447 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Didn't the patch make Anders siding with Templars possible?
Granted, "redemption" is a bad word.

Regardless, that choice could be blocked if Hawke turned Anders to Templars for instance.

Yes, but it's questionable whether he actually has much control over his mental faculties on the rivalry path at the time he chooses to follow Hawke with the templars (and it's generally apparent he seems to be following Hawke specifically, potentially not considering the implications of siding with the templars in his mental state), and it's heavily implied he intends to kill himself after the battle (pending some confirmation of whether or not Varric's omission of his name in the romance ending is a bug or an indication he does indeed commit suicide). But talking about this would take this veeeerrryy off-topic and you can probably stumble onto any page in the Anderps thread and find ridiculous endless analytical arguments/wankfests about it if you actually care.

I imagine any Anders turned over to the templars would just be considered to be "friendship" Anders, yeah.

tmp7704 wrote...

I see, makes sense. Just curious now, but if you approach the game from the "work of fiction" angle, wouldn't it work better to --instead of using your own personality to make choices-- make decisions (and roll with consequences) that'd result in the most interesting fiction?

That's mainly caused by your later remark how you'd reload/metagame the Connor/Isolde situation for the 'happily ever after' ending, which sort of leave me with a puzzled "but why" when, as you say yourself, it makes for a better dilemma when that option is removed. So if the earlier decision actually arranges such more interesting situation... i'm not sure if i see logic in "repairing" that with a reload.

Sometimes. I leave the Architect alive, for instance, even though I think it's basically the stupidest thing ever because a world with him in it is more interesting.

But as far as choices like Connor/Isolde go, I just can't care about it because it doesn't actually feel like a difficult choice. I'm not engaged by the choice so I pick the compulsory Perfect Playthrough option.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 08:49 .

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
These small convos that you dismiss out of hand, these are what I like about DA2. They give Hawke the chance to emote and express himself.

Not relevent to Hawke supposdely being proactive and rising to power, which is what  I thought we were talking about. At best, he has one talk with a character and that's it. He doesn't follow up on that, doesn't try to establish other connections..etc etc.

EDIT: as for emoting. Lik I said, I didn't feel NPCs and companions reacted that well or differently for me to think that it's anything other than superficial.

I think we're looking for two different things in the games we play. That's fine. But for me, DA2 trumps DAO and Hawke trumps the Warden. No contest.

I am actually looking for what the game claimed it was. Now I realize I was being stupid.

Funny, I thought we were talking about who we liked more, Hawke or the Warden, and why. You know, what with that being the name of thread and all. Silly me, I just forget my head sometimes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
Funny, I thought we were talking about who we liked more, Hawke or the Warden, and why. You know, what with that being the name of thread and all. Silly me, I just forget my head sometimes.

I'll remind you how we got to this. You replied to my following post:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

If you don't like the Hawke you've made... make one you do like?

Except
it goes beyond that. It's Hawke's place and relevence in the story, his
passivity, the fact that he can't be shown using his brain once,
restrictions vis-a-vis choices, in addition to the world being lifeless
and soulless that it makes playing a PC dull no matter how interesting
he is (which I didn't feel Hawke was to begin with). Same in regards to
what I see as a badly written mess of a story. Such a thing affects how I
view the PC through whose eyes I saw the story.

Which is me explaining why I dislike Hawke, which is the topic of the thread.
And you asked me why I think the story is badly written. And it continued from there.

[Abispa]

neppakyo wrote...

Abispa wrote...

Perhaps DA2 could have been better served with a "paragon/renegade" meter that was used in ME1. You could successfully take any action you had earned enough points for, but would be limited in choices if your Shepard was wishy-washy.

How about actual skills instead, like intimidation, persuasion?

Just sayin'

Not really a fan of that, but I'm not offended by it, either. I feel that intimidation and persuasion points should be earned by DOING, not by dumping generic character points. Of course, I've always prefered RPGs that increase ALL skills in that manner like Fable series (hate the short cuts, though) or Dungeon Seige.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

Sometimes. I leave the Architect alive, for instance, even though I think it's basically the stupidest thing ever because a world with him in it is more interesting.

But as far as choices like Connor/Isolde go, I just can't care about it because it doesn't actually feel like a difficult choice. I'm not engaged by the choice so I pick the compulsory Perfect Playthrough option.

Ah, kk. We play in opposite ways it'd seem -- i come up with rough draft of character which may fit initial setup and then finetune them over the course of the game while trying to get an interesting story overall within the boundaries that character's personality allows. Because of the latter i suppose that's a different manner of metagaming, in a way, but also because of it the "perfect playthrough" is anything but compulsory for me and rather something to avoid. But can see how it could work if it was actually compulsory for someone.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Abispa wrote...
Not really a fan of that, but I'm not offended by it, either. I feel that intimidation and persuasion points should be earned by DOING, not by dumping generic character points. Of course, I've always prefered RPGs that increase ALL skills in that manner like Fable series (hate the short cuts, though) or Dungeon Seige.

I think a system with both makes sense. Yes you have to practise to be more intimidating / persuasive. But some people cna't be either no matter how much they train. Some of it is innate, or acquired over long periods of time that it wouldnt' cut it with just practise.

But I am not sure how it could be implemented.

What I do dislike greatly from ME, is how persuasive you are depends on how much of a paragon / renegade you are. Doesn't make much sense, and penalizes those who prefer to be in the middle on the "morality scale".

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
Funny, I thought we were talking about who we liked more, Hawke or the Warden, and why. You know, what with that being the name of thread and all. Silly me, I just forget my head sometimes.

I'll remind you how we got to this. You replied to my following post:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

If you don't like the Hawke you've made... make one you do like?

Except
it goes beyond that. It's Hawke's place and relevence in the story, his
passivity, the fact that he can't be shown using his brain once,
restrictions vis-a-vis choices, in addition to the world being lifeless
and soulless that it makes playing a PC dull no matter how interesting
he is (which I didn't feel Hawke was to begin with). Same in regards to
what I see as a badly written mess of a story. Such a thing affects how I
view the PC through whose eyes I saw the story.

Which is me explaining why I dislike Hawke, which is the topic of the thread.
And you asked me why I think the story is badly written. And it continued from there.

Sorry, this is me saying I'm done with a discussion that's going in curcles, that's wandering off-topic, and that is generally turning into an exercise in frustration. I have to be up early tomorrow and it's late where I am anyway, so I'm signing off. You and I have differing opinions on what makes a good game. Might I suggest  sandbox game for you? Try Oblivion or Skyrim when it comes out. The PC has no emotion whatsoever, but you can have all the "relevance" and "agency" you seem to want. I'll stick with a game in which I feel genuine emotion.

[ipgd]

Oh god, I hate the paragon/renegade system so much. Let's not add more mechanics that dictate your dialogue choices based on having to metagame points, ty.

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Sometimes. I leave the Architect alive, for instance, even though I think it's basically the stupidest thing ever because a world with him in it is more interesting.

But as far as choices like Connor/Isolde go, I just can't care about it because it doesn't actually feel like a difficult choice. I'm not engaged by the choice so I pick the compulsory Perfect Playthrough option.

Ah, kk. We play in opposite ways it'd seem -- i come up with rough draft of character which may fit initial setup and then finetune them over the course of the game while trying to get an interesting story overall within the boundaries that character's personality allows. Because of the latter i suppose that's a different manner of metagaming, in a way, but also because of it the "perfect playthrough" is anything but compulsory for me and rather something to avoid. But can see how it could work if it was actually compulsory for someone.

I do do the roleplaying thing when I'm controlling a character I can perceive as a character, but with a nebulous player avatar (i.e. the Warden), establishing the character feels like something I'd have to do outside the game and so metagaming wins out.

[Abispa]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Abispa wrote...
Not really a fan of that, but I'm not offended by it, either. I feel that intimidation and persuasion points should be earned by DOING, not by dumping generic character points. Of course, I've always prefered RPGs that increase ALL skills in that manner like Fable series (hate the short cuts, though) or Dungeon Seige.

I think a system with both makes sense. Yes you have to practise to be more intimidating / persuasive. But some people cna't be either no matter how much they train. Some of it is innate, or acquired over long periods of time that it wouldnt' cut it with just practise.

But I am not sure how it could be implemented.

What I do dislike greatly from ME, is how persuasive you are depends on how much of a paragon / renegade you are. Doesn't make much sense, and penalizes those who prefer to be in the middle on the "morality scale".

Saying "like ME1" was automatic in my original post, but as I sit here thinking about it, there were problems I had with that as well.

[MonkeyLungs]

I thought Hawke was railroaded into many very bad decisions. I also didn't like how Hawke did not look further into Quentin and what he was doing. This was absolutely pathetic writing on Bioware's part. Quentin killed Hawke's mom and reanimated her with experimental magic doing all of this in the Templar run city of Kirkwall. For most of my characters obliterating every thread tied to Quentin might have been the ony real way to cope. That moment really dropped my enthusiasm for Hawke.

The other really critical element for me is that the mage playthrough is too homogenous with the other two classes. Playing as a mage in this game should have been like an almost different game and the game would have really benifitted from such variance. In fac t I'll go as far as to say each class Warrio, Mage, Rogue should have a largely different playthrough outside of pivotal plot points. Each class should have found their own way to make it in Kirkwall.

This kind of stuff just took away from my enjoyment of Hawke as a character.

Modifié par MonkeyLungs, 05 juin 2011 - 09:01 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
You and I have differing opinions on what makes a good game. Might I suggest  sandbox game for you? Try Oblivion or Skyrim when it comes out. The PC has no emotion whatsoever, but you can have all the "relevance" and "agency" you seem to want. I'll stick with a game in which I feel genuine emotion.

Missed the point entirely. I can actually like several types of RPGs, each for their own merit. I love Origins, and I love TW2 more and they are very different kinds of RPGs. However, while I felt the concepts behind DA2 were awesome, the execution and quality were not to my liking. And the emotion you felt, is something I didn't feel at all, for reasdons I've explained. Not that I didn't want to feel it (I want to give meaning to the 60$ I wasted in fact).

So thanks for the advice, but no thanks, not that interested in sandbox games.
And good night

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 09:04 .

[Sylvianus]

Hell no ! I don't like him, i don't respect him, he sucks donkey ball.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 juin 2011 - 09:09 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Missed the point entirely. I can actually like several types of RPGs, each for their own merit. I love Origins, and I love TW2 more and they are very different kinds of RPGs. However, while I felt the concepts behind DA2 were awesome, the execution and quality were not to my liking. And the emotion you felt, is something I didn't feel at all, for reasdons I've explained. Not that I didn't want to feel it (I want to give meaning to the 60$ I wasted in fact).

I have to question why you invest so much damn time talking about a game you hate. I mean, geez, I'm equally stubborn and eager to waste my time arguing about pointless things but at least I like the things I ****** about

[Addai]

highcastle wrote...
Or to put it in the terms you want to use: would you fight for a country that oppressed you, or would you seek safer territory somewhere else, especially if you had a family depending on you to keep them safe?

So going to Kirkwall and fighting for that city makes sense?

I theorize that if you like Anders and either accept his cause or can reconcile yourself to it, you won't mind the story even though agency is taken out of the player's hands and Hawke is basically a bystander.  At least then, something happens that you can see might be worthwhile, rather than being frustrating and making you feel like everything you did was pointless or worse.

[Chugster]

Lady Hawke is very cool...male Hawke, like ManShep, is a bit of a limp lettuce leaf.

As for whether i like her more than my warden...i have 6, all very different...so which one do you mean?

[Addai]

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.

So you go to the Free Marches which could be Archie's next stop once he's done munching Fereldans?  That makes a lot of sense.  <_<

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

I do do the roleplaying thing when I'm controlling a character I can perceive as a character, but with a nebulous player avatar (i.e. the Warden), establishing the character feels like something I'd have to do outside the game and so metagaming wins out.

Well, i think it's no different than customizing the appearance/race/gender. That technically is "outside the game" sure, but that isn't exactly something that'd make me want to skip the process altogether.

Role-playing a character defined by someone else is fun too, just not something i'd want to do exclusively.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 juin 2011 - 09:11 .

[Sylvianus]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- moments like this:

Wow.

My small list of reasonable and non-idiotic people in Kirkwall has just gotten smaller.

Looooooooooool !

What the hell ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 juin 2011 - 09:16 .

[Zanallen]

There are very few reasonable people in Kirkwall. The thin veil sees to that.

[xkg]

But you do have an option to inform them about Anders so you can't say there are no options in DA2 hehe

[ipgd]

Addai67 wrote...

I theorize that if you like Anders and either accept his cause or can reconcile yourself to it, you won't mind the story even though agency is taken out of the player's hands and Hawke is basically a bystander.  At least then, something happens that you can see might be worthwhile, rather than being frustrating and making you feel like everything you did was pointless or worse.

As I've wanked about before in other threads, I never quite felt that was a bad thing. There's an interesting symmetry there between the denial of agency and Hawke's in-narrative powerlessness. I think dramatic tension built off the denial of agency is as valid as dramatic tension built off the responsibility of agency. Other mediums use similar themes of denial and the subversion of expectations to good effect, so I'm not sure why video games alone are discounted as not having value when they don't give the player what he expected or wanted.

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

I do do the roleplaying thing when I'm controlling a character I can perceive as a character, but with a nebulous player avatar (i.e. the Warden), establishing the character feels like something I'd have to do outside the game and so metagaming wins out.

Well, i think it's no different than customizing the appearance/race/gender. That technically is "outside the game" sure, but that isn't exactly something that'd make me want to skip the process altogether.

Role-playing a character defined by someone else is fun too, just not something i'd want to do exclusively.

Sure, I guess. It doesn't give you the same kind of magical satisfaction creating fabulous drag queens the CC does, though

Like I said, I don't really mind playing non-defined characters. It's just something different, not necessarily worse.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 09:23 .

[neppakyo]

xkg wrote...

But you do have an option to inform them about Anders so you can't say there are no options in DA2 hehe

I attribute those kind of options to being in prison, and bubba asking me which I would prefer; In the mouth, or in the butt.

[Luvinn]

makalathbonagin wrote...

there is something not right there let's see.... Hawke ... character? warden had more personality, sense of presence and she was mute!! xDDD
in conclusion: Hawke talk too much and do nothing

Kind of how i felt about Hawke. At the end i really didn't even care what happened to Hawke or not. If the templars killed him/her, i wouldn't of even flinched. We've come a long way from caring about characters dying it seems (like Aeris in FF7)! Some magazine once said how two mute robots have more personality in Portal 2 than some games voiced main characters. Kind of holds true here

[Zanallen]

Luvinn wrote...

Kind of how i felt about Hawke. At the end i really didn't even care what happened to Hawke or not. If the templars killed him/her, i wouldn't of even flinched. We've come a long way from caring about characters dying it seems (like Aeris in FF7)! Some magazine once said how two mute robots have more personality in Portal 2 than some games voiced main characters. Kind of holds true here

You cared about Aeris' death in FF7? I mean, it was unexpected the first time and a little shocking, but I didn't really care. I was more annoyed that I lost my best healer and the most normal of the three girls in the game. Maybe I was just used to it after playing FF2(4) and FF3(6).

But as I've said before, I would like a new character in DA 3. Preferably one with origins options, but it isn't necessary.