447 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zanallen wrote...
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.

I think there should be at least two origins, seperating mages from nonmages. Especialy if the focus of DA3 is the mage / templar conflict.

But yes definitely, new character.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 09:37 .

[Zanallen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think there should be at least two origins, seperating mages from nonmages. Especialy if the focus of DA3 is the mage / templar conflict.

But yes definitely, new character.

If the game is set in Orlais, I would like to see a mage origin, a commoner origins and a noble origins...Maybe a chantry origin as well if possible. So, origins that revolve around station or occupation rather than race. I'd also like to see a more politically motivated plot. Like someone using the mage/templar conflict to call into question the Empress' ability and attempt a take over of Orlais.

[ipgd]

wastelander75 wrote...

I see Hawke pretty much like I see Orlando Bloom a movie. As a supporting character or as a sidekick, good. As a lead character trying to prop up the plot, not so good.

Hawke is the Ishmael.

[Zanallen]

ipgd wrote...

Hawke is the Ishmael.

Wouldn't Varric be the Ishmael?

[ipgd]

Zanallen wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Hawke is the Ishmael.

Wouldn't Varric be the Ishmael?

Hawke is the Ishmael of the narrative and Varric is the Ishmael of the metanarrative. Of which Hawke is actually the main character

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 09:54 .

[neppakyo]

I thought Varric was the main character. Wasn't hawke there for something to do, you know, like murder people?

[Zanallen]

ipgd wrote...

Hawke is the Ishmael of the narrative and Varric is the Ishmael of the metanarrative. Of which Hawke is actually the main character

Bah, tales within tales. Who needs 'em?

[Great_Horn]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Do you like Hawke, or do you miss your Warden? If Hawke were to die, would it affect you?

To answer the questions:
1)      I don’t care about Hawke.
2)      I definitely miss my Warden. And if I had to pick, I´ll go always with my Warden.
3)      If the death of Hawke will affects me? Not at all!

[DreGregoire]

I enjoyed roleplaying as Hawke. His character or how I played his character was never the issue I had with DA2. I admit however that the only investment I have in continuing to play is that he is a cousin to my warden. *smirks* I'm not really sure what that means.

[Sylvius the Mad]

OP wrote...

Do you like Hawke as a character?

I think this is a nonsensical question.  Each player's PC could be wildly different from any other player's PC, so whether an one of us liked Hawke is not only a subjective question, but it's a subjective question about a different thing.  So the answers wouldn't be at all comparable.

[ximena]

Hawke is okay for me. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the Warden over her (my canon Hawke is female) any day. And if Hawke died? I won't really feel something. :|

[The Elder King]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- moments like this:

Wow.

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

Indeed.
That's idiotic. And it had nonsense. I don't see any reason to put this dialogue in the game (other than shows how stupid Cullen is.)
The idiocy of Cullen is mitigated by the awesomeness of the white Champion's armour.

[TheRealJayDee]

ipgd wrote...

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.

 
I didn’t know trying to get help from the circle would actually work on my first playthrough, and I had not been there before I went to Redcliffe. My Cousland didn’t know either. So in the end Isolde gave her life, because that seemed to be the ‘best’ choice. Not being able to save both was something my Cousland thought of as a personal failure, and it haunted him ever since. My mage on my second playthrough had been to the tower before, and decided to give it a shot, willingly taking the risk of bad things happening during his absence from Redcliffe. My shem hating Dalish just killed the boy, knowing that would hurt the humans involved the most.
 
Three choices, three roleplaying approaches, no metagaming. I’d say it’s about how you want to play an RPG…
 
On the other hand: nothing that happened to any of Hawke’s family members in DA2 had as much impact on me as the player, because I had little to none influence on the outcome of each event…

[TheRealJayDee]

highcastle wrote...

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.

Then please explain to me why I had to stay in Kirkwall after Act 2 with my 'canon' Hawke, because he had absolutely nothing that kept him there, and I don't recall him swearing any oaths to let Kirkwall **** up his life even further...

[Sylvius the Mad]

ipgd wrote...

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.

I see no reason why the player can't see an undefined character as being separate from himself with his own emotional motivations.  In taht case, the player just needs to create those motivations - just as the writer did in a pre-defined character.

There's no difference.  There's nothing stopping that playstyle you describe - viewing the character as independent and complete - from working with an undefined character.

That's how many of us manage to replay games like DAO over and over again; we create an entirely different PC each time.

[sonoko]

I have horrible memories of playing as a Warden in DAO. The origins were the best part of the game, but after Ostagar the protagonist became just some kind of a bland dummy-object. I had no personal connections at all, as if his only role was to show the plot progression through his eyes. My PC never wanted to be a warden and to save a world, no choices made me care about consequences. All that "jedi tricks" when the warden with high coercion skill could convince everyone in everything and always got the best outcome were ridiculous and felt like cheating.  

Hawke has his issues too, but at least he is more alive, more human. And it's indeed refreshing to play not as a fearless world-saving super-hero with great goals (you know the type), but as a non-heroic character who wants just simple and basic things: home, freedom, money, family well-being, but instead gets constantly drawn into some events and in the end looses almost everything. 

I agree it could be made better but I still have a lot of fun with DA2 and appreciate Bioware for trying.

Modifié par sonoko, 05 juin 2011 - 11:15 .

[Addai]

ipgd wrote...

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.

Isn't the whole point of playing a video game that your actions have an influence on the outcome?  You're part of the story?  Otherwise I start to ask what the devs need me for, if all they want to do is tell a story and have it unfold the same way regardless of my input.  It might as well have been a movie or a fait accompli we're told about after the fact in a codex or cutscene.  After all, it's billed as a "rise to power," not a rise to powerlessness.

[Giggles_Manically]

With the recent plot railroading in Bioware games why are people surprised.

Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.

[xkg]

sonoko wrote...
Hawke has his issues too, but at least he is more alive, more human.

Yes, sure he is more human because Hawke did't drink the blood of the darkspawn
j/k

[neppakyo]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.

True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.

[Addai]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

With the recent plot railroading in Bioware games why are people surprised.

Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.

Shepard is a dull character and gets screwed over a lot, but there's no doubt she has an impact on the universe.  There are definite reasons why people either love or hate/ mistrust her.

[Giggles_Manically]

I found Shepard had just as many poorly done moments that left me annoyed.

Shepard cant act in any seemingly intelligent manner.
Nor ever produce a single good point unless you said enough good guy words, or bad boy words.

Shepard felt like Mac Walter's character not mine.