447 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

They were idiots however in choosing Kirkwall.

 

Really. "let's take the apostates to the city most populated with strict templars! That's a wonderful idea!"  It's a wonder Hawke/Bethany weren't found out earlier. Especially with the mercs/smugglers knowing full well that Hawke/Bethany was a mage. This is even more laughable if you decide to backstab one of (or both) of the groups. What better revenge than sicing the Templars on Hawke? But alas. 

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

They were idiots however in choosing Kirkwall.

Thay had SOMETHING in Kirkwall. Turns out they had much less than they though, but it was still better starting out completely from the ground up somewhere else.

[KnightofPhoenix]

DrunkDeadman wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

They were idiots however in choosing Kirkwall.

Thay had SOMETHING in Kirkwall. Turns out they had much less than they though, but it was still better starting out completely from the ground up somewhere else.

They could have gone to Starkhaven first, settle there, and send a letter to Gamlen to really see if they had something.

Instead, they risk their lives going to the most militarized Templar controlled polity.

[Aaleel]

highcastle wrote...

It's not a cop out. My Cousland wanted to say, "Forget the Wardens, I'm finding Cousland." I never could. His emotions were rendered invalid by the limitations of the game. But when I wanted Hawke to say, "Forget the mages, I'm still upset about my mother," everyone acknowledges the loss. Do I still have to continue the story? Yes, but at least with the admission that my emotions and feelings are valid.

And how many of those choices in DAO have a deep emotional impact? What's the real difference between Bhelen and Harrowmont? An epilogue slide and one quest showing up in DA2. My Wardens felt nothing about that choice because we were never introduced to Bhelen or Harrowmont before being asked to make it.

I'm not even going to list the laundry list of times my feelings were ignored in DA2, it's not even comparable. 

As far as decisions that were emotional.  Should I use blood magic that I'm stauchly against to save this boy, and since I didn't save the mages I have to kill his mother to power the spell.  Or should I just kill the boy himself which I did once and felt almost dirty, which was more of a feeling than I had with any decision in DA2.

None of the decisions were overly emotional to me because as far as family was concerned they didn't develop it enough to make me really care one way or the other.  My mother lived with me for years the better part of two acts and I was barely talked to her.

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
Hawke's place in the story is to subvert the traditional rags-to-riches story as well as the typical hero's journey, which respectively feature a little guy climbing the ranks and defeating a great evil. The story's purpose as a whole is to show you that's not how things work in this world. Honestly, I think this is the crux of why some people dislike DA2. There's no clearly "winnable" scenario. But there's a reason for that. Some conflicts you don't win. Some conflicts you just do the best you can, and even that's not enough.

Except that's exactly the kind of RPG I want and the *concept* behind DA2 was great. The execution however, I felt as extremily flawed.

And yes, I don't mind it ending in tragedy or failure. If the PC is proactive and shown to be really trying.

How is Hawke not proactive? He fights the Arishok, he takes a stand in the mage/templar debates, he could be angling for viscount (as my Hawke was).

As for Hawke being passive, he absolutely isn't. At least, he doesn't have to be. He takes an interest in the Qunari situation. My Hawke found himself angling for viscount. He called out Anders on his shady actions, despite the two of them being in a relationship. That's not passivity. That's also not stupidity. He knows bad things are coming, he tries to thwart them, he fails. I felt pretty much the same at the end of Red Dead Redemption.

What did your Hawke do to become Viscount exactly? What did your Hawke do in regards to the Qunari other than being the ball between the Arishok, Dumar and Petrice?

My Hawke spoke to Bran, Alistair, Sebastian, and others. Politics isn't an easy thing to portray in a game, but the general consensus from these people was that if Meredith didn't support me (and she didn't/wouldn't with me being a mage), then I didn't stand a chance. So I went about undermining her.

My Hawke challenged the Arishok every chance he got after seeing what the Qun demanded of Ketojan. He warned Dumar repeatedly about Petrice and the Arishok, and eventually set himself up to pick up the pieces when it all went bad (as he kept saying it would).

What did your Hawke do to Anders despite watching him slip over a decade? And say my Hawke is not in a relationship with him and dosn't like him. Why is he forced to tolerate him? And yes he is forced seeing how Anders can come to your home with no permission and shove his manifesto everywhere and you can't do a thing about it. Nor can you report him to Templars. The whole premise that Meredith didn't do anythign to Anders because of Hawke falls apart if Hawke doesn't care about Anders, or especially if he is the one asking for Anders to be caught (which he can't do).

Actually, if you rival Anders, you can report Anders to Cullen. You can also send Anders away in the middle of Act 2 and he won't come back until the endgame. So how are you forced to tolerate him? If you don't tolerate him, then he probably broke into the manor to plant his manifesto (Isabela and others call him out on snooping). If you  do like him, then he has a valid reason for being there.

And my Hawke, despite being friendly with him, cautioned him about losing himself to Justice, told him to take things easy, demanded answers about Anders' shady quest line in Act 3 (which is so much more resonant if you're in a romance with him, as there are great additional dialogues here). But in the end, there's nothing Hawke can do. Have you ever loved someone with a mental illness (Jennifer Hepler compared Anders to someone with bipolar, so you don't think this metaphor's coming out of nowhere). You can try to save them all you want, but sometimes there's nothing you can do. My Hawkes still tried.

The world being lifeless/souless is another opinion. I disagree. I found Kirkwall vibrant and interesting. I loved the atmosphere of the city, the artwork surrounding it, and the people populating it.

People populating it? You mean a couple of idle NPCs standing there for decades, despite it supposedely being overcrowded? And the city not changing one bit minus a statue for decades?
You call that vibrant?

Eh, good for you. I personally have never seen a more lifeless setting than Kirkwall, in an RPG.

I liked Donnic, Solivitus (despite his minor involvement, he was quite witty), the regulars and their chatter at the Hanged Man, Cullen, Thrask, etc. Each environmet had a unique feel to it. And the city did change. Look around between the decades and you'll see subtle differences in the buildings (and some not so subtle ones in Act 3). Could it have been better? Yes. I would have loved to see even more changes. But I still liked what they put in the game.

How is the story badly written? Granted, writing can be somewhat subjective, but I think DA2 fits the criteria of what's generally considered proper plotting. There's an introduction, rising action, climax, and resolution. Along the way we get character development and foreshadowing. That's good writing.

- moments like this:
- The almost complete lack of character development for Orsino and Meredith, despite the two showing up when you start the game.
- a non-existent rise to power, which the whole plot is supposedely centered around.
- family relations being weak or not strong enough to make me care. Add to that Hawke's inability to even ask Gamlen to live with him
-  Mage / Templar conflict being reduced to one full of incompetence, idiocy and insanity, stripping much of the humanity and complexity of the conflict. 
- The inclusion of an idol that the game doesn't bother to hint at or explain (instead we get the useless ethereal golem), despite its importance (and how it really weakened the entire plot by dehumanizing it).
- Hawke's passivity and outright laziness, made worse with the inexplicable and pointless 3 years time gaps. Coupled with how inconsequential he mostly is.
- a lot of restrictions when it comes to choices, like not doing anything in regards to Anders and tolerating him.
- An idiotic climax with transformer statues with flamethrowers and soul edge and boss fights just for the sake of it (Orsino).
- Plot points and issues not developped as much as they could have
- actions, plot threads and consequences in previous acts not transmitting to following ones, making each act feel like an isolated episode. Both for big and small plotlines. 
- A focus on mass violence that makes the PC feel like a killing machine at the end and not much else.

And that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

I don't care if DA2 had an adequate structure (I didn't think it did, or at least didn't take them to their fullest potential). I care about content and when held under scrutiny (though more often then not, it was obvious to me), I found it to be a very badly written story. 

I'll concede I wish we could have seen more about Meredith and Orsino. I lodged similar complaints about Loghain in Origins, though.

Hawke does rise to power. He achieves the status of a noble and then the Champion. The latter is a title no one else in the city has. The game makes you question how much authority that title/status really lends him. How powerful are the powerful, in other words.

I found the family relations to be quite strong. Carver/Hawke had a strong dynamic. Leandra gets plenty of conversations to show off the type of character she is. I personally wouldn't want Gamlen moving in (and I don't think it fits his character to accept), but alright. The game lacks that choice.

The mage/templar conflict wasn't defined by idiocy. It was defined by zealots on both sides. And clearly that never happens in real life. It's also foreshadowed as early as the prologue.

The idol gets mentioned pretty early. A savvy gamer can also spot its face on Meredith's sword in Act 2. That's foreshadowing. And it's pretty clear the mysteries of the Primeval Thaig are going to be explored later on (what with the Wardens searching for it and all).

Hawke's only passive if you let him be. Likewise, you can do something about Anders if you choose to.

I don't know how you feel the acts are isolated. There all these different callbacks and references to quests from one to another.

And how is there a focus on the combat? At least any more so than there was in Origins?

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

They were idiots however in choosing Kirkwall.

Thay had SOMETHING in Kirkwall. Turns out they had much less than they though, but it was still better starting out completely from the ground up somewhere else.

They could have gone to Starkhaven first, settle there, and send a letter to Gamlen to really see if they had something.

Instead, they risk their lives going to the most militarized Templar controlled polity.

They had no money and quite possibly no contacts in Starkhaven. It's also not an easy task to travel across the Free Marches. They could have been killed by bandits or the elements on the way there. In Kirkwall, Leandra maybe thought she could hide Bethany (and Mage!Hawke) behind the name of the Amell family, before she knew of what Gamlen did.

[xkg]

DrunkDeadman wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Better they run into the Blight, get tainted, and die? The only people with immunity against the Blight are the Wardens. Thus, they are the only ones who have the power and thus the responsibility to fight the Blight. The Hawkes are poor peasants. Furthermore, the family is intact. And while Carver and rogue-or-warrior!Hawke may have been in the army, Bethany and Leandra were not. They are likely not capable of fighting a campaign, and at that moment Hawke is responsible for their safety.

So get Mom and the sibling to Gwaren and then go back and fight.  There are no Wardens left in the country and plenty of regular army sods who are fighting it (or trying to), but Hawke exempts herself.  Bloody coward.

Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

Sure, what an briliant idea. But now i wonder, who would fight alongside the Warden against the Archdemon if every peasant/civilian/ordinary warrior had thougth like that and fled from Ferelden.

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

They were idiots however in choosing Kirkwall.

Thay had SOMETHING in Kirkwall. Turns out they had much less than they though, but it was still better starting out completely from the ground up somewhere else.

They could have gone to Starkhaven first, settle there, and send a letter to Gamlen to really see if they had something.

Instead, they risk their lives going to the most militarized Templar controlled polity.

I think you're missing the point. Leandra had no reason to think Gamlen had nothing. She left the city a prominent noble. With countries around the globe closing their borders to refugees, she chooses to go to the one home she expects will still accept her. And the Hawkes sibs have hidden their magic before. It's not something new to them. I'm sure Leandra even expects that having the influence of a noble will make them more effective at hiding than when they were living as poor peasants.

[ipgd]

ipgd wrote...

Because I was interested in the plot, the characters, the world, etc. from an outside, detached, "I am enjoying a work of fiction" perspective. As far as actually being able to insert myself into the world and/or make my choices through an agent I felt had a contextually, in-universe emotional connection to the events, I couldn't in most cases. A matter of immersion, basically.

A bit of a tangent to expand/clarify: And that's not necessarily a problem; I naturally approach fiction from a very meta, analytical angle anyway, and that is how I like to think about fiction. I cannot insert myself into a setting and become immersed because that is not my "character", so to speak. I do not perceive events in fiction as having occured to me personally and cannot become personally involved (or, rather, I deliberately avoid doing so because I think becoming so emotionally involved that you cannot see past a narrow interpretation ala IanPolaris is silly and takes all the fun out of nerd wanking about fiction).

Having a character that I perceive as separate from my own with his own emotional motivations as an "interface" allows me to vicariously experience this emotional immersion while simultaneously preserving the outside perspective I want to have in order to analyze fiction.

If other people can become personally engaged with a setting through an avatar, and view themselves as a character in that world, all the more power to them. It's not really a complaint, just an observation regarding the Warden as a character.

Aaleel wrote...

I'm not even going to list the laundry list of times my feelings were ignored in DA2, it's not even comparable.

As far as decisions that were emotional.  Should I use blood magic that I'm stauchly against to save this boy, and since I didn't save the mages I have to kill his mother to power the spell.  Or should I just kill the boy himself which I did once and felt almost dirty, which was more of a feeling than I had with any decision in DA2.

None of the decisions were overly emotional to me because as far as family was concerned they didn't develop it enough to make me really care one way or the other.  My mother lived with me for years the better part of two acts and I was barely talked to her.

The Connor/Isolde choice would have been a great choice if it were a choice between Connor and Isolde and not a choice between Connor, Isolde and a Happily Ever After Everybody Lives ending. I couldn't care about Connor or Isolde's deaths because at that point I knew I was deliberately choosing to kill one of them when I didn't have to. Sometimes, player agency can dull emotional impact as much as it facilitates it.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 07:42 .

[Ryzaki]

DrunkDeadman wrote...
They had no money and quite possibly no contacts in Starkhaven. It's also not an easy task to travel across the Free Marches. They could have been killed by bandits or the elements on the way there. In Kirkwall, Leandra maybe thought she could hide Bethany (and Mage!Hawke) behind the name of the Amell family, before she knew of what Gamlen did.

 

Which makes her a fool. Mage children are taken from noble families all the time. Wealth and status means nothing to the Chantry. They take noble mages just like everyone else. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[highcastle]

xkg wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Better they run into the Blight, get tainted, and die? The only people with immunity against the Blight are the Wardens. Thus, they are the only ones who have the power and thus the responsibility to fight the Blight. The Hawkes are poor peasants. Furthermore, the family is intact. And while Carver and rogue-or-warrior!Hawke may have been in the army, Bethany and Leandra were not. They are likely not capable of fighting a campaign, and at that moment Hawke is responsible for their safety.

So get Mom and the sibling to Gwaren and then go back and fight.  There are no Wardens left in the country and plenty of regular army sods who are fighting it (or trying to), but Hawke exempts herself.  Bloody coward.

Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

Sure, what an briliant idea. But now i wonder, who would fight alongside the Warden against the Archdemon if every peasant/civilian/ordinary warrior had thougth like that and fled from Ferelden.

Those who swore those oaths, those who were obligated to. As in: the dwarves, the elves, the mages, the men from Redcliffe. Hawke swore no oaths. Mage!Hawke especially wasn't even in the army. You could possibly make a case for rogue-or-warrior!Hawke being honorbound to return. But the king he swore his life to is dead. His obligation is over.

[alex90c]

Oh come on, how can you say there isn't a focus on combat? I guarantee you, in every single place you go (except daytime Kirkwall, sometimes not even that) you will get jumped by some form of bandits, raiders, gangs, thugs and so on. There would be nothing wrong with it if the combat made sense (say, in Origins there was practically always a motive behind a battle) but when it's just combat for the sake of combat, then yes DA2 does focus on it.

In Origins there were moments you could ignore combat; there was a random encounter with bandits that you could either ambush or walk around, you could avoid combat when you come face to face with Caladrius, you could intimidate Imrek to step down from fighting you outside Orzammar and so forth. On the other hand, in DA2 you just (in the times you do actually get to talk to your enemy) you get stopped by thugs (Shepherding Wolves) or Coterie (Brekker) and no matter what you say, it breaks out in to a fight. Becoming the champion and then thugs still trying to jump you at night was completely stupid as well; if we could have access to our number of kills like in Origins (character record) it would probably be somewhere in the thousands by Act 3.

[Aaleel]

ipgd wrote...

The Connor/Isolde choice would have been a great choice if it were a choice between Connor and Isolde and not a choice between Connor, Isolde and a Happily Ever After Everybody Lives ending. I couldn't care about Connor or Isolde's deaths because at that point I knew I was deliberately choosing to kill one of them when I didn't have to. Sometimes, player agency can dull emotional impact as much as it facilitates it.

If you wiped out the mages how does happily ever after occur.  You either have to sacrifice someone for the blood magic or kill someone outright.

[highcastle]

alex90c wrote...

Oh come on, how can you say there isn't a focus on combat? I guarantee you, in every single place you go (except daytime Kirkwall, sometimes not even that) you will get jumped by some form of bandits, raiders, gangs, thugs and so on. There would be nothing wrong with it if the combat made sense (say, in Origins there was practically always a motive behind a battle) but when it's just combat for the sake of combat, then yes DA2 does focus on it.

In Origins there were moments you could ignore combat; there was a random encounter with bandits that you could either ambush or walk around, you could avoid combat when you come face to face with Caladrius, you could intimidate Imrek to step down from fighting you outside Orzammar and so forth. On the other hand, in DA2 you just (in the times you do actually get to talk to your enemy) you get stopped by thugs (Shepherding Wolves) or Coterie (Brekker) and no matter what you say, it breaks out in to a fight. Becoming the champion and then thugs still trying to jump you at night was completely stupid as well; if we could have access to our number of kills like in Origins (character record) it would probably be somewhere in the thousands by Act 3.

And every single time I walked from one place to another in DAO, I got jumped. Only one could be ignored. A few in DA2 could be, too. But random encounters are a trope of RPGs. Lamenting them means lamenting a given staple of the genre. There's also this wonderful thing called gameplay and story segregation. Helps you keep things in perspective, I find.

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

Ryzaki wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...
They had no money and quite possibly no contacts in Starkhaven. It's also not an easy task to travel across the Free Marches. They could have been killed by bandits or the elements on the way there. In Kirkwall, Leandra maybe thought she could hide Bethany (and Mage!Hawke) behind the name of the Amell family, before she knew of what Gamlen did.

 

Which makes her a fool. Mage children are taken from noble families all the time. Wealth and status means nothing to the Chantry. They take noble mages just like everyone else. 

Most mages, especially those of nobles, are found out young. Bethany can take care of herself and so does Hawke. Their father taught them how to control and hide their magic from others. Add a wall of protection due to the noble status, and they are fairly safe.

[Wulfram]

Ryzaki wrote...

Which makes her a fool. Mage children are taken from noble families all the time. Wealth and status means nothing to the Chantry. They take noble mages just like everyone else. 

Status and wealth isn't any good if the Templars actually know that you're a mag.  But it can potentially help stop that information from getting to the Templars, and discourage an investigation.

For example, Gascard DuPuis gets Meredith to force Emeric to back off.

[highcastle]

Aaleel wrote...

ipgd wrote...

The Connor/Isolde choice would have been a great choice if it were a choice between Connor and Isolde and not a choice between Connor, Isolde and a Happily Ever After Everybody Lives ending. I couldn't care about Connor or Isolde's deaths because at that point I knew I was deliberately choosing to kill one of them when I didn't have to. Sometimes, player agency can dull emotional impact as much as it facilitates it.

If you wiped out the mages how does happily ever after occur.  You either have to sacrifice someone for the blood magic or kill someone outright.

Yes, in that specific case, you don't get the third option. But most times, you do. And honestly, I never saw the rationality of wiping out the mages to begin with. Meeting Wynne and all the apprentices and children should make it clear not every mage is possessed. This was always one of those sure you can do it moments, but why would you want to? At least to me, as a roleplayer.

[ipgd]

Aaleel wrote...

ipgd wrote...

The Connor/Isolde choice would have been a great choice if it were a choice between Connor and Isolde and not a choice between Connor, Isolde and a Happily Ever After Everybody Lives ending. I couldn't care about Connor or Isolde's deaths because at that point I knew I was deliberately choosing to kill one of them when I didn't have to. Sometimes, player agency can dull emotional impact as much as it facilitates it.

If you wiped out the mages how does happily ever after occur.  You either have to sacrifice someone for the blood magic or kill someone outright.

By not wiping out the mages? If I were forced to kill either Connor or Isolde because I killed the mages and didn't realize they had to be alive to save both of them, I would have just been frustrated about that metagame decision, reloaded and spared them. If it were down to just between the two of them no matter what, maybe I could have cared based solely on that decision alone, but it wasn't. You can't really shut off metagame knowledge or how it impacts your choices.

[Ryzaki]

DrunkDeadman wrote...
Most mages, especially those of nobles, are found out young. Bethany can take care of herself and so does Hawke. Their father taught them how to control and hide their magic from others. Add a wall of protection due to the noble status, and they are fairly safe.

 

Yet she can't take care of herself enough that she isn't found out soon after Hawke leaves for the deep roads. 

I personally doubt that the Amells a line well known for its magical offspring wouldn't get extreme scruntiny from the templars when Leandra comes back with her children from the apostate she ran off with. 

When comparing that risk to simply going somewhere there are few templars. It doesn't make much sense to me. 

Wulfram wrote...
Status and wealth isn't any good if the Templars actually know that you're a mag.  But it can potentially help stop that information from getting to the Templars, and discourage an investigation.

For example, Gascard DuPuis gets Meredith to force Emeric to back off.

 

Which is hilarious considering how "BLOODMAGE!" Meredith is.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[erynnar]

highcastle wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Oh come on, how can you say there isn't a focus on combat? I guarantee you, in every single place you go (except daytime Kirkwall, sometimes not even that) you will get jumped by some form of bandits, raiders, gangs, thugs and so on. There would be nothing wrong with it if the combat made sense (say, in Origins there was practically always a motive behind a battle) but when it's just combat for the sake of combat, then yes DA2 does focus on it.

In Origins there were moments you could ignore combat; there was a random encounter with bandits that you could either ambush or walk around, you could avoid combat when you come face to face with Caladrius, you could intimidate Imrek to step down from fighting you outside Orzammar and so forth. On the other hand, in DA2 you just (in the times you do actually get to talk to your enemy) you get stopped by thugs (Shepherding Wolves) or Coterie (Brekker) and no matter what you say, it breaks out in to a fight. Becoming the champion and then thugs still trying to jump you at night was completely stupid as well; if we could have access to our number of kills like in Origins (character record) it would probably be somewhere in the thousands by Act 3.

And every single time I walked from one place to another in DAO, I got jumped. Only one could be ignored. A few in DA2 could be, too. But random encounters are a trope of RPGs. Lamenting them means lamenting a given staple of the genre. There's also this wonderful thing called gameplay and story segregation. Helps you keep things in perspective, I find.

True, you did get jumped in DAO, but it wasn't by six or seven waves of teleporting ninjas. They were a group of enemies, whose numbers were already set. And they didn't explode all over my screen in gore so I couldn't see.

And some of those ambushes were side quest not just walking across Denerim and getting ganked while walking to the Gnawed Noble for a pint.

[highcastle]

erynnar wrote...

highcastle wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Oh come on, how can you say there isn't a focus on combat? I guarantee you, in every single place you go (except daytime Kirkwall, sometimes not even that) you will get jumped by some form of bandits, raiders, gangs, thugs and so on. There would be nothing wrong with it if the combat made sense (say, in Origins there was practically always a motive behind a battle) but when it's just combat for the sake of combat, then yes DA2 does focus on it.

In Origins there were moments you could ignore combat; there was a random encounter with bandits that you could either ambush or walk around, you could avoid combat when you come face to face with Caladrius, you could intimidate Imrek to step down from fighting you outside Orzammar and so forth. On the other hand, in DA2 you just (in the times you do actually get to talk to your enemy) you get stopped by thugs (Shepherding Wolves) or Coterie (Brekker) and no matter what you say, it breaks out in to a fight. Becoming the champion and then thugs still trying to jump you at night was completely stupid as well; if we could have access to our number of kills like in Origins (character record) it would probably be somewhere in the thousands by Act 3.

And every single time I walked from one place to another in DAO, I got jumped. Only one could be ignored. A few in DA2 could be, too. But random encounters are a trope of RPGs. Lamenting them means lamenting a given staple of the genre. There's also this wonderful thing called gameplay and story segregation. Helps you keep things in perspective, I find.

True, you did get jumped in DAO, but it wasn't by six or seven waves of teleporting ninjas. They were a group of enemies, whose numbers were already set. And they didn't explode all over my screen in gore so I couldn't see.

And some of those ambushes were side quest not just walking across Denerim and getting ganked while walking to the Gnawed Noble for a pint.

Have you tried the newest patch? It cuts down the explosiveness by quite a bit (the amount was supposedly due to a glitch in how the game triggered explosions). Plus, I seem to remember getting ambushed by a knight asking for satisfaction in the streets of Denerim, by smugglers in Amaranthine, by various Harrowmont or Bhelen supporters in Orzammar, etc.

Also, how do exploding enemies or waves of combat have anything to do with liking Hawke as a character? 

[ipgd]

erynnar wrote...

And some of those ambushes were side quest not just walking across Denerim and getting ganked while walking to the Gnawed Noble for a pint.

And some of the encounters were just getting jumped by ridiculously organized massive groups of bandits with traps all laid out on the road while you were walking to the Pearl for a piece of ass.

Some of the encounters involved giant spiders mysteriously appearing out of rock ceilings.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 08:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]highcastle wrote...
How is Hawke not proactive? He fights the Arishok, he takes a stand in the mage/templar debates, he could be angling for viscount (as my Hawke was).[/quote]

In reaction to the Arishok attacking Kirkwall. And he only slaughters all Qunari in his way, and not really by using his brain.

He takes a stand in the mage Templar debate after 3 years of becoming a Champion and it's inconsequential and confined mostly to words. 

[quote]
My Hawke spoke to Bran, Alistair, Sebastian, and others. Politics isn't an easy thing to portray in a game, but the general consensus from these people was that if Meredith didn't support me (and she didn't/wouldn't with me being a mage), then I didn't stand a chance. So I went about undermining her.[/quote]

And how did you undermine her?
Why didn't your Hawke establish connnections with nobles? why didn't Hawke seek to ally with Templar dissidents like Thrask whom we know existed in Act 2? Why didn't Hawke seek to establish a powerbase amongst refugees?

Hawke had 3 years to do that. What did he do?

[quote]
My Hawke challenged the Arishok every chance he got after seeing what the Qun demanded of Ketojan. He warned Dumar repeatedly about Petrice and the Arishok, and eventually set himself up to pick up the pieces when it all went bad (as he kept saying it would).[/quote]


Act 2 is certainly better than Act 3 in that regard, but why didn't Hawke for example side with PEtrice (which he can only do if aggro)? Why didn't he seek to arm refugees to fight the Qunari?...etc etc

[quote]
Actually, if you rival Anders, you can report Anders to Cullen.[/quote]

And what does he do? What happens?
Nothing.

[quote]
If you don't tolerate him, then he probably broke into the manor to plant his manifesto (Isabela and others call him out on snooping).[/quote]

He comes in your home if you have dog, without permission.

[quote]
Have you ever loved someone with a mental illness (Jennifer Hepler compared Anders to someone with bipolar, so you don't think this metaphor's coming out of nowhere). You can try to save them all you want, but sometimes there's nothing you can do. My Hawkes still tried.[/quote]

I would send them to a mental hospital.
But we are not talking about a mental illness only. We are talking about a potential abomination and Hawke is just forced to stand there and do nothing about it.

And you can do nothign about it in Act 3, except if you seriously want to tell me that the idiotic scene with Cullen is an attempt.

[quote]
I liked Donnic, Solivitus (despite his minor involvement, he was quite witty), the regulars and their chatter at the Hanged Man, Cullen, Thrask, etc. Each environmet had a unique feel to it. And the city did change. Look around between the decades and you'll see subtle differences in the buildings (and some not so subtle ones in Act 3). Could it have been better? Yes. I would have loved to see even more changes. But I still liked what they put in the game.[/quote]

Those are NPCs, I am talking about the city itself, which you are forced to be in throughout most of the game.

And what subtle differences? If I didn't notice any of that except a statue, then maybe they shouldn't make them subtle.

[quote]
Hawke does rise to power. He achieves the status of a noble and then the Champion. The latter is a title no one else in the city has. The game makes you question how much authority that title/status really lends him. How powerful are the powerful, in other words. [/quote]

The title is meaningless and he can do nothing with it. And noble is also meaningless in Kirkwall with Meredith around.

Furthermore, he doesn't rise. Aveline puts it quite eloquently. He stumbles on it.
That's first. Second, power is not achieved via only constant slaughter, which is what Hawke does. There is no thinking, planning or establishing connections to get that power.
Thirdly, power is meaningless if not used. Hawke never used it.

What he achieved is fame and at best symbolic power that he never used.

[quote]
I found the family relations to be quite strong. Carver/Hawke had a strong dynamic. Leandra gets plenty of conversations to show off the type of character she is. I personally wouldn't want Gamlen moving in (and I don't think it fits his character to accept), but alright. The game lacks that choice. [/quote]

The death of the first sibling had no bearing on me and I didnt' feel connected enough to Leandra to care that much. Obviously it's subjective, but I will say that the game started really badly, in that it didnt' show us how they lived in Lothering. They didn't show us what Hawke lost. They tell us about it.

[quote]
The mage/templar conflict wasn't defined by idiocy. It was defined by zealots on both sides. And clearly that never happens in real life. It's also foreshadowed as early as the prologue.[/quote]


Idiocy, when you have Meredith pissing off everyone for no reason. Cullen being a moron when you tell him of Anders plotting something against the Chantry. Mages standing there like idiots and not taking advantage of a funnel, just waiting for Templars to kil them. Meredith for being an idiot and giving mages the time to fortify. Those who follow Grace for not noticing that she is obviously obsessed. Orsino researching the harvester for what reason exactly?
Elthina beign a useless idiot. The Divine being even more incompetent when she thinks that an Exalted march on Andrastrians is a good idea, but doesn't seem to consider firing the incompetent Meredith...etc etc.

It was not zealotry. It was stupidity on both sides, with very little intelligence to compensate. Add to that the idol, and insanity, and we ended up with a circus.

[quote]
The idol gets mentioned pretty early. A savvy gamer can also spot its face on Meredith's sword in Act 2. That's foreshadowing. And it's pretty clear the mysteries of the Primeval Thaig are going to be explored later on (what with the Wardens searching for it and all).[/quote]

If the  idol is that important, it's nature should be hinted at in the game. Instead of having a useless ethereal golem, have us explore its nature.

[quote]
I don't know how you feel the acts are isolated. There all these different callbacks and references to quests from one to another. [/quote]


The choice between mercs and smugglers for example is not referenced other for a series of pointless sidequests. The quest involving the Magistrate is either referenced briefly, or not at all. references, when they do happen, are for the most part insignificant.

The Qunari invasion is not strongly linked with the main plot, something that could have been alleviated if Meredith was more active in Act 2. It rather felt like an isolated event. And one that does not get explored and its repercussions ignored. You're telling me that the Qunari breaching the accords gets ignored?

[quote]
And how is there a focus on the combat? At least any more so than there was in Origins?
[/quote]

Waves.
There is not a single quest that I can think oif that didn't involve massacres of waves.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 08:09 .

[xkg]

highcastle wrote...

xkg wrote...

DrunkDeadman wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Better they run into the Blight, get tainted, and die? The only people with immunity against the Blight are the Wardens. Thus, they are the only ones who have the power and thus the responsibility to fight the Blight. The Hawkes are poor peasants. Furthermore, the family is intact. And while Carver and rogue-or-warrior!Hawke may have been in the army, Bethany and Leandra were not. They are likely not capable of fighting a campaign, and at that moment Hawke is responsible for their safety.

So get Mom and the sibling to Gwaren and then go back and fight.  There are no Wardens left in the country and plenty of regular army sods who are fighting it (or trying to), but Hawke exempts herself.  Bloody coward.

Bloody idiot more like it if Hawke goes back to fight the darkspawn. No Wardens, a Blight, and friggin' army along with the King lost at Ostagar... All of the previous Blights cunsumed entire nations before they were stopped. If anything, the Hawkes made a smart decision to leave Ferelden.

Sure, what an briliant idea. But now i wonder, who would fight alongside the Warden against the Archdemon if every peasant/civilian/ordinary warrior had thougth like that and fled from Ferelden.

Those who swore those oaths, those who were obligated to. As in: the dwarves, the elves, the mages, the men from Redcliffe. Hawke swore no oaths. Mage!Hawke especially wasn't even in the army. You could possibly make a case for rogue-or-warrior!Hawke being honorbound to return. But the king he swore his life to is dead. His obligation is over.

So in case of war it is ok to runaway from your home country into some safe teritory ? Imo joining the army and fighting for freedom should be a way to go.

Hawke is The Champion of Kirkwall, The Coward of Ferlden