Upsettingshorts wrote...
The easiest and most obvious example is that Hawke determines who wins the first battle of the mage revolution.
No, because Hawke siding with mages still ends up with mages losing and Orsino going mad because of it.
What happened, is the Templars letting Hawke go, but the rebellion was defeated.
At the very best, Hawke may have saved a few mages (and I doubt even this). But for the Circle to be destroyed in one night is hardly a victory.
I didn't read either from his statement. He asked "what does Champion of Kirkwall mean?" and then ran off some hypotheticals that a player, who hasn't played the game, might offer up as guesses.
Except he says it's also up to us to decide and detemirne that, when we do not.
If he was talking about what the Champion was feeling about the situation, whether he was depressed, excited or whatever, then sure, his set of hypotheticals would serve the idea of the game being about *who*, rather than *what* (and I don't see why it couldnt' be both).
In my case, it certainly wasn't due to lack of trying.
Why didn't he try to sieze on obvious opportunities? What did he try to do incidently?
Seems to me that he's more content with playing ball with Meredith, Orsino and Elthina. With him being the ball.
What did he do that is pro-active?
A few things I can think about is helping the mage underground, though very minimally and superficially, or assisting Templars again minimally, or both. But he could have done more, and that would have been a real story of a rise to power, even if it failed.
Yeah, but I don't see the problem with this.
Neither do I, except they also claimed that Hawke was the most important person in Thedas ever. But that's something I dismiss the moment I heard it.
You said, his choices affected Kirkwall and Thedas. They didn't really.
Free space to maneuver? You had to collect 4 treaties, had to put an infertile monarch(s) on the throne, and had to end a Blight. The free space to maneuever was, at best, a more effective illusion.
You chose the timing of each treaty (yea, I think it's important for roleplaying), you decided if Ferelden was going to have a chancellor (you or Eamon), or solo monarch (3 varieties, with hardened / unhardened, possibly with msitress), or couple (three varieties, possibly with a mistress), who the Teyrn of Gwaren could be, the fate of the Circle (even if failed, was still an attempt), reinforcements to Orzammar
...etc etc.
Could be called more effective illusion, but it's efficiently pleasant, at least to me.
Of course, I prefer choices mattering more in game like TW1 and 2, but that's another topic.
We disagree on what a "choice to test character" is. Quite wildly.
I think a much better "personality test" as it were is to have someone be capable of doing a lot of things, and choosing one path. Rather than have someone being forced to choose something, and then rationalize it. Not saying the latter situation isn't revealing, but I think the former is more so.
It really just seems like you're saying, "Hawke didn't always do everything I think he should have been able to."
No, I am saying that there was no rise to power. There could have been a lot of ways that could be done, ones that I may not be a fan of. And it could still end in failure.
Hawke not doing what he can do, is something I dislike, but I've said that's my opinion. And you can be perfectly content with what he did.
What I am saying is that there is no real rise to power here, not even an attempted rise to power.
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 12:18 .
Retour en haut
