82 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonSailor]

Plaintiff wrote...

[...] it doesn't comunicate the feeling that the character is acheiving anything significant.

And therein lies the problem to this whole reactive/proactive debate. DA2 doesn't communicate the feeling that Hawke made a difference. Because, when you get right down to it, Hawke's presence is almost insignificant. The only thing I can give Hawke credit for is defeating the Arishok, as there's no guarantee Kirkwall would have have defeated them without her - in fact, if witnessing the city guard fight during Favor and Fault and Raiders on the Cliffs taught me anything, it's that there's no reason to believe the city could have defeated the Arishok without Hawke. But the possiblity is there.

Act 3, however, well, all that would have gone down whether Hawke was there or not. I don't think Hawke's presence made a difference in the story either, since it seemed clear to me that the mages and the templars were hell bent on wiping each other out and that Kirkwall was destined for revolution. I guess the biggest difference, I feel, is that with the Warden, you sort of feel like that particular character somehow shaped the story a bit. Whereas with Hawke you sort of feel like if she wasn't there things would have turned out pretty much the same. Imo, Hawke is in no way a "main factor" for the state of Thedas, just a bystander that got roped in all because other people couldn't solve their own problems. And yes, maybe that's what Varric was trying to prove.

[Foolsfolly]

I think Meredith and her Templar would have been able to defeat the Arishok. Kirkwall seems to be Templar-center of the world and the Qunari were only 200-ish strong when they first arrived 3 years prior. And since they arrived they've had some of their numbers abandon them to live like raiders on the Wounded Coast and others have been killed.

Of course that assumes it even comes to war. Without Hawke there would the Qunari ever attack?

Look at it like this. Isabela finds out where the book is but she needs other people to help her get it. When Hawke and company arrive the Qunari have the place surrounded and attack the Tevinters inside. Hawke kills everything that moves and Isabela runs off with the book.

Now if Hawke wasn't in Kirkwall it would have been Isabela vs the Qunari vs the Tevinter. Could she have still taken the book in that situation? Maybe....maybe not. If not then the Qunari leave that night and never attack.

If Isabela lived that long. She's up against crazy odds in Act 1 and Hawke helps her out. I assume if you don't recruit her she still takes the book in Act 2 but I can't say I've ever not recruited her.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 03 juin 2011 - 08:26 .

[XSevSpreeX]

I say he was reactive, but responded to a situation he just happened to be put into in a proactive way. When the Qunari attack Meredith tells Hawke to aid her and Hawke could have just said "no" and walked away. Instead he helps. As I was reading the OP I couldn't help but think about the soldiers that receive the medal of honor. They just happened to be in that situation, but they responded in a way that earns them the medal. Same thing for Hawke being named Champion. He just happened to be there at the right time and reacted accordingly.

[XSevSpreeX]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I think Meredith and her Templar would have been able to defeat the Arishok. Kirkwall seems to be Templar-center of the world and the Qunari were only 200-ish strong when they first arrived 3 years prior. And since they arrived they've had some of their numbers abandon them to live like raiders on the Wounded Coast and others have been killed.

Of course that assumes it even comes to war. Without Hawke there would the Qunari ever attack?

Look at it like this. Isabela finds out where the book is but she needs other people to help her get it. When Hawke and company arrive the Qunari have the place surrounded and attack the Tevinters inside. Hawke kills everything that moves and Isabela runs off with the book.

Now if Hawke wasn't in Kirkwall it would have been Isabela vs the Qunari vs the Tevinter. Could she have still taken the book in that situation? Maybe....maybe not. If not then the Qunari leave that night and never attack.

If Isabela lived that long. She's up against crazy odds in Act 1 and Hawke helps her out. I assume if you don't recruit her she still takes the book in Act 2 but I can't say I've ever not recruited her.

But the Qunari were chasing after Isabela because she took the book. It wouldn't have mattered if Hawke was there or not, the Qunari still would have landed in Kirkwall while chasing her and eventually attacked. Also in my current playthrough I don't have Isabela (quest glitched) and the Arishok doesn't mention Isabela at all other than saying that they landed because they were looking for a relic if I remember correctly. He either doesn't mention anything about the book or only says they landed because they were looking for the relic, I can't remember exactly. Isabela isn't seen in the game at all (although she'll occasionally be mentioned during conversations between companions if you have the right ones talking) if you don't do her quest.

Modifié par XSevSpreeX, 03 juin 2011 - 08:45 .

[Foolsfolly]

But the Qunari were chasing after Isabela because she took the book. It wouldn't have mattered if Hawke was there or not, the Qunari still would have landed in Kirkwall while chasing her and eventually attacked.

They would come to Kirkwall because of Isabela. But once they had the book the demand of the Qun would be fulfilled and they'd go back to Par Vollen as their original mission entailed (they got the book from the Orlesians).

Had Hawke not helped Isabela get the book again would she have been able to run off with the book? It's a hypothetical question that can't be answered. But since we're asking about what the game would have been like without Hawke I just wanted to raise the idea that it's possible that the Qunari would have never attacked Kirkwall because of Hawke's lack of involvement. They may have gotten the book and left before it came to blows over elven vigilantes.

[Sidney]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Had Hawke not helped Isabela get the book again would she have been able to run off with the book? It's a hypothetical question that can't be answered. But since we're asking about what the game would have been like without Hawke I just wanted to raise the idea that it's possible that the Qunari would have never attacked Kirkwall because of Hawke's lack of involvement. They may have gotten the book and left before it came to blows over elven vigilantes.

Well you don't know they would have gotten the book. The Tevinters are buying the book and in the playthoughs I've done I keep my people out of that skrimish and the mages are beating the soldiers sent to get the book. You are right, had they gotten the book they might have been free to leave but since the fugitives happen at the same time and the Guard is brining that to a head at that moment, given the Arishok's state of mind, he might have unleashed his forces anyways.

[jonesd]

wastelander75 wrote...

I'm starting to think that maybe Kirkwall wouldn't have had half as many troubles if Hawke and Co. had just moved on somewhere else. Starkhaven maybe?

Anyway, just thought I'd post a thought to mull over since it sort of ties in with the whole re/pro debate and the way I see Hawke as a hero(ish).

Do you think it's due to a lack of ambition or motivation on Hawke's part during the course of the story that just makes him seem like a lazy-ish kind of protagonist?

I think it is because people want the set villain and the hero on a quest to stop said villain.  Hawke wasn't lazy, he/she just wanted to build a life in Kirkwall and protect her family.  Obviously Hawke fails a couple times (in some cases all three).  I would say I do prefer plots where the "hero" goes on a journey for whatever goal, but that doesn't mean it is bad to experience something different. 

[RangerSG]

Well argued Plaintiff, and I essentially agree with you. The real issue in the story is not Hawke being "reactive" instead of "proactive." The real issues are two-fold:

1) The second 3 year jump. The first I could accept, since you're getting settled as a de facto noble and taking care of personal business left over from the Deep Roads Expedition. But the 2nd creates an unnecessary detachment from events in Kirkwall that were already coming to a boil in Act 2. As a result, it's more difficult than it should be to remain invested in the story.

2) The fact that Act 3 plays the 'exact' same way whether you side with the Mages or Templars. There's no effective consequence to choosing either side, since you do a mysterious disappearance even if you become Viceroy (*facepalm*). Hawke still has to kill the 'exact' same opponents, in the 'exact' same order even. That's simply ludicrous. There's no reason the game couldn't have had Hawke fight to either crush Meredith and escape with Orsino, or kill Orsino, cow Meredith at last, and become Viceroy. Alright, maybe in arc 2, you would have to kill BOTH, because Meredith will not surrender power without a fight, and she's bat-crazy. But Orsino going loony tunes with the mages was utterly ineffective.

But worse than that was the fact that even if you're openly siding with the mages and saying Meredith needs to go, EVERY single mage and non-Meredith loving Templar STILL wants to kill you without talking. I could deal with the Grace incident, because you're warned that she's corrupted way back in Act 1. So it's not a 'complete' non-sequitor for her. But Thrask not even bothering to come TALK before abducting your friend/sibling? *headdesk*

Act 3 tries so hard to make both sides look guilty that it ends up making everyone into raving psychotics. I liked the multiple ways of fixing things with the Arishok (direct assault/ruse and then duel/battle royale/treachery). I thought that gave any playstyle Hawke a way through and allowed you to be cunning, loyal, or deviant. But Act 3 was 100% idiot ball, and after both your PC and Avelline already being given the idiot ball once with the Kirkwall Killer, that was brutal.

But all in all, I think the protestations about "reactive Hawke" are overblown.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RangerSG wrote...
But all in all, I think the protestations about "reactive Hawke" are overblown.

My objections about a reactive Hawke come mostly in regards to the "Rise to power" that never happened. A rise to power is seldom if ever completely reactive. You can't acquire power if you're not being pro-active and actually want it (whether intrinsically or instrumentally), which is not the case for Hawke. What happened is exactly like Aveline said it, he "stumbled into being champion", and that's not power, that's fame.

Furthermore, it's how passive he is in the story. Hawke had enough popularity and political clout (even if he didn't really work on them), to actually do something about the situation and he does absolutely nothing.

Want to call that "reactive" or "lazy" is semantics at this point.
At the end of the day, we end up with a PC that does very little except constant slaughter and whose existence or lack is for the most part inconsequential. I can attribute more responsability to Bartrand for the whole hting.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 01:16 .

[Sidney]

wastelander75 wrote...

During the course of the game, we're led to believe that through your actions 1) Hawke becomes champion and 2) because of your decisions, he single handedly becoms the main factor in starting World War Thedas. At least that's what we're led to believe.

You are wrong on #2. The whole point of the Varric/Cassandra conversation is that SHE thinks that is what happens but Varric is busy explaining that it didn't happen that way. I'm amazed that people continue to miss that the whole point of the game is that Hawke didn't start the war, at least not in the way Cassandra thinks it happened.  IIt is like people would be happier if they played the story that Cassandra thought happened rather than what did.

This whole "reactive" vs "proactive" discussion is a silly conversation by and large. Many stories don't have the Michael Bay level heorism of DAO - and even Bay would be embarrassed to have his hero do all that.  Start with the start of western lit and tell me how "proactive" Achilles is or Odysseus.  They can't change their fate. Try Casablanca from the movies. How proactive is Rick? Does he stop a war? Does he end the **** occupation of Morroco? Does he even go to save Ilsa? No, everything comes to him and if he'd not been there the story could have played out the same way. North by Northwest - Cary Grant is accidnetally "in" a story he shouldn't be in during North by Northwest and if they'd leave him alone he'd glady not be part of the story and w/o him the bad guys would have been caught and caught even easier. George VI in the King's Speech doesn't stop a war because of overcoming a speech impediment. 

All that said, what more do you want Hawke to do?  Just like in most RPG's he's given quests and he goes and does them. He fights all kinds of horrible monsters, saves god only knows how many people and saves the city twice - you can argue that "someone else could have done it" but I can make that counterfactual argument about any scenario. What people don't like is that he isn't the ONLY one doing things and I guess compared to the flat worlds of many RPG's where the hero is the only active human on the planet his role is diminished. For all the flaws in DA2's world that seems oddly dead and shallow where it should be very deep given the focus the fact that other people are busy doing other things and Hawke doesn't make them do or stop them from doing everything is one redeeming factor.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sidney wrote...
All that said, what more do you want Hawke to do? 

Actually rise to power. And use it.

As for your examples. The vast majority are not protagonists I'd want to play in any game.

[RangerSG]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
But all in all, I think the protestations about "reactive Hawke" are overblown.

My objections about a reactive Hawke come mostly in regards to the "Rise to power" that never happened. A rise to power is seldom if ever completely reactive. You can't acquire power if you're not being pro-active and actually want it (whether intrinsically or instrumentally), which is not the case for Hawke. What happened is exactly like Aveline said it, he "stumbled into being champion", and that's not power, that's fame.

Furthermore, it's how passive he is in the story. Hawke had enough popularity and political clout (even if he didn't really work on them), to actually do something about the situation and he does absolutely nothing.

Want to call that "reactive" or "lazy" is semantics at this point.
At the end of the day, we end up with a PC that does very little except constant slaughter and whose existence or lack is for the most part inconsequential. I can attribute more responsability to Bartrand for the whole hting.

Again, that goes more to the problems with Act 3, though. If we would've had a Hawke who showed at least some of the initiative of Acts 1 & 2 (Kirkwall killer mess aside, and Aveline is just as guilty there, because she almost always sees, with my Hawke, the killer fleeing the scene in Act 1), then Act 3 would've had a lot more options. Maybe we could've used Templars like Thrask to help against Meredith in the end. And maybe an ending where we turn in Anders, but Meredith uses that to prove the Champion is 'unfit' given the Apostate/Chantry haters in his company.

There were ways to do it, I agree. I don't even think it's a matter of 'Hawke' being lazy. It's a matter of the options that are alluded to not being written through to completion.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RangerSG wrote...
Again, that goes more to the problems with Act 3, though. If we would've had a Hawke who showed at least some of the initiative of Acts 1 & 2 (Kirkwall killer mess aside, and Aveline is just as guilty there, because she almost always sees, with my Hawke, the killer fleeing the scene in Act 1), then Act 3 would've had a lot more options. Maybe we could've used Templars like Thrask to help against Meredith in the end. And maybe an ending where we turn in Anders, but Meredith uses that to prove the Champion is 'unfit' given the Apostate/Chantry haters in his company.

There were ways to do it, I agree. I don't even think it's a matter of 'Hawke' being lazy. It's a matter of the options that are alluded to not being written through to completion.

Agreed that most of this problem is in Act 3.

But even in Act 2, I do not think Hawke was taking as much initiative as he could have. If this was supposed to be a rise to power, then it was inadequate. I came up with the idea that Hawke going to darktown and quickly assembling a rag tag militia of Ferelden refugees to take the Qunari by surprise, for instance, would have made Hawke look more like a leader and someone who can be succesful in things other than killing (which as it stands, is almost the only thing he can do right).

Now that said, yes Act 2 is not as bad as Act 3 and had some options (though siding with Petrice has abroken logic). But I do nto feel it's adequate enough for a rise to power. As it stands, it's more like a rise to fame.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 01:44 .

[Sidney]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Actually rise to power. And use it.

As for your examples. The vast majority are not protagonists I'd want to play in any game.

Again, you aren't paying attention to the story. He does rise to power but Varric says it is a nice title but with no real authority.

You'd not want to play Achilles? You'd not want to play Roger Thornhill or Rick? Dear god, no wonder people think games are for children. Did you like Planescape Tormet where the hero did nothing but confront his own mortality?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sidney wrote...
Again, you aren't paying attention to the story. He does rise to power but Varric says it is a nice title but with no real authority.

Then it's not power. It's fame with an empty title.

Ignoring your arrogant attitude, I will just say that I do not want to play an invincible character or one that has complete control over his future or surrounding. But rather one that a degree of control and takes initiative, preferabbly with acts that do not always involving massacre.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 01:57 .

[Sidney]

wastelander75 wrote...

If he's/she's as famous and influential as we're led to believe, even before he/she becomes city champion, he/she should be using that to its fullest effect by making a difference either for Templar Order or Mage Freedoms or at least something more productive than nothing. Instead we're given "dead zones" of 3 years in between Acts where we assume he's/she's doing nothing.

I don't know why you'd assume inactivity. Varric is clearly hitting the high points of what happened, particular moments when things changed/fell apart. In between those times Hawke could have been doing all kinds of things helping the mages, searching for mom's killer, paperwork to keep his title, managing the mines, learning to paint....whatever. Varric didn't think they were relavant to the discussion he was having.

[Sidney]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ignoring your arrogant attitude, I will just say that I do not want to play an invincible character or one that has complete control over his future or surrounding. But rather one that a degree of control and takes initiative, preferabbly with acts that do not always involving massacre.

I love you talking arrogance.

Ignoring THAT, your Warden in DAO is flippin' god. NOTHING happens without him except for Jowan does something and I can't choose to whack Jowan or even not help him like I wanted to in the origins so I have no choice is letting that happen. Your Warden makes everything else happen. Even Tolkien  didn't have one guy stop Sauron, stop Sauruman, defend Gondor....and so on. The Warden is everythwre doing everything. DA2 gives you control over your surroundings and you do take initiative - I mean you are a problem solver. You just can't solve all the problems and control everything. If DAO is your deinfiiton of a non-godlike hero with just a "degree of control" then I'd hatre to see games you think do have overpowered characters.

I've lived the save the world, everything I do matters and nothing I don't do does. We've all played that game. I like NOT seeing that same plot reksinned and trotted out in another way. Still want to answer the PST question BTW?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sidney wrote...
Ignoring THAT, your Warden in DAO is flippin' god. NOTHING happens without him except for Jowan does something and I can't choose to whack Jowan or even not help him like I wanted to in the origins so I have no choice is letting that happen. Your Warden makes everything else happen. Even Tolkien  didn't have one guy stop Sauron, stop Sauruman, defend Gondor....and so on. The Warden is everythwre doing everything.

With companions and with major players also helping him, like Eamon / potentially Anora / Riordan and the leaders of each faction the Warden rallies under his banner.

The DR is another example of the Warden being pushed to a corner. Another is Alistair in the Landsmeet if one spares Loghain.

Yes the Warden is a leader and Ferelden would have probably been destroyed without him. That doesn't make him a god.

DA2 gives you control over your surroundings and you do take initiative - I mean you are a problem solver. You just can't solve all the problems and control everything.

All his problem solving involve massacres of waves of enemies and I can't recall once Hawke using his brain to solve problems. Second there is little to no control over your surrounding. Hawke does not influence Kirkwall at all, since choices do not transmit from Act to Act, despite marketing claiming otherwise.

And no one is saying that Hawke should control or solve everything. Hawke can even end up failing. But that's a premise I could accept if they give me a Hawke that can actually try to do something out of his own initiative and not be told to do it. For instance, have Hawke meet with all companions and reach a decision.

And Hawke could have done a lot, specifically between Act 2 and 3. He does nothing however.
As to how I know this, we know for a fact in Act 3 that Hawke's position on this mage / templar conflict is not known by anyone. Hawke has to declare his position after 3 years.

Unless you want to argue that Hawke deliberately kept quiet as he is gathering allies behind the scenes, which would be unsubstantiated and not supported by the game, since we see no trace of them.

 I like NOT seeing that same plot reksinned and trotted out in another way. Still want to answer the PST question BTW?

And no one is saying that Hawke should salve the world, like I said, he can fail.

And no I didn't play PST, nor am I really interesed. But I can accept the premise if the story is well written, which I do not htink DA2 is.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 02:24 .

[Shadow Raziel]

Deafinon wrote...

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.

Good post...  I agree with you. He dealt with a powder keg of a city, and made the best choices he could make in a bad set of circumstances. Not every issue is resolvable. Anyone who has actually served in the military understands this. It makes the DA world seem more politically complex. As opposed to the" I saved the world theme" that IMHO is a bit overused by the gaming industry.  I would have liked to have the option to Assassinate Meredith and to interrogate and kill Anders after finding out his plans for the chantry. but the way the events played out made for a much more interesting ending and future story arc.

Modifié par Shadow Raziel, 03 juin 2011 - 02:30 .

[Plaintiff]

DragonSailor wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

[...] it doesn't comunicate the feeling that the character is acheiving anything significant.

And therein lies the problem to this whole reactive/proactive debate. DA2 doesn't communicate the feeling that Hawke made a difference. Because, when you get right down to it, Hawke's presence is almost insignificant. The only thing I can give Hawke credit for is defeating the Arishok, as there's no guarantee Kirkwall would have have defeated them without her - in fact, if witnessing the city guard fight during Favor and Fault and Raiders on the Cliffs taught me anything, it's that there's no reason to believe the city could have defeated the Arishok without Hawke. But the possiblity is there.

Act 3, however, well, all that would have gone down whether Hawke was there or not. I don't think Hawke's presence made a difference in the story either, since it seemed clear to me that the mages and the templars were hell bent on wiping each other out and that Kirkwall was destined for revolution. I guess the biggest difference, I feel, is that with the Warden, you sort of feel like that particular character somehow shaped the story a bit. Whereas with Hawke you sort of feel like if she wasn't there things would have turned out pretty much the same. Imo, Hawke is in no way a "main factor" for the state of Thedas, just a bystander that got roped in all because other people couldn't solve their own problems. And yes, maybe that's what Varric was trying to prove.

Well yes, someone else likely could've filled Hawke's shoes, but then, any mustachioed plumber could have rescued Princess Peach, and any random could be the Hero of Fereleden (in fact, any random is the Hero of Ferelden.)

I think DA2 is actually toying with some very different and interesting ideas that are not at all typical of RPGs, or video games in general, and while it worked for me, I can see why others might feel cheated. Hawke does "rise to power", that's not a lie. But his power is tied to the city of Kirkwall. He's Kirkwall's champion, beyond those walls he has no real standing, and by the game's end, he is forced to leave Kirkwall for reasons unkown and it's especially obvious if you side with the mages; he winds up back where he started, penniless and on the run. I firmly believe that Bioware knew full-well what we were expecting, given their track record, and deliberately played on that to defy those expectations, and that includes the "false advertising", which, as I said, isn't a lie, but omits a great deal of detail (although to be fair, how could they reveal that without spoiling the entire plot?). But the end result is that for some people, the actual playing of the game is quite a jarring experience.

Personally, I felt like Hawke did a lot to shape events. Obviously you can't have too many variables when it comes to major plot points, but his actions influence the lives of his companions and other NPCs we meet, in a major way. Those choices are significant and I think, frankly, that people are too quick to write them off simply because we didn't get epilogue slides (Okay, sure, hearing about Tegan's marriage is nice, but is it really vital information?). As far as the major choices go, it's important to remember that the series is ongoing and just like with Origins, we won't get a real guage of how much he affected until we see some more story content. We still have no idea how choices like say, sparing the Architect, are going to play out in the long-term.

The only way I can think of to make Hawke seem more involved in the going's-on of Kirkwall is to introduce an investment mechanic, expanding on the concept introduced with Vigil's Keep in Awakening. Or maybe something like Assassin's Creed or Fable, where purchasing and investing in property gradually changes the look of the city. But like I said in an earlier post, that would necessitate a pretty drastic change in how money is earned and how much you can earn. Even at my most frugal, I've never had more than 200 sovereigns at any given time in DA2, and that's the cost of a single piece of high-end armor. I shudder to think how much it would cost to buy and renovate an entire store.

But even if Hawke isn't proactive and doesn't do anything significant, I don't see how that's inherently bad.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 juin 2011 - 06:31 .