143 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

But I was not given the option to side with the ArchDemon.  The reason being that thestoryteller did not allow that option.

Point.  Missing it.  Sure you weren't given that option.  However, all the lore and all the experience in the game showed that Darkspawn were like locausts that were intent on mindless destruction of all in their path.  There was no rationality or reason to them, and there was no negatiation.  If you didn't fight the darkspawn, Fereldan is destroyed and probably you with it.

Even for evil and self-centered people, personal survival is a pretty powerful motivator.  In short, DAO did a very good job at emotionally discouraging the "peace, I'm out" option,and even Morrigan voices that option and sneers at it saying it's a bad option (but is a supposed option).    This is what I mean by the illusion of choice.

DAO gives us a reason to WANT to defeat the blight, whether we are noble or ignoble.  DA2?  Not so much (re staying in Kirkwall)...and that's because IMO DA2 does a rotten job at making us identify with our characters (and not allowing us meaningful choice in the game is a large part of that failing).

-Polaris

[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.

[IanPolaris]

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

[AtreiyaN7]

Oh, right - they only had a living relative in Kirkwall and an estate. Yep, no reasons to go to Kirkwall - none!

[TEWR]

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.

Sure, until he finds out that due to his not investigating he has now run the risk of losing his mother to the killer

He had enough information to warrant a search. 

• He knew the trail ended in an old foundry in the "rusty metal spike district" as Varric put it
  
• He had influence with the Captain of the Guard. More than Emeric did.
  
• He saw Quentin fleeing the scene of the crime.
  
• He found a severed hand in the old foundry.
  
• He has found out 4 times prior to Leandra's abduction that lilies were involved in the kidnappings
  
• He had Gascard DuPuis to testify that someone was indeed kidnapping women using lilies.

That is more than enough to warrant a search and more than likely turn up something.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mai 2011 - 05:56 .

[erynnar]

Realmzmaster wrote...

erynnar wrote...

*Sigh* Because there are parameters for a reason, even in real life. Just as you can't take the lazar tag equipment out of the lazar tag arena and fight in the city streets, there are some things that you have to limit in a game. Killing the archdemon is one, staying in Kirkwall is another.

The problem then comes with the writing or your imagination (hopefully with help from the writters) where a plausible explanation for why..occurs. Now, I felt that DA2 missed the mark on that one big time. outside convos with companions who lightly mention staying was not enough for me, personally, after Frankenmom. I am not trashing DA2 nor do I hate it. For me, it was weak sauce.

Now maybe those here who liked DA2 and pan DAO found the same problem with DAO. To me, DAO explained it, don't kill the Archdemon and no matter where you go in Thedas, the Blight is going to follow destroying everything in it's path. Seems pretty motivating, whether you wanted to give the Wardens the two fingered salute and tell them to shove it. Or if you were playing a self serving evil douche bag, same thing. Self serving means having a world to manipulate and be a jerk in later, so saving it seems like a good idea.

But I was not given the option to side with the ArchDemon.  The reason being that thestoryteller did not allow that option.

How would you side with a crazed, insane, corrupted dragon? Even with intelligence it was crazy as a **** house rat. I got no idication that if you could have talked to it in any way, that the Archdemon would have listened to you and allowed you to fight with it.  

And still you run into the same problem...they destroy the world, so what world would have to live in other than becoming like Tamlen and becoming a diseased, insane, corrupted ghoul?

Polaris said it far more eloquently than I did.

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Oh, right - they only had a living relative in Kirkwall and an estate. Yep, no reasons to go to Kirkwall - none!

Hawke's siblings can all be killed(and someone else in her family). Why should she stay? She has no more roots there(aside from Gamlen. But really, who would stay for Gamlen?)

Gamlen's not so bad, but Charade is the only reason I stay in Kirkwall. I figured there would be a quest involving a child of Gamlen's after Mama Hawke's death and sibling A/B's departure.

[erynnar]

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

And this^  Really I felt no connection to Kirkwall after a certain quest. In fact, it seemed like a really good idea to leave.  And did it creep anyone else out that the lillies stayed on the table long after that quest was over?

[AngryFrozenWater]

@JohnEpler: STALKER is a good game series. Have all 3 of them. They're shooters, but with depth. Not sure if they are RPGs, but they come close. In fact I don't mind what they are. A good game is a good game, no matter what genre.

OT: The story seems to be about the rise of Hawke. Kirkwall looks like an interesting setting when everything around you is in turmoil. From that point of view it is a good location. What I truly miss is that the PC cannot make choices (although BW promised that we could), but is driven by the story instead. I.e., the only thing Hawke can do is respond. That causes the main story to become an interactive movie with a couple of fights thrown in. I see that as a major problem. There aren't any meaningful choices. Everything plays out the same and you'll fight the same enemies, no matter what side you've chosen. The fact that you can become viscount is cosmetic, because you accomplish nothing and you'll disappear anyway.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[TEWR]

and if you add in the fact that Gascard's testimony might be able to solidify help from the Templars because Emeric was right and this involved one of their Circle Mages, then there is no reason why Hawke, the City Guard, and the Templars didn't investigate fully.

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Oh, right - they only had a living relative in Kirkwall and an estate. Yep, no reasons to go to Kirkwall - none!

Hawke's siblings can all be killed(and someone else in her family). Why should she stay? She has no more roots there(aside from Gamlen. But really, who would stay for Gamlen?)

Gamlen's not so bad, but Charade is the only reason I stay in Kirkwall. I figured there would be a quest involving a child of Gamlen's after Mama Hawke's death and sibling A/B's departure.

But Charade doesn't live in Kirkwall does she? And even if she did, you could tell them what's going down and offer to use your wealth and move them out of Kirkwall and set them up somewhere else and take care of them...say Ferelden?  Again, no connection to Kirkwall. I forgot about Gamlen and my cousin! I didn't get to get really connected to them either.

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Oh, right - they only had a living relative in Kirkwall and an estate. Yep, no reasons to go to Kirkwall - none!

Hawke's siblings can all be killed(and someone else in her family). Why should she stay? She has no more roots there(aside from Gamlen. But really, who would stay for Gamlen?)

Gamlen's not so bad, but Charade is the only reason I stay in Kirkwall. I figured there would be a quest involving a child of Gamlen's after Mama Hawke's death and sibling A/B's departure.

Dude, are you psychic?

I only wish we got to nteract with her some more, however. She seemed like the only one in Jerkwall who wasn't actually a massive ******.

I wish. If I was I would've won the lottery.


But it was just obvious that since Gamlen was the only family left to interact with they'd expand on that a little bit. And it was very nicely done. It showed that deep down Gamlen's a good guy who does care about his family.

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Oh, right - they only had a living relative in Kirkwall and an estate. Yep, no reasons to go to Kirkwall - none!

Hawke's siblings can all be killed(and someone else in her family). Why should she stay? She has no more roots there(aside from Gamlen. But really, who would stay for Gamlen?)

Gamlen's not so bad, but Charade is the only reason I stay in Kirkwall. I figured there would be a quest involving a child of Gamlen's after Mama Hawke's death and sibling A/B's departure.

But Charade doesn't live in Kirkwall does she? And even if she did, you could tell them what's going down and offer to use your wealth and move them out of Kirkwall and set them up somewhere else and take care of them...say Ferelden?  Again, no connection to Kirkwall. I forgot about Gamlen and my cousin! I didn't get to get really connected to them either.

I think Charade moved to Kirkwall because she regularly visits Gamlen.

But I see your point. However blood ties to places where ancestors used to live means a lot to people. My ancestors owned a mine that currently has bears around the area. I still go there, even though there are bears somewhere.

Likewise, in the same general area that the mine is in my family owns a house there. All of this is in the state of Michigan in the Upper Peninsula, where snowfall can get as high as 4-6 feet at least. We still keep the house up there though because of our Native American lineage.

[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!

[TEWR]

I saw that you meant it as a joke and had to first say...


subtle jokes do not transfer well over text without the use of smiley faces =P


*goes back to reading rest of Mr. Epler's post*

[IanPolaris]

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

[AngryFrozenWater]

Another thing that I miss in DA2 is that nobody recognizes which side you have chosen and what class you are. These things are less important for a game like DA:O, but in DA2's Kirkwall the side you have chosen should have an impact on the story (which it doesn't) and because you play as a mage (which is usually hunted down, except that it is not enforced on you) you become alienated from the story. Add to that the fact that you don't have meaningful choices and the feeling of being part of the main story collapses.

All kinds of odd things happen that make no sense, because of this. A mage Hawk can encounter other mages and even though you may be on their side they attack you on sight anyway. That's also true for a rogue supporting the mages. There are lots of these issues that make me scratch my head.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 mai 2011 - 06:25 .

[Aaleel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

a lot of people are assuming that one year in Thedas' timeframe is equal to our standard value of a year, i.e 1 year = 12 months, where each month consists of roughly 30-31 days.


Since Thedas is a fantasy world, it may have a different amount of days for each month and a different amount of months for each year. Which is the only way Bioware could salvage what remains from this train wreck of a continuity error.

http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Calendar

12 thrity day months, so technically a year is shorter in Thedas.

[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