5 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sabotin wrote...

I wrote "instead" not "after". If I wasn't clear enough with intent - you can't do everything you want because it's a game with limited freedom. Like every other game. If it's not implemented it's simply not there.

Because my Wardens respected Duncan for saving them in some way. She would want to fulfill her duties in honor of Duncan.

Which is fair, insofar as your character is concerned - but others may not have felt that way. I've seen the argument on these forums that some people wanted to tell the whole order to shove it because they were, essentially, shanghai'd into becoming a Grey Warden. They never really got that option - and that's the thing with interactive narratives. We're not at a point (nor is it necessarily, in and of itself, always a desirable end-point) where we can say 'you do whatever you want, and we'll accomodate it'.

It's true in any game, of course, but even more noticeable in games with choice. Giving you the opportunity to say 'this is what I want to do here' makes it even more obvious when that option doesn't exist. One of my favourite games of all time is STALKER, but even there - it's a game where you can, theoretically, play it however you want. Except when you get to particular spots in the game, you auto-holster your weapon. What if I wanted to go into the Bar and take out that sneak who took my money for some bad information? Well, I can't, and that always struck me as a little odd, all the more so because I had so much freedom everywhere else.

In DA2, a certain number of things are assumed for the sake of cohesiveness and the like. One of those is that your Hawke remains in Kirkwall - certainly, not all Hawkes would do this, but allowing you to say 'alright, I'm out. Peace.' wasn't something we were able (or, indeed, willing) to accomodate. Is this a failing of the game? I don't think so, but it's something that will bother certain people more or less, depending on what they're looking for. It is something that's ever-present in gaming, though - even in sandbox games, though there it doesn't always seem as obvious because there are enough places where you can, essentially, say 'alright, I'm out' and then spend hours seeing how many cars you can stack on top of each other, and how big of an explosion it'll make when you take out the bottom one.

EDIT: Cleaned up some of my wording and punctuation.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 16 mai 2011 - 05:35 .

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Hawke was too lazy to actually investigate a serial killer. He's definitely too lazy to say "Screw you Kirkwall!"

If Tommy Hawke couldn't punch a problem into submission, it was someone else's problem.

Black and white. Left and right. Uppercut and jab. That's how he sees the world.

[John Epler]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Hawke was too lazy to actually investigate a serial killer. He's definitely too lazy to say "Screw you Kirkwall!"

If Tommy Hawke couldn't punch a problem into submission, it was someone else's problem.

Black and white. Left and right. Uppercut and jab. That's how he sees the world.

So why should Tommy Hawke stay?  You've got tons of money.  No more family, and a city full of either bloodcrazed lunatics or raving fanatics?

That's the problem.  The game doesn't make you identify with Kirkwall enough to make it seem worth saving (or taking over).

-Polaris

I agree 100%. Mr. Epler, what do you have to say?

Well, firstly, that my post was meant to be a joke But since you asked...

It's the only city where I have any kind of foundation to build on. By the time I have plenty of money, I've already been there a long time (let's say by the beginning of Act Two. Sure, you can accumulate a lot of gold through Act 1 questing, but let's separate in-game money and 'plot' money for the purposes of this discussion, since that's a whole other debate'.

I've been there long enough that I've got connections. I've got a name that people recognize and that, for better or for worse, is worth something to the powerful elite (everyone's heard of me by this point, after all). I have friends, too - each of my companions has something that ties them to Kirkwall, and if I uproot and leave, well, I don't really foresee any of them following me. (Maybe Isabela by Act Three, but that's about it).

Heck, depending on how deep into the story you want to go, you could argue that the loss of family is, in itself, a great reason to stay there. I'm not going to post spoilers, but there are reasons associated with each that will keep you there at least until the end of Act Two, if not throughout the whole game. If you have any aspirations towards changing the mage/templar dynamic, well, Kirkwall seems like the right place to do that - ample reason for confrontation with both or either side.

It also has a not-insignificant population of Ferelden refugees. Sure, that's not a huge deal for everyone, but I like having my own people around me. It makes me comfortable. And yes, I could just go back to Ferelden - but that's where my home was, once, until it was destroyed. Not something I want to revisit - I've closed the book on that part of my life.

I'm certainly not dismissing the idea that, for some, they didn't feel any real connection or reason to stay in Kirkwall. Not everyone will interpret things the same way, nor will they feel the same attachment that I might. But I don't think it's fair to say that either A) it's a problem specific to DA2 or that it's a universal problem. I had no end of reasons to stay. Others, perhaps not. Fair enough!

[John Epler]

IanPolaris wrote...

John Epler,

The problem is by this point it's crystal clear that you AREN'T allowed to change anything, and I do consider that a problem in DA2. If nothing you can do is going to be meaningful (and it's not and that becomes obvious by the start of Act III...and I won't go into further details because that would involve spoilers), then why stay when the situation is clealry spiraling out of control. Not much political influence in a ruined wasteland and it's pretty clear at the end that's where Kirkwall is heading unless you can change it, and the game makes it crystal clear that you CAN'T change it no matter what you do.

-Polaris

Before I continue, I want to mention that I'm not trying to blindly defend or excuse anything. Once more, I understand this criticism and I understand why it's levelled. I don't agree with it completely, of course, but I'm not trying to bury my head in the sand and say 'it's okay guys here's why you're wrong'. With that in mind...

I think that this is a case of player knowledge versus character knowledge. Hawke doesn't know that he can't change things. Until the very end, there's still the glimmering of hope that, if he's able to take care of all the little problems, he can start to fix the big problems - the reasons why Kirkwall is the way it is. It's a powder keg, sure, but he can still hold out some hope that it's possible to dump a little water on it so it doesn't explode.

That's the point of a particular event near the end, really. Hawke's not the only one who thinks that the problems can be solved and the ship righted. There's at least one other character who believes it, and who takes steps specifically to prevent this sort of reconciliation. They don't want things returned to anything close to the status quo. They want to knock down the house of cards and scatter them to the winds so that it can never be rebuilt the way it was. And they take steps specifically to ensure that this happens.

Now, would we set it up so that an NPC provides the impetus for the climax again? I don't know - I'm not a writer, so while I do have some say in the narrative, it's at a more micro level, rather than macro. I know that we're aware that some people were not happy with this decision, and once again - I can certainly see why people have a problem with it. And, of course, if you're aware that the avalanche has started and there's not much you can do to stop it, it does create a rather different experience than if you are convinced throughout Act Three that you can still change the course of history.

I was a fan, to be honest, but then my tastes in fiction do tend to tend more towards the hopeless and dystopian than anything else. So perhaps I'm not the best judge - and fortunately for everyone, I'm also not going to be the guy who decides how to handle these aspects in the future

[John Epler]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that 'give the player more of a feeling of agency' has been circled a few dozen times in the Fan Feedback 9000. Like I said - it's something we're aware of. And I'm not trying to say 'WELL I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'RE JUST FULL OF DUMB FOR THINKING THAT WAY', so much as attempting to explain the intent there. Whether we achieved our intent or not is, of course, up for discussion. And a good discussion it has been!