed to realize is that Hawke's destiny was not a "save the world" one like the protagonist's in the first game but an "I'm just trying to survive" destiny.

This game I don't feel was supposed to be the same as Origins. We watch this adventure unfold in a different way. Some heroes are made for larger-than-life endeavors; Hawke is not one of those people, even though by the end of the game, he certainly is a force to be reckoned with---one that, were Duncan still alive, would have certainly gained his attention as a potential Grey Warden recruit.

[Abispa]

Yep, Hawke is just some average schmo. I know plenty of people willing to risk their lives in uncharted territory against hostile animals and natives. And I'm sure we wouldn't even be able to count the number of unimpressive people who would rise up to challenge a small army of well-trained soldiers slaughtering civic leaders in Detroit. And which of us wouldn't break a sweat going to Libya right now to personally settle the violent dispute between dangerous rebels and government zealots. And we all now that these acts would be rendered even more insignificant if we actually managed to get paid for them.

[Nixter Shepard]

Hawk was more of a pawn in a much bigger picture.