82 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Loftian]

It's because he IS reactive. Bioware marketing did a superb job of misleading us.

[TJPags]

Hawke did nothing special.

he became Champion because he got rid of the Arishok. Which he did because he just happened to be there. There was no "side with the Arishok" option. There was no "Hey, you do it" option. Hawke had no choice. And he could have gotten rid of them just by handing over exactly what they wanted - the book and the thief (Isabela). Nothing too amazing about that, is there?

As to the "main factor in the civil war", as you point out, that's Anders. Hawke need not even help him one bit for him to blow up the Chantry. At that point, Hawke has no option but to side with someone, and has to kill the leaders of both sides, no matter what side is chosen. Hawke somehow shows the mages that the Templars can be defied - even if Hawke sides with the Templars and kills all the mages in the Tower.

So, yea, Hawke was not important at all. And before anyone mentions the idol, the expedition was going to happen anyway, all Hawke did was find a door, Bartrand brought it back, not Hawke, and Hawke didn't give it to Meredith, she bought it from someone else. So no, I don't count that either.

[jonesd]

Even if it was reacting, he/she earned the title of Champion. You could sort of compare it to military soldiers earning medals. They just follow ("react") to orders. Hawke could have easily just did nothing.

As for the war, I do agree that Anders was the biggest reason, not Hawke. Now word of mouth and Varric's stories made the seekers believe it was all Hawke's plan when it was not. Though saying Hawke wasn't important is just stupid. He/she may not have planned on doing a lot of the big plot events, but he/she still played a big part in the events.

Also, do nothing, while nice, rarely is a choice. Lots of examples in Origins. For example Orzammar- I could have cared less about who the king was. They were both either a douchebag or a ******.

[dragonflight288]

Varic: Hawke! You've got to hear this. People are saying that you fought off waves of bandits and pirates on the steps of the Chantry!

Hawke: You mean they aren't talking about his good looks, quick wit, and fabulous fortune?

Varic: Nope. They just skip straight to the part of the loveable dwarf with a heart of gold. I try to set them straight but you know how stories go.

Hawke: Why am I the main hero in your stories?

Varic: To make a good hero, there is a recipe. Like alchemy. You take one part level headed, one part insane, smother it liberally with falsehoods and let it simmer among the masses.

Hawke: Why do you tell such ridiculous stories?

Varic: They are there own reward. You've got to see the facial expression of someone as I tell them you ripped the horns off an ogre, just one time.

Essentially, Hawke already had a legend made up by Varic before the war, and since he was famous as the champion, that makes him a convenient target for the seekers.

[Fast Jimmy]

True, but it made it abundantly clear in Origins that no one was going into the Deep Roads to find Branka, hence the king decision would have been in stalemate as long as either side was going to be stubborn, aka, eternity.

Just because you don't care who was king doesn't mean that the Warden's presence didn't solely contribute to monumental things happening.

[TJPags]

jonesd wrote...

Even if it was reacting, he/she earned the title of Champion. You could sort of compare it to military soldiers earning medals. They just follow ("react") to orders. Hawke could have easily just did nothing.

As for the war, I do agree that Anders was the biggest reason, not Hawke. Now word of mouth and Varric's stories made the seekers believe it was all Hawke's plan when it was not. Though saying Hawke wasn't important is just stupid. He/she may not have planned on doing a lot of the big plot events, but he/she still played a big part in the events.

Also, do nothing, while nice, rarely is a choice. Lots of examples in Origins. For example Orzammar- I could have cared less about who the king was. They were both either a douchebag or a ******.

See, I just disagree.

Soldiers earn medals through valor, bravery, etc.  As I pointed out, Hawke can just give the Arishok the book, let him take Isabela, and voila - Champion.  For what, exactly?

And though you say "Hawke could have easily just did nothing", you then say that doing so is "rarely a choice".  In this case, it was absolutely not a choice.  There was no way for Hawke to avoid ending up in that palace with the Arishok, even if Hawke had wanted to.  Hawke may have preferred to defend the common people in the streets, help the City Guard keep order, etc.  But nope - got to go see the Arishok.  Handing over what they want, including a friend/companion, hardly seems something "medal-worthy" to me.

As to the "big events", Hawke was there.  Nothing more.

[Ryzaki]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

It's because he IS reactive. Bioware marketing did a superb job of misleading us.

 

God this. Hawke must be one of the laziest protagonists in gaming history. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juin 2011 - 02:53 .

[Plaintiff]

If doing something because you're asked makes you "reactive" then it seems to me like most heroes are "reactive". Especially the warden. Pretty much everything you do, in any game from Mario to TES: Oblivion, is at the request of someone else.

How the hell else is it supposed to happen?

[Soul Cool]

Plaintiff wrote...

How the hell else is it supposed to happen?

Our hero is just an honest soul who cannot stand to see evil go unpunished, so he/she wonders around the land, sword in hand, magic in mind, ready to strike down the next no-good scum that he/she sees. He/she just does things, and good triumphant is the result! Nobody needs to tell them where to find evil, they go out and find it themselves. Who knows, if the hero make him or her self enough of a pain in the villain's side, maybe the bad guys will make it easy for me and come to fight me! 

And there are ALWAYS bad guys. No ifs, ands, or buts!

[Plaintiff]

Soul Cool wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

How the hell else is it supposed to happen?

Our hero is just an honest soul who cannot stand to see evil go unpunished, so he/she wonders around the land, sword in hand, magic in mind, ready to strike down the next no-good scum that he/she sees. He/she just does things, and good triumphant is the result! Nobody needs to tell them where to find evil, they go out and find it themselves. Who knows, if the hero make him or her self enough of a pain in the villain's side, maybe the bad guys will make it easy for me and come to fight me! 

And there are ALWAYS bad guys. No ifs, ands, or buts!

There's... there's no story in that. It would be even less coherent than DA2 is currently. Characters can't just know where the evil is without being told and no well-written character just randomly decides to go out and hunt evil without any prompting.

Every hero in every story is reacting to something.

Mario reacts Bowser kidnapping Peach.

Link reacts to Ganondorf kidnapping Zelda.

Luke Skywalker reacts to the destruction of his home by Darth Vader.

House reacts to being given a new patient by Cuddy.

The CSI team reacts to being given a new case to investigate.

Frodo reacts to the evil of the One Ring.

Harry Potter reacts to various evil plots.

Sailor Moon, Buffy, Hercules, Xena and the Power Rangers react to a new threat every week.

They're all just reacting to circumstances. They might do it because they have a duty, or because it's their job, or because it's the right thing to do, or because a prophecy told them to, but none of them seek out evil of their own volition. Ever. Evil comes to them, and they step up to deal with it.

But that is not to say they are not proactive, "reactive" and "proactive" are not mutually exclusive terms. By opting to intervene and take control, even at someone else's bequest, these heroes, Hawke included, are choosing to react in a proactive manner.

When Hawke is told he has to make money and find a map, he does so: proactive.

When Hawke receives hints that his mother might be a target of the White Lily Killer, he investigates: proactive

When the city is under attack from the Qunari, Hawke heads to the Keep to fight them: proactive

When things come to a head between the Mages and Templars? Hawke lends his aid to a side and helps them win: proactive

And that's just the main quests.

The Warden is no less reactive than Hawke either, pretty much everything he/she does, from joining the Wardens onwards, is at the request of someone else and ultimately all of his/her actions can be summed up as a reaction to the Blight.

The way people are misusing the terms in this thread makes me think that their idea of a "proactive" hero is one who gives them the ability to ignore the circumstances of the actual plot completely. But I guess if they want their Hawke to slum around Gamlen's shack in his underwear, drinking cheap bear and eating the stale food left on the floor, that's their prerogative.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[Patchwork]

Plaintiff you make an excellent point. Perhaps the fault lies with the 3 year time jumps where it seems Hawke did just sit around his/her mansion, drinking bear. It takes the Viscount or Meredith telling Hawke to do X for him/her to get off the couch and do some heroing.

[Plaintiff]

Ser Bard wrote...

Plaintiff you make an excellent point. Perhaps the fault lies with the 3 year time jumps where it seems Hawke did just sit around his/her mansion, drinking bear. It takes the Viscount or Meredith telling Hawke to do X for him/her to get off the couch and do some heroing.

The three-year gaps are definitely a problem, story-wise. There's no logical reason reason why the plot couldn't have occured in a significantly shorter timeframe.

There's also the issue of the very limited setting. While it works for the sort of story DA2 is trying to tell, it doesn't comunicate the feeling that the character is acheiving anything significant. There are ways around that, but the examples I can think require a pretty drastic change to the game mechanic.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 juin 2011 - 08:49 .

[Patchwork]

10 years, a decade makes a good marketing gimmick

Like a lot of ideas in DA2 there's nothing wrong with time jumps in principle it's how it's implemented. The jump to Act 2 should have been a year, two at most. Enough time for the Amell estate to be reclaimed and moved into but not enough time for Hawke to have done much else. The jump to Act 3 should have been the big one five years or so and what Hawke has been up to in that time should have been dependant on the 'what now?' conversation with Verric in Act 2. You chose political power or title your about to be named Viscount only Meredith stands in your way, unless you're a mage then you default to having a business. You chose business and you have a successful merchant shipping venture and own buildings in Low Town. Neither have to involve quests or anything more complicated that some letters to Hawke inviting him/her to X or advising Hawke on Y.

I'm fine with the game being contained in one city-state if only that city-state wasn't so lacklustre. IMO you're Champion of Kirkwall and that's were your sphere of influence begins and ends. Other cities and countries might respect you but Kirkwall is your power base and in this game I don't see a reason for going else where.

Modifié par Ser Bard, 02 juin 2011 - 09:58 .

[CalJones]

I'm not convinced that Varric isn't the actual hero of the story and Hawke is simply a fabrication - or a gross exagerration of a not quite so impressive character - designed to deflect attention away from his own activities. We know he has considerable sway in Kirkwall from the way he keeps the Coterie away from Anders, Merrill and co, so who's to say he, in fact, is the most important person in Thedas? The banter dragonflight288 posted above makes me highly suspicious of the whole Hawke tale.

[Foolsfolly]

Champion, Warbringer, or Scapegoat?

Scapegoat. Hawke couldn't tie their shoes without having at least two NPCs telling them how to do it. And even then Anders would buy Hawke slippers to remove the chance of teaching because there cannot be any teaching.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 02 juin 2011 - 10:22 .

[jonesd]

TJPags wrote...

jonesd wrote...

Even if it was reacting, he/she earned the title of Champion. You could sort of compare it to military soldiers earning medals. They just follow ("react") to orders. Hawke could have easily just did nothing.

As for the war, I do agree that Anders was the biggest reason, not Hawke. Now word of mouth and Varric's stories made the seekers believe it was all Hawke's plan when it was not. Though saying Hawke wasn't important is just stupid. He/she may not have planned on doing a lot of the big plot events, but he/she still played a big part in the events.

Also, do nothing, while nice, rarely is a choice. Lots of examples in Origins. For example Orzammar- I could have cared less about who the king was. They were both either a douchebag or a ******.

See, I just disagree.

Soldiers earn medals through valor, bravery, etc.  As I pointed out, Hawke can just give the Arishok the book, let him take Isabela, and voila - Champion.  For what, exactly?

And though you say "Hawke could have easily just did nothing", you then say that doing so is "rarely a choice".  In this case, it was absolutely not a choice.  There was no way for Hawke to avoid ending up in that palace with the Arishok, even if Hawke had wanted to.  Hawke may have preferred to defend the common people in the streets, help the City Guard keep order, etc.  But nope - got to go see the Arishok.  Handing over what they want, including a friend/companion, hardly seems something "medal-worthy" to me.

As to the "big events", Hawke was there.  Nothing more.

As for giving the book to Arishok, I'll give you that.  Not very  Champion like, but defeating him in a dual is.  It is probably significant in quite a few ways for Hawke to have that title though, which is why you get it no matter what.

I wasn't talking about you having Hawke doing nothing in the game (obviously that isn't a choice most of the time), I was talking in a theory sense.  Hawke could have doing nothing, they just don't let you.  That is why Hawke earned the title. 

As for the big events, I'll just choose the 3 at the ending of each acts. 

Act 1- Hawke was the muscle that allowed them to get to the idol.  Bartrand wasn't going to go off the side passage.  It was too dangerous.  Maybe the extra time they would have spent clearing the road wouldn't have made a difference, but it also could have.  Maybe too many darkspawn would have shown up for them to continue.

Act 2- Hawke either kills them all, duals Arishok, or gives the book.  Would Meredith have killed the Arishok?  Yes, most likely.  But Hawke did.  You can take probably almost any key person in history and say the same thing.  Hawke is even imporant in the giving the book back.  Isabella would not have brought it back if it wasn't for Hawke.

Act 3-  For the sake of keeping it short, I'll just make a short mention about killing Meredith.  That is a pretty important.  It could have been much worse if Meredith was still alive after that.

[dgcatanisiri]

The story in DA2 is about a man, not a larger than life figure. That's the difference and the whole point of the Varric framing device. The Warden is your typical hero, the last (ignoring Alistair) Grey Warden in Fereldan. Effectively a 'Chosen One,' the one who can unite the masses and defeat the Blight. That's your typical fantasy epic, and you see it everywhere. In contrast, Hawke is a more everyday hero, the guy who does something not for the fame or glory or power it will bring him but because it's something that needs to be done. The Warden was a General. Hawke was a grunt on the field who managed to stay alive while everyone else around him got dead.

What Cassandra had heard was the stories being told that made Hawke into the traditional fantasy hero, the guy we the audience are used to seeing in the lead role. And the whole point of having Varric tell her the true story is because of that - she's heard the stories of Hawke accomplishing feats that mortal men don't dare to dream, she now wants the truth. Do something big. Something that changes the world, or at least your little piece of it. Wait a few years, then ask people to tell you the story, even the people who were there. Facts have changed and distorted. Hawke's story is the story of a man (or woman), not some great hero. The game is a 'story behind the story' kind of thing. We just don't see what the story was with the distortions.

And Cassandra wanted to scapegoat Hawke for the responsibility. She starts considering him a villain, that everything that Hawke did was planned out and intended, right down to the selection of who is on the team. As Varric continues, she becomes enamored with Hawke and sees him as a hero, then tries to pin down a specific villain, with Varric pointing out that it's not that black and white. But that's what we want. Black and white, good and evil. Leave the ambiguity at the door, we want to have a designated hero and a designated villain. But life isn't like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Plaintiff wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

How the hell else is it supposed to happen?

Our hero is just an honest soul who cannot stand to see evil go unpunished, so he/she wonders around the land, sword in hand, magic in mind, ready to strike down the next no-good scum that he/she sees. He/she just does things, and good triumphant is the result! Nobody needs to tell them where to find evil, they go out and find it themselves. Who knows, if the hero make him or her self enough of a pain in the villain's side, maybe the bad guys will make it easy for me and come to fight me! 

And there are ALWAYS bad guys. No ifs, ands, or buts!

There's... there's no story in that. It would be even less coherent than DA2 is currently. Characters can't just know where the evil is without being told and no well-written character just randomly decides to go out and hunt evil without any prompting.

Every hero in every story is reacting to something.

Mario reacts Bowser kidnapping Peach.

Link reacts to Ganondorf kidnapping Zelda.

Luke Skywalker reacts to the destruction of his home by Darth Vader.

House reacts to being given a new patient by Cuddy.

The CSI team reacts to being given a new case to investigate.

Frodo reacts to the evil of the One Ring.

Harry Potter reacts to various evil plots.

Sailor Moon, Buffy, Hercules, Xena and the Power Rangers react to a new threat every week.

They're all just reacting to circumstances. They might do it because they have a duty, or because it's their job, or because it's the right thing to do, or because a prophecy told them to, but none of them seek out evil of their own volition. Ever. Evil comes to them, and they step up to deal with it.

But that is not to say they are not proactive, "reactive" and "proactive" are not mutually exclusive terms. By opting to intervene and take control, even at someone else's bequest, these heroes, Hawke included, are choosing to react in a proactive manner.

When Hawke is told he has to make money and find a map, he does so: proactive.

When Hawke receives hints that his mother might be a target of the White Lily Killer, he investigates: proactive

When the city is under attack from the Qunari, Hawke heads to the Keep to fight them: proactive

When things come to a head between the Mages and Templars? Hawke lends his aid to a side and helps them win: proactive

And that's just the main quests.

The Warden is no less reactive than Hawke either, pretty much everything he/she does, from joining the Wardens onwards, is at the request of someone else and ultimately all of his/her actions can be summed up as a reaction to the Blight.

The way people are misusing the terms in this thread makes me think that their idea of a "proactive" hero is one who gives them the ability to ignore the circumstances of the actual plot completely. But I guess if they want their Hawke to slum around Gamlen's shack in his underwear, drinking cheap bear and eating the stale food left on the floor, that's their prerogative.

This, pretty much. All problem solving is, at its heart, initially reactive: it reacts to the existence, the discovery, the development of a problem. Even a 'proactive' good-intentioned do-gooder who sets out without a particular problem in mind has to react to the discovery of any evil in particular: otherwise, they'd keep walking.

Like Plaintiff said, proactive and reactive aren't mutually exclusive. Hawke finds ways to solve problems. That's what pretty much every hero ever does. These problems are rarely of the heroe's creation. Often these problems will (one way or another) resolve themselves without the player (eventually Orzamar will get a king, or it will go on without, or it will die). The hero's solutions are always within a narrow scope of options. The decisions rarely affect gameplay and story development in any significant manner.

[TheAwesomologist]

It's just not a very good story. The companion characters are luckily good enough to keep this game interesting.

[Flashflame58]

Anders would have activated the bomb regardless of whether or not Hawke was there.

[TJPags]

Plaintiff wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

How the hell else is it supposed to happen?

Our hero is just an honest soul who cannot stand to see evil go unpunished, so he/she wonders around the land, sword in hand, magic in mind, ready to strike down the next no-good scum that he/she sees. He/she just does things, and good triumphant is the result! Nobody needs to tell them where to find evil, they go out and find it themselves. Who knows, if the hero make him or her self enough of a pain in the villain's side, maybe the bad guys will make it easy for me and come to fight me! 

And there are ALWAYS bad guys. No ifs, ands, or buts!

There's... there's no story in that. It would be even less coherent than DA2 is currently. Characters can't just know where the evil is without being told and no well-written character just randomly decides to go out and hunt evil without any prompting.

Every hero in every story is reacting to something.

Mario reacts Bowser kidnapping Peach.

Link reacts to Ganondorf kidnapping Zelda.

Luke Skywalker reacts to the destruction of his home by Darth Vader.

House reacts to being given a new patient by Cuddy.

The CSI team reacts to being given a new case to investigate.

Frodo reacts to the evil of the One Ring.

Harry Potter reacts to various evil plots.

Sailor Moon, Buffy, Hercules, Xena and the Power Rangers react to a new threat every week.

They're all just reacting to circumstances. They might do it because they have a duty, or because it's their job, or because it's the right thing to do, or because a prophecy told them to, but none of them seek out evil of their own volition. Ever. Evil comes to them, and they step up to deal with it.

But that is not to say they are not proactive, "reactive" and "proactive" are not mutually exclusive terms. By opting to intervene and take control, even at someone else's bequest, these heroes, Hawke included, are choosing to react in a proactive manner.

When Hawke is told he has to make money and find a map, he does so: proactive.

When Hawke receives hints that his mother might be a target of the White Lily Killer, he investigates: proactive

When the city is under attack from the Qunari, Hawke heads to the Keep to fight them: proactive

When things come to a head between the Mages and Templars? Hawke lends his aid to a side and helps them win: proactive

And that's just the main quests.

The Warden is no less reactive than Hawke either, pretty much everything he/she does, from joining the Wardens onwards, is at the request of someone else and ultimately all of his/her actions can be summed up as a reaction to the Blight.

The way people are misusing the terms in this thread makes me think that their idea of a "proactive" hero is one who gives them the ability to ignore the circumstances of the actual plot completely. But I guess if they want their Hawke to slum around Gamlen's shack in his underwear, drinking cheap bear and eating the stale food left on the floor, that's their prerogative.

Okay, sure, that's all true.  But the only quests Hawke actually initiates on his own are the fetch quests - he finds something, and goes and finds who it belongs to, without being told.

Qunari attack?  Hawke does something because Meredith tells him to.  Reactive.

Things come to a head - even if Hawke doesn't help - and Hawke MUST choose a side.  I consider that reactive.

Doing something because I choose to - as in, House running a particular medical test, to borrow one of your examples - is proactive.  Making a choice because I HAVE to choose something, and because these are my ONLY options, while perhaps technically proactive, sure seems damn reactive to me.

[Deafinon]

I liked the story honestly. I don't get why so many people hate it.
You have Hawke who is a refugee wanting nothing more than to give his family a better life. In the process he becomes entangled in the politics and conflicts of the city. Coming to the city at a time when it's held together by a fragile peace he tries to play his part in keeping things held together. In the process he manages to keep the Qunari from taking control of the city, and ultimately he is the only one that can keep the city from falling under directorial zeal of Meredith and succumbing the the evil of blood magic. However, in doing so he fractures the rest of the world to start a massive war.

Yes a lot of the decisions are taken out of his hands but at the end of the day he is the only one standing between the city and ruin.