510 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Which makes me wonder, if Mike Laidlaw knew our "choices" would just serve to move the plot along, instead of actually shaping the how the storyline plays out, why did he say this.

"You''ll be able to shape a story that takes place over a decade. Every one of your choices has a consequence. You decide what the term Champion of Kirkwall means" - Mike Laidlaw

No I don't. Hawke stumbles into being a "Champion". My actions had nothing to do with ti. The barely coherent plot did!

My Hawke/Champion was a guy who struggled desperately to contain the situation in Kirkwall with his methods in attempts to do so escalating alongside with the conflict and ultimately, failed in his goal.

But that was roleplaying more than the game telling me that.  However the game did allow me that internal freedom to choose what I cared about and why.

DAO was "becuz Blight."  You couldn't, for example, express how you felt kidnapped and trapped by your unwanted obligation to the Grey Wardens to Wynne when she asked you what it meant to you.  You either bought the premise your Origin story and Ostagar fed to you or found yourself actively contradicted by the options presented in the game.

DA2 wasn't perfect in this regard - for example if I spread my anger at the mages and Templars fairly equally Anders might still say that I've "gone out of my way to support the mage cause" when I really haven't.  But subjectively I was much more interested in my characters own views and motivations in DA2 than I was in DAO, and that was fun.

Like I said though, roleplaying.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 10:53 .

[_Aine_]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

No I don't. Hawke stumbles into being a "Champion". My actions had nothing to do with ti. The barely coherent plot did!

the interesting thing is ... I think it was Aveline .... makes a dig about this, saying every bit of power and prestige you got was basically because you stumbled upon it or killed for it.  It was implied that the title of Champion was kind of a joke.     I never once felt like a Champion.   In fact, I would have happily razed the city to the ground to start again once or twice  Ah well.  All of this means nothing to the people who liked it.  And to the people who didn't for that matter.  

[Slugwood]

ipgd wrote...

Hence why I'm always saying DA2 is going to be like MGS2. Hate it now guys, I'll be laughing a decade later when you're all using my hideously pathetic essays to show all your friends that you're totes down with deep art games

oh god i am such a loser ; ;

But yeah, it obviously wasn't a very good financial move. Still, it's nice to see a game every now and get that steps off the beaten path (or lays horrific disfiguring traps on the beaten path to torment you) for the sake of art, even if it means the development team will have to eat out of the dumpster for a while.

Haha, believe me, I wish I believed Bioware's intentions were that noble.  I'm with you, I loved DA2 in a slightly masochistic way, especially the Anders romance.  Frustration and hard decisions everywhere (regardless of if the outcome changed in any way, Hawke was put through the wringer as far as moral quandaries go).  Certainly, causing a response and causing people to feel intense emotion can be a major artistic goal.

But I just don't think that was the intention.  DA2 was, rather, for profit first.  (And that brings up lots of other questions, like if something can be art if the author did not intend it as such.)

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Anyways, suggesting that Hawke's
powerlessness is some kind of plot twist that is supposed to deconstruct
pre-established notions is just...well kind of ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? 

If I sell you a dye for your hair that I tell you is supposed to turn your hair black, and it ends up being green, and I tell you my intent was to deconstruct your pre-established notions which I set up in the first place, then I doubt you wouldn't find it ridiculous.

Now if it ends up being a particularly ugly shade of green on top of that, from your perspective, and not worth the money you put into it, it gets worse.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I reject masking laziness with powerlessness, while claiming that the whole thing is about a rise to power.

I reject making strong statements as a replacement for an argument.  Where does Hawke specifically demonstrate laziness?

- Finding key evidence linked to the murder of his mother and not doing a single thing about it (the letter that implicated someone from the Circle, a lead that could have been investigated).
- Spending three years between Act 2 and Act 3 doing nothing while Kirkwall is going to hell, while he had the power to.
- Having a fortune and not doing anything constructive with it.
- Being entirely reactive and not once was he pro-active.

All signs of laziness, or passivity. In either case, a very unpeasant protagonist to play as imo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tonnactus wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


But to tell me that the game is all about determining a rise to power that did not happen,

If hawke side with the templars at the end of act 3,he becomes the viscount.Thats not a rise to power?

Not really, because he disapears a few days later and the whole rise involved just killing and not using his brain once.

[Xilizhra]

- Finding key evidence linked to the murder of his mother and not doing a single thing about it (the letter that implicated someone from the Circle, a lead that could have been investigated).
- Spending three years between Act 2 and Act 3 doing nothing while Kirkwall is going to hell, while he had the power to.
- Having a fortune and not doing anything constructive with it.
- Being entirely reactive and not once was he pro-active.

-All that Remains was terrible, but I don't feel this was particularly so. Though maybe it was mostly because it wasn't in my Hawke's character to do so; it was just an old note about books and the killer was already dead.
-True; this is why I hate the timeskips and more or less pretend they don't exist.
-What would you like to be shown?

[rak72]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


- Finding key evidence linked to the murder of his mother and not doing a single thing about it (the letter that implicated someone from the Circle, a lead that could have been investigated).
- Spending three years between Act 2 and Act 3 doing nothing while Kirkwall is going to hell, while he had the power to.
- Having a fortune and not doing anything constructive with it.
- Being entirely reactive and not once was he pro-active.

All signs of laziness, or passivity. In either case, a very unpeasant protagonist to play as imo.

I know that if my mother told me she were dating again, and there was a serial killer going around giving white lilies to women, I would probably mention that to her.  I always found it curious that Hawke did not.

[ipgd]

Slugwood wrote...

Haha, believe me, I wish I believed Bioware's intentions were that noble.  I'm with you, I loved DA2 in a slightly masochistic way, especially the Anders romance.  Frustration and hard decisions everywhere (regardless of if the outcome changed in any way, Hawke was put through the wringer as far as moral quandaries go).  Certainly, causing a response and causing people to feel intense emotion can be a major artistic goal.

But I just don't think that was the intention.  DA2 was, rather, for profit first.  (And that brings up lots of other questions, like if something can be art if the author did not intend it as such.)

I don't think it has to be either or. I think the writing team was trying to accomplish something within the revenue-motivated constraints of the executives. In other words, they may have gone that direction because of the outside pressure of people themselves pressured by money, but I don't think the narrative itself was specifically concerned with it, if you get what I'm saying?

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If I sell you a dye for your hair that I tell you is supposed to turn your hair black, and it ends up being green, and I tell you my intent was to deconstruct your pre-established notions which I set up in the first place, then I doubt you wouldn't find it ridiculous.

Now try without using an unrelated metaphorical strawman.

I found the "marketing line" that in DA2 you choose "who is the Champion of Kirkwall" very appropriate, actually.  It's about who they are (Roleplaying!) not what they did ("omg therz no choice in dis game!").

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Finding key evidence linked to the murder of his mother and not doing a single thing about it (the letter that implicated someone from the Circle, a lead that could have been investigated).

This one I'll buy.  But following through wouldn't have increased his power, it would have probably led to either (in the best of scenarios) the right man being punished for his crimes.  In the worst case, Meredith probably has a fit and punishes everyone.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Spending three years between Act 2 and Act 3 doing nothing while Kirkwall is going to hell, while he had the power to.

Prove that Hawke didn't try to do anything.  Does the game explicitly state he did nothing?  Or is this an assumption based on the fact the situation escalates anyway?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Having a fortune and not doing anything constructive with it.

Such as?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- Being entirely reactive and not once was he pro-active.

I struggle to think of a cRPG I can recall where this wasn't - at least how I understand your point - the case. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But that was roleplaying more than the game telling me that.  However the game did allow me that internal freedom to choose what I cared about and why.

How so? When at the end you got those choices and pick one it repeats a 'previous' dialogue then throws you back to same choices minus the one you just picked... Especially given how you claimed you played as someone who RP'ed as negotiator and peacekeeping kind, that option was the peacekeeping negotiaion type one out of the list and you just got facepalmed by how it was removed after selecting it. Yet you praise it so I repeat my question, how so?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...
-All that Remains was terrible, but I don't feel this was particularly so. Though maybe it was mostly because it wasn't in my Hawke's character to do so; it was just an old note about books and the killer was already dead.

So you're telling me, if God forbids your mother is murdered by a lunatic and you know that lunatic had some help from the Circle, that you would not even try to investigate?

I am not saying you storm in the Circle and kill everyone. Just investigate and see if that other person is responsable for the crime.

-What would you like to be shown?

Too lazy to do it now, but I suggested some things in the Templar vs Mage thread.

[upsettingshorts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

How so? When at the end you got those choices and pick one it repeats a 'previous' dialogue then throws you back to same choices minus the one you just picked... Especially given how you claimed you played as someone who RP'ed as negotiator and peacekeeping kind, that option was the peacekeeping negotiaion type one out of the list and you just got facepalmed by how it was removed after selecting it. Yet you praise it so I repeat my question, how so?

Are you talking about post Act 3 climax event where you choose 1-2 paths?  I'd be more specific but - even though we've violated this already, it's pretty big - this is a nonspoiler forum.

Alistairlover94 wrote...

But it was advertised that you do
in fact stumble onto the title of a Grey Warden. They failed to mention
that in the marketing for DA2. Where you also stumble onto the title of
"Champion of Kirkwall".

I don't think Hawke stumbled onto it, mine worked pretty hard to deal with those Qunari.  He probably didn't consider that a title like "Champion" would follow.  

How many Hawkes dealt with the Arishok by accident?  Is that even possible?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 11:01 .

[Xilizhra]

So you're telling me, if God forbids your mother is murdered by a lunatic and you know that lunatic had some help from the Circle, that you would not even try to investigate?

If they were one of hundreds of people in a concentration camp run by a crazed paranoiac? I think I'd consider my personal issues lesser than the potential fallout that could land on them.

[billy the squid]

ipgd wrote...

Cipher1989 wrote...

Dragon Age 2, as a stand alone game, it's actually pretty decent. But as a sequal to Dragon Age Origins? Not so much.

I think it actually draws a lot of its impact from its role as a sequel to DAO: specifically, the awareness of sequel-pattern expectations. A lot of the dramatic tension is derived from setting you up to expect significant player agency (through the player's familiarity with DAO, and a series of "illusionary" choice options early in the game such as Meeran/Athenril), and then denying it to you (e.g. as with Leandra, the Chantry, etc.) in a way that links the protagonist's in-narrative sense of helplessness to the player's own metagame "frustrations", if you will. Unlike DAO, which consistently offers the player choices that heavily impact the narrative, or at least enforce an illusion thereof, DA2 forgoes the illusion entirely as the game progresses and rubs it directly in your face. By the end, the player is made to empathize with Hawke's powerlessness in a way a purely linear series would not have been able to accomplish.

There is such a thing over analysis, a spade is still a spade no matter how one looks at it. Trying to legitimise DA2's flaws with florid prose as a design choice is absurd. EA is a business and will treat all assets as revenue producing material, companies do not move from tried and tested designs unless they believe that the potential profits outweight the percieved risk of doing so.

Modifié par billy the squid, 21 mai 2011 - 11:02 .

[upsettingshorts]

billy the squid wrote...

There is such a thing over analysis, a spade is still a spade no matter how one looks at it. Trying to legitimise DA2's flaws with florid prose as a design choice is absurd. EA is a business and will treat all assets as revenue producing material, companies do not move from tried and tested designs unless they believe that the potential profits outweight the percieved risk of doing so.

I'd agree if ipgd was trying to defend the repeated levels, or the fact Kirkwall looks underpopulated considering how overpopulated it is described,  or other such elements.

But a defense of the story the game told is perfectly legitimate. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

How so? When at the end you got those choices and pick one it repeats a 'previous' dialogue then throws you back to same choices minus the one you just picked... Especially given how you claimed you played as someone who RP'ed as negotiator and peacekeeping kind, that option was the peacekeeping negotiaion type one out of the list and you just got facepalmed by how it was removed after selecting it. Yet you praise it so I repeat my question, how so?

Are you talking about post Act 3 climax event where you choose 1-2 paths?  I'd be more specific but - even though we've violated this already, it's pretty big - this is a nonspoiler forum.

[Warning Spoiler skip if don't wish to know]


No you have 1-3 dialogue paths, you pick one and it slaps you in the face and leaves you 1-2 paths, after wich regardless of which remaining path you pick you yet again get slapped in the face by the actions of another leaving you 1 path being kill each side. As for avoiding the question do what I just did tell people what your about to say is a spoiler then answer my question.


[End of Spoiler]

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If I sell you a dye for your hair that I tell you is supposed to turn your hair black, and it ends up being green, and I tell you my intent was to deconstruct your pre-established notions which I set up in the first place, then I doubt you wouldn't find it ridiculous.

Now if it ends up being a particularly ugly shade of green on top of that, from your perspective, and not worth the money you put into it, it gets worse.

Entertainment is a bit more of an abstract concept than hair dye. Unless you really do buy your games expecting exactly what's on the box, in which case I doubt you'd ever be happy with any sort of artistic medium.

[Slugwood]

ipgd wrote...

Slugwood wrote...

Haha, believe me, I wish I believed Bioware's intentions were that noble.  I'm with you, I loved DA2 in a slightly masochistic way, especially the Anders romance.  Frustration and hard decisions everywhere (regardless of if the outcome changed in any way, Hawke was put through the wringer as far as moral quandaries go).  Certainly, causing a response and causing people to feel intense emotion can be a major artistic goal.

But I just don't think that was the intention.  DA2 was, rather, for profit first.  (And that brings up lots of other questions, like if something can be art if the author did not intend it as such.)

I don't think it has to be either or. I think the writing team was trying to accomplish something within the revenue-motivated constraints of the executives. In other words, they may have gone that direction because of the outside pressure of people themselves pressured by money, but I don't think the narrative itself was specifically concerned with it, if you get what I'm saying?

Okay, this is more of a possibility.  Makes me worried for the writing team's careers, though, if they had the gonads to intentionally pull off something that would ****** off swaths of customers.  Certainly said executives would not be happy if that was the case.

It's too bad, of course, that it's unlikely we'd get to actually have this conversation with the writers themselves in a forum where they didn't have to toe the company line.

(Pardon my cynicism.)

[Mr.House]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

There is such a thing over analysis, a spade is still a spade no matter how one looks at it. Trying to legitimise DA2's flaws with florid prose as a design choice is absurd. EA is a business and will treat all assets as revenue producing material, companies do not move from tried and tested designs unless they believe that the potential profits outweight the percieved risk of doing so.

I'd agree if ipgd was trying to defend the repeated levels, or the fact Kirkwall looks underpopulated considering how overpopulated it is described,  or other such elements.

But a defense of the story the game told is perfectly legitimate. 

This

[ipgd]

billy the squid wrote...

There is such a thing over analysis, a spade is still a spade no matter how one looks at it. Trying to legitimise DA2's flaws with florid prose as a design choice is absurd. EA is a business and will treat all assets as revenue producing material, companies do not move from tried and tested designs unless they believe that the potential profits outweight the percieved risk of doing so.

Again:

I don't think it has to be either or. I think the writing team was trying to accomplish something within the revenue-motivated constraints of the executives. In other words, they may have gone that direction because of the outside pressure of people themselves pressured by money, but I don't think the narrative itself was specifically  concerned with it, if you get what I'm saying?

Bioware isn't just a big singular faceless entity, it's made up of separate parts that may have differing goals. I'm only speaking to the writing aspect of it.

Modifié par ipgd, 21 mai 2011 - 11:08 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're telling me, if God forbids your mother is murdered by a lunatic and you know that lunatic had some help from the Circle, that you would not even try to investigate?

If they were one of hundreds of people in a concentration camp run by a crazed paranoiac? I think I'd consider my personal issues lesser than the potential fallout that could land on them.

Family in RL tends to always come first. Strangers second thats human nature and Hawke was human. Jumping to the defense of lack of interest shown in relation to asking a mother about her BF or probing into who she is dating after years of seeing him is irrelevant to the fallout of anything, its talking to a family member about family issues like any family would do the wider issues have no relevence to this.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

(snip)

I have an answer, I wasn't avoiding the question.

In that situation my Hawke did choose that third option at first, but realized that he had failed in his goal the second COMPANION did WHAT COMPANION DID.  The third option represented, to him, a fool's hope.  He still grasped at it, though, out of whatever remaining optimism he had. 

Ultimately COMPANION succeeded in his goal, and my Hawke was forced to choose a side just as COMPANION intended him and everyone else to be forced to choose a side.  Given that my Hawke valued stability and peace most of all, he sided with the status quo ante (the Templars), punished COMPANION, and did so in the hope that containing the rebellion to Kirkwall might prevent the rest of Thedas from joining in too.

Granted, as a player I knew that this would fail too - given Varric and Cassandra's dialogue - but Hawke didn't, and I was doing what my character would have done.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Now try without using an unrelated metaphorical strawman.

DA2 claimed to have something that it did not and it had the complete opposite. It's the same.

I found the "marketing line" that in DA2 you choose "who is the Champion of Kirkwall" very appropriate, actually.  It's about who they are (Roleplaying!) not what they did ("omg therz no choice in dis game!").

Laidlaw said that one of those ways could have Hawke commanding armies. Where was that?

Furthermore, since the entire story is about forging a legend of the Champion (which Varric narrates to someone), the internal thinking of the Champion is not the only important thing. It's rather what he did materially. And there was no choice to determine what the Champion was.  

I don't mind roleplaying vis-avis Hawke's personality. But that's not all. Choices reflect personality and character more than internalized thinking.

This one I'll buy.  But following through wouldn't have increased his power, it would have probably led to either (in the best of scenarios) the right man being punished for his crimes.  In the worst case, Meredith probably has a fit and punishes everyone.

He doesn't have to tell Meredith, he could do a private investigation. He doesn't even bother.
Not talking about power here, but laziness.

Though potential blackmail used correctly is a form of power.

Prove that Hawke didn't try to do anything.  Does the game explicitly state he did nothing?  Or is this an assumption based on the fact the situation escalates anyway?

The beginning of Act 3 makes it clear that the Champion never made his opinion of the entire issue public. That only after 3 years, does he state his position. And don't say he was trying to subtly grabing power from behind the scenes, because there was nothing. Despite there being a lot of opportunies. 

Such as?

Investments, and not in a mine that we know ends up destroyed by Act 3.
Perhaps forging a small private army, manned by Ferelden refugees (his obvious powerbase). Perhaps improving Anders' clinic. Maybe even a school.

- Being entirely reactive and not once was he pro-active.

I struggle to think of a cRPG I can recall where this wasn't - at least how I understand your point - the case. 

I think the Warden had his moments of being pro-ative. Like actually rising to power when he doesn't have to. Deliberately befriending Alistair and planning to put him on the throne and control him is pro-active.

Might be illusionary at the end,m but it was still there.