447 réponses à ce sujet

[Lisa_H]

Yes, I like my Hawke very much. She really felt like a real person. More so than most of the PCs I have played before

[neppakyo]

I knew there was a reason I like MrCrusty and Ali. >.>

I bet it would be a totally better game if it was the PC, and not Varric narrating the story (a la Alpha Protocol). Varric is the only character I really liked, but not as a narrator

[Merilsell]

Do I like Hawke one bit or care for what will happen to her/him?

Let me answer this question with a picture of my Warden Lenya Mahariel:



To me Hawke is as a character as interesting as to watch paint drying on a wall. Period.

Modifié par Merilsell, 05 juin 2011 - 12:22 .

[Sir Edric]

I like Hawke. In fact, I personally like more FemHawke than Male. I dunno why, but there was something very compelling about her. Probably first game I've ever started playing as a female first.

[Slayer299]

No. Hawke was boring, all she did was run around like a chicken with its head cut off from one spot to the next or in her case from one fight-quest to the next over a space of 3 years....

Modifié par Slayer299, 05 juin 2011 - 12:26 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

neppakyo wrote...

I knew there was a reason I like MrCrusty and Ali. >.>

I bet it would be a totally better game if it was the PC, and not Varric narrating the story (a la Alpha Protocol). Varric is the only character I really liked, but not as a narrator

Problem was the framed narrative was a gimmick. It didn't add to anything, whereas in AP, you could be honest, mess with and treat Leland differently, which all affects how the end game plays out. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate had Meredith been interrogating Hawke and depending on how Hawke interacts with Meredith, he may choose to side with the Templars, Mages or backstab her, etc.

You know, actually add a level of interactivity to the framed narrative sequences.

Maybe if you build up a Purple Hawke early, you get into certain encounters which are over exaggerated and Meredith calls you out on it. Maybe a Diplomatic Hawke in the framed narrative finds peaceful solutions in the game easier and an aggressive Hawke finds more combat. Helping Mages in small quests earns Meredith's disapproval and helping Templars gains it.

Maybe you can lie to her in certain scenarios to leverage the situation with her. Maybe if you've impressed her enough, when she lets you go, you get some extra items.

Things to make a player feel more involved in the game. That what they do actually matters.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To be fair, all I said was "make it less useless and make it better, like AP". Except with lots of words.

[Merilsell]

@Ali. I was quicker. request send.

Err...yeah Hawke, Adding to that is not my character, the narrative puts me totally out of it, also that I never felt really in control of her. I love my Shepard and Geralt to bits, though, so I'm not RAWR VO RAWR. It is rather Hawke was just a stupid puppet stringed along in a plot and I was allowed to watch this while gaming. Wow. Fun. /sarcasm

[neppakyo]

mrcrusty wrote...

To be fair, all I said was "make it less useless and make it better, like AP". Except with lots of words.

Your writing and idea is a lot better than what we got with hawke!

@Meril

Hawke was something for the player to do during the commercial breaks as the Varric/Anders story played out.

[CalJones]

I like Hawke as a character. Not so impressed with him as the "most important person in Thedas" which he clearly isn't, but yeah, I enjoyed playing him.

[Monica83]

Hawke is not a bad character per se... But deserves a better plot to make it unforgettable.. The story in da2 wasn't good enought for introducing him properly.. I prefear the warden 100 times

Modifié par Monica83, 05 juin 2011 - 12:43 .

[highcastle]

Monica83 wrote...

Hawke is not a bad character per se... But deserves a better plot to make it unforgettable.. The story in da2 wasn't good enought for introducing him properly.. I prefear the warden 100 times

See, people say this and I get confused. DA2 was all about Hawke. It was about his losses and triumphs, his reactions to and at times inadvertent role in major city events. It's about a normal person who gets swept along on the tide of something so much greater. It's also about realizing that the little guy doesn't always triumph over these big, oppressive forces.

Nearly every quest tied into his family or personal life. You should have a very good idea of who this person is, and if you don't, that speaks more to your capabilities as a role-player (after all, Hawke is in large part defined by you and your input) than to the story. But as an introduction to a character goes, I don't know how it doesn't qualify as "proper."

To me, DA2 versus DAO is the difference between character-driven and plot-driven narratives. The momentum of DA2 was driven forward by Hawke's emotions and his reactions; in short, it was moved by his character. That requires some investment on the player's part, admittedly. DAO was moved forward by outside forces, namely the Blight. The Warden's role, while pivotol, was not really personal. Less emotional engagement was involved, and thus I personally didn't feel a big connection. DA2 was the quiet drama compared to DAO's action movie, in other terms.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Monica83 wrote...

Hawke is not a bad character per se... But deserves a better plot to make it unforgettable.. The story in da2 wasn't good enought for introducing him properly.. I prefear the warden 100 times

That's a bit contradictory, honestly.

You can have a list of personality traits and a backstory but it means little without context to put it in. As in, plot. How the character responds to different challenges and how their decisions impact on the world around them is an integral part of building up character depth.

Having those decisions attached to different consequences is a way to give those decisions more weight.

Let me use an example. In terms of building character depth, choosing the way in which Hawke talks has much less depth than deciding on whether Loghain should live or die. Defining a personality is important, but unless that personality can be tested and defined by choices with consequence, it feels shallow.

Now, don't get me wrong. Dragon Age 2 does have choices and it does have consequences, but compared to Origins, compared to previous Bioware games and compared to other games in the RPG genre, it was definiately lacking.

It doesn't even have to require a branching narrative. People often see choice/consequence and say "but the developers can't account for everything the player does!" Of course they can't, the trick is designing consequences that matter to the player, whether it's a simple thing like losing a party member or angering certain NPCs who cut you off from extra side quests, or whether it's a huge thing that changes the entirety of the narrative.

A dozen gamers could play Planescape:Torment and all of them will go through the same basic story without exception. But no two Nameless Ones will be the same. Each gamer will have shaped their Nameless One in the way that they wished and all of them will have elements that make their Nameless One utterly unique from everyone else's. Their choices in the game mattered, the game responded to their decisions. They were able to play a character of their choosing with depth, consequence and control.

Many people find that difficult in Dragon Age 2.

[highcastle]

mrcrusty wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Hawke is not a bad character per se... But deserves a better plot to make it unforgettable.. The story in da2 wasn't good enought for introducing him properly.. I prefear the warden 100 times

That's a bit contradictory, honestly.

You can have a list of personality traits and a backstory but it means  little without context to put it in. As in, plot. How the character responds to different challenges and how their decisions impact on the world around them is an integral part of building up character depth.

Having those decisions attached to different consequences is a way to give those decisions more weight.

Let me use an example. In terms of building character depth, choosing the way in which Hawke talks has much less depth than deciding on whether Loghain should live or die. Defining a personality is important, but unless that personality can be tested and defined by choices with consequence, it feels shallow.

But how important is Loghain really? I felt nothing one way or the other in sparing or killing Loghain. He didn't interact enough with the PC to make him really matter to me. He was an enemy, and sure he used to be a war hero, but the latter was only related through second-hand sources rather than demonstrated in the game. I got more of a sense of him in The Stolen Throne, but using that knowledge to spare him was meta.

Now, there are certain quests in DA2 (which I can't name for the sake of spoilers), which though all turn out the same, still hit like a punch of the gut. And choosing how to respond to these is more meaningful to me than choosing whether to kill or spare Loghain. I didn't define my PC or make an emotional connection with him in executing Loghain. I did in reacting to many DA2 quests.

Now, don't get me wrong. Dragon Age 2 does have choices and it does have consequences, but compared to Origins, compared to previous Bioware games and compared to other games in the RPG genre, it was definiately lacking.

It doesn't even have to require a branching narrative. People often see choice/consequence and say "but the developers can't account for everything the player does!" Of course they can't, the trick is designing consequences that matter to the player, whether it's a simple thing like losing a party member or angering certain NPCs who cut you off from extra side quests, or whether it's a huge thing that changes the entirety of the narrative.

And now I'm confused. DA2 does exactly that. How you handle certain side quests opens up or restricts others. Consequence by your definition. Party members will leave depending on how you treat them. Consequence by your definition. And if you don't think there are huge events that shake the narrative, than I don't think we're playing the same game here.

A dozen gamers could play Planescape:Torment and all of them will go through the same basic story without exception. But no two Nameless Ones will be the same. Each gamer will have shaped their Nameless One in the way that they wished and all of them will have elements that make their Nameless One utterly unique from everyone else's. Their choices in the game mattered, the game responded to their decisions. They were able to play a character of their choosing with depth, consequence and control.

Many people find that difficult in Dragon Age 2.

And just as many people don't find that difficult in DA2. I think part of it's about scope. DA2 has a narrower focus, and the story is driven by Hawke's internal emotions as much as it is about the external stimuli. So if you don't take care to shape a detailed character, I imagine the narrative will feel limited. To someone like me who's all about a character's emotions and relationship (familial, friendly, and intimate), DA2 offered the best opportunity of any recent RPG I've played to really explore the depth of a PC's character.

Modifié par highcastle, 05 juin 2011 - 01:29 .

[_Aine_]

My first Hawke, who was intended to be my personal canon Hawke ...ended up boring and annoying. Not exactly the canon I intended. lol

I went through a few I didn't care for more than any other and then finally found two that were fun. One a female 2 handed warrior with a snarky with angry undercurrents disposition and then I made a gay male mage, primarily angsty with a side order of snark. He was the best =D I LOVE that character, had he been my first character I would have enjoyed the game a great deal more. By a long shot. He seemed made for the game. Will try it again with the new patch with either a rogue or another mage. I would love to try another rogue but I want Carver again. He was priceless to bug with my male mage LOL

The story didn't really help Hawke's cause in being likeable because he was kind of a leaf in the wind, just being blown wherever the wind took her/him. Having a snarky/angry disposition *helped* this more than a little because it made her/him seem truly annoyed about the situation she/he found themselves in, in Kirkwall.

[Persephone]

highcastle wrote...

I care so much more about Hawke than I did the Warden. I liked my Wardens, don't get me wrong, but they all felt a bit unemotional. There were so many times I wanted them to emit some kind of pain or anguish, only for them to fall flat. Part of this may be do to the lack of VA and thus the lack of facial expressions with every line. Part of this is also due to animation. The Warden was much more static.

But the major reason, I believe, is that DA2 allows for much more reactivity on the part of the player. People complain that certain events int he game are fixed (since this is a no spoiler section, obviously I can't say which). But the game gives you a wide variety of ways to react to those events. So in that way, I felt like I had plenty of choices when it came down to what kind of person my Hawke was. And that type of deep control and emotional response means I tend to get more attached.

^This.

I love my Canon Warden too. (The traumatized noble who never wanted to be a Warden...and wanted to support Loghain rather than being railroaded into fighting him. Don't argue with her on this!) But my Canon Lady Hawke truly moved me.

As for fixed characters....Shepard.......kinda meh to me. Not much variety. DAII did that much better. Geralt Of Rivia? Adore him. But never got to shape his personality the way I got to shape my Lady Hawke. Were she to die, I would be sad. But it would depend on how, when and why.

From a RP perspective, Hawke is my favorite Bioware character at the moment. Lotsa potential there and I'd hate to see it squandered. And no, I do not want my Warden to come back. She has suffered enough.

[Ninotchka]

I'll take my warden(s) over Hawke anyday.

Perhaps because I didn't really feel empathy for Hawke like I did for my Warden(s).

[Cutlass Jack]

highcastle wrote...

And just as many people don't find that difficult in DA2. I think part of it's about scope. DA2 has a narrower focus, and the story is driven by Hawke's internal emotions as much as it is about the external stimuli. So if you don't take care to shape a detailed character, I imagine the narrative will feel limited. To someone like me who's all about a character's emotions and relationship (familial, friendly, and intimate), DA2 offered the best opportunity of any recent RPG I've played to really explore the depth of a PC's character.

I'm just pulling out a random paragraph to avoid overquoting. But nearly everything you said on this thread captures my feelings on the matter perfectly. That's exactly why I like DA2.

(Which by no means should be interpreted as me hating DAO or being blissfully ignorant of any real issues DA2 has.)

[Mr.House]

Yes. I adore my Fiona Cathrine Hawke. She might not be important in the grand scheme of things but she was a blast to make an play.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

highcastle wrote...

But how important is Loghain really? I felt nothing one way or the other in sparing or killing Loghain. He didn't interact enough with the PC to make him really matter to me. He was an enemy, and sure he used to be a war hero,
but the latter was only related through second-hand sources rather than demonstrated in the game. I got more of a sense of him in The Stolen Throne, but using that knowledge to spare him was meta.

It helped to define the character you've chosen and would be of particular importance if you were friendly with Alistair.

As a character that the player could connect with, he's pointless, a placeholder. It was about striking a chord with the player's sense of morality and justice. They showed that Loghain has a real, tangible advantage in stopping the Blight, then juxtapose this with his actions which have given you and your friends nothing but trouble and pain. The game then asked, "which is more important for your character and you as a player?"

highcastle wrote...
Now, there are certain quests in DA2 (which I can't name for the sake of spoilers), which though all turn out the same, still hit like a punch of the gut. And choosing how to respond to these is more meaningful to me than choosing whether to kill or spare Loghain. I didn't define my PC or make an emotional connection with him in executing Loghain. I did in reacting to many DA2 quests.

That's the thing. Dragon Age 2's quests may be emotionally impacting, but with the knowledge that whatever you chose didn't matter, it cheapens the decision and makes it harder for a player to connect with their character. All roads lead to the same destination. Sure, you can play in-character, but without tangible differences between the choices, you're just imaginging the character development. As opposed to having the game respond to it through consequences, making it concrete.

That makes it less satisfying for me, though I'm sure it won't for others.

highcastle wrote...
And now I'm confused. DA2 does exactly that. How you handle certain side quests opens up or restricts others. Consequence by your definition. Party members will leave depending on how you treat them. Consequence by your definition. And if you don't think there are huge events that shake the narrative, than I don't think we're playing the same game here.

No, I won't say that you're wrong or anything, I was just throwing out general examples. But for me personally, there was less of this than compared with other games and RPGs. Which makes it harder to RP as Hawke has elements of the character that is already preset.

highcastle wrote...
And just as many people don't find that difficult in DA2. I think part of it's about scope. DA2 has a narrower focus, and the story is driven by Hawke's internal emotions as much as it is about the external stimuli. So if you don't take care to shape a detailed character, I imagine the narrative will feel limited. To someone like me who's all about a character's emotions and relationship (familial, friendly, and intimate), DA2 offered the best opportunity of any recent RPG I've played to really explore the depth of a PC's character.

Actually, Planescape: Torment gave you a preset character and the game's plot was essentially "regain your memories, discover yourself". It is by far the most player character centric RPG out there. If you haven't played it yet, I sorely recommend it if you're willing to put up with the D&D ruleset and old graphics.

As for shaping a detailed character's emotions and the like, I felt that Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 2 did a much better job of this in recent times. What struck me was how little interactivity and real focus was given to the player in terms of personal events. I won't be specific outside of saying "family members" because of the No Spoilers, but Hawke's grief and their impact on Hawke's character seems to be temporary.

It's up to the player to imagine how it shapes Hawke, as opposed to actually having the game play on those decisions and reinforce the depth of the character and outside of the people it involves, it doesn't really have an effect on the greater narrative. The character development is self contained, rather than displayed in the game at large.

While some might claim that "Hawke is just suffering silently" or whatever, I find that a bit of a cop out. What about a Hawke who wants to actively bring it up? What about a Hawke who puts up a facade that breaks when being confronted about it by NPCs?

There's little opportunity for player input regarding the matter, which I think is a big problem when it comes to player-centric narrative. It's not much of a big deal in Origins, because that wasn't really PC-centric, but in a game that is, the lack of self reflection and opportunities to reinforce character development is a bit disappointing. Well, there probably was this in Dragon Age 2, but I saw many of it's narrative elements and mechanics come directly from Alpha Protocol, which did them better. So I really just wasn't impressed with it.

Playing The Witcher 2, I'm deep into Act 3 and people still bring up the events and my choices of Act 1 in a way that's both natural, but makes me question on whether I made the right decision. Of course, Geralt in my playthrough is an unrepenting bastard, but it's nice to know that the game doesn't forget my choices and allows the character to respond in their own way.

Of course, my opinion is my own and I won't try to force it on you.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 juin 2011 - 02:13 .

[madzilla84]

highcastle wrote...

I care so much more about Hawke than I did the Warden. I liked my Wardens, don't get me wrong, but they all felt a bit unemotional. There were so many times I wanted them to emit some kind of pain or anguish, only for them to fall flat. Part of this may be do to the lack of VA and thus the lack of facial expressions with every line. Part of this is also due to animation. The Warden was much more static.

But the major reason, I believe, is that DA2 allows for much more reactivity on the part of the player. People complain that certain events int he game are fixed (since this is a no spoiler section, obviously I can't say which). But the game gives you a wide variety of ways to react to those events. So in that way, I felt like I had plenty of choices when it came down to what kind of person my Hawke was. And that type of deep control and emotional response means I tend to get more attached.

Same here. (And pretty much everything else you've said in this thread.) I've grown very fond of my canon f!Hawke, and would love to play her again, though I know that's pretty unlikely, except possibly in DLC. The first time I played I picked mostly diplomatic options,  but once I started my snark!Hawke playthrough I was lost. I loved her! And there are so many possibilities for the way Hawke is with people, the choices he or she makes, the enemies/friends/lovers he or she has ... 

I'll stop there, but yeah. I love Hawke. 

[Yuqi]

I do like hawke yes, Icannot stand male hawke. His so bland..his voice reminds me of nails on a chalkboard..