447 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Oh DA2 misses plenty of macro-level opportunities for reactivity, which is something I legitimately expected it to have given the frame narrative and narrower focus. Something both Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 2 pulled off with or without such tools to help them.

However, DA2 succeeds on the micro-level for reactivity in individual conversations, and companion responses to player character choices.

It's not that DA:O fails as such, it just doesn't really care how the Warden feels, only what he or she does. It's not about who the Warden is, no-one cares about that, it's about their role in saving Ferelden from the Archdemon, or curing Eamon, or being Kingmaker in Orzammar. Which is one way to give the player choice, and I'd be in full-on denial if I was to say that such choices did not exist. However, none of them gave me much opportunity to define who the Warden was.

If DA2's marketing had any one line that I felt encapsulated what the game did pull off, at least to me, it would be the question, "Who is the Champion of Kirkwall?" Note that it doesn't ask what he did, it endeavors to ask what kind of person he is. And I feel like the game really lets you define them. But if you aren't interested in doing that, or feel that his ultimate powerlessness to alter major events makes his character inherently less interesting to you, that's fine - I understand - but that opportunity is there for players who do buy in, and if we are to say so we're not trolling or being Biodrones any more than the most vocal critics are trolling or being haters.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 juin 2011 - 05:22 .

[highcastle]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

xkg wrote...

Well, isn't that what Role Playing is all about?

Not really, that's what playing an avatar is about.

Roleplaying is about creating a character and then playing that. 

Playing an avatar seems to me by default on some level metagaming, if only in the sense that you know the world the protagonist exists in is not real.  You bring your own, contemporary real world views into a setting where they may not exist.

Granted, I think most of us are guilty of doing this on some level, as it serves as a good premise for a lot of fun fanwanking.  But I wouldn't call it "roleplaying."

Alistairlover94 wrote...

So... you don't like having an avatar? You much prefer ME's and DA2's more cinematic storytelling, rather than you yourself being a part of the story, and how the NPCs perceive YOU?

"I" have never been a part of a BioWare cRPG story.  I also firmly believe that it's never been intended that I try to be one.

Sing it, Shorts!

There's a difference between a character and a self-insertion.  And there's a reason why self-inserts in most mediums are not looked on very kindly. Just think about the term Mary Sue and what it conjures. I personally come from a tabletop background. I'm used to creating a character and roleplaying that personality, not my own. DA2 allows for this quite well, better than DAO, IMO, because Hawke emoted more than the Warden.

[xkg]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

xkg wrote...

Well, isn't that what Role Playing is all about?

Not really, that's what playing an avatar is about.

Roleplaying is about creating a character and then playing that. 

Playing an avatar seems to me by default on some level metagaming, if only in the sense that you know the world the protagonist exists in is not real.  You bring your own, contemporary real world views into a setting where they may not exist.

Granted, I think most of us are guilty of doing this on some level, as it serves as a good premise for a lot of fun fanwanking.  But I wouldn't call it "roleplaying."

Yes - In DA:O you are creating a character and then playing - but you know that.

And roleplaying is about playing a character - be it predefined or created by you.
In Warhammer PnP RPG for example - i can pick any predefined character from the book and then roleplay him - do i have to create my own from scratch ?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'd be in full-on denial if I was to say that such choices did not exist. However, none of them gave me much opportunity to define who the Warden was.

When making those choices, don't you feel that you are creating a rationale for your Warden and applying it? Why would a Warden choose Bhelen? There can be many reasons (some even contradictory) and through RPing, you can choose why your Warden picks him. And that choice allows you to define and / or show his / her beliefs and personality.

Yes, on a micro level, people didn't really react to that. Dissaproval / approval points were not substantial enough to be really relevent. Though sometimes, companions can turn on you / leave for a choice.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[highcastle]

xkg wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

xkg wrote...

Well, isn't that what Role Playing is all about?

Not really, that's what playing an avatar is about.

Roleplaying is about creating a character and then playing that. 

Playing an avatar seems to me by default on some level metagaming, if only in the sense that you know the world the protagonist exists in is not real.  You bring your own, contemporary real world views into a setting where they may not exist.

Granted, I think most of us are guilty of doing this on some level, as it serves as a good premise for a lot of fun fanwanking.  But I wouldn't call it "roleplaying."

Yes - In DA:O you are creating a character and then playing - but you know that.

And roleplaying is about playing a character - be it predefined or created by you.
In Warhammer PnP RPG for example - i can pick any predefined character from the book and then roleplay him - do i have to create my own from scratch ?

We're moving into gray territory here. I would say if you're roleplaying a character/personality different from your own, it leans towards roleplaying. I think what was meant by avatar was "self-insertion." As in you're making the choices you yourself would make in the character's shoes. That's not roleplaying, at least not to me.

[Satyricon331]

Personally, I couldn't roleplay Hawke. He was in this unhappy space where it wasn't me roleplaying, but pulling someone's strings. I guess I was roleplaying a Fade spirit who possessed him.

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

Because the Warden doesn't emote. The player can emote, but the Warden never reflects this. It's in part a lack of facial expressions and in part a lack od recognition to personal events.

The personal experiences of the Warden are referred to throughout the game. Returning to the Alienage as city elf or getting to face Howe as Cousland felt quite different than the opposite (where the personal factor wasn't present)  In case of city elf you get additionally area-wide different reactions based on what choices you've made in the origin section.

You can also express emotions through the offered dialogue options so i''ve never felt that part to be lacking, personally.

Outside of two conversations, no one cares that Cousland wants to look for his brother or lost his family. In DA2, deaths and losses get called back constantly, and Hawke can genuinely grieve. This was what was missing in DAO for me.

I think it's rather biased way to put it, since the supposed constant call back to DA2 deaths and losses doesn't extend in practice beyond couple conversations, either. There was definitely no universal 10-year long mourning over Bethany's fate in my game (i can recall only two instances where it actually was brought up) and the other death also produced little else beyond single extra cutscene and few "man, did that suck" from the companions... then it was never mentioned again.

And aside from these two events, is there any deaths and losses or anything emotions-related in DA2 that gets called back constantly? Honestly, i'm trying to remember but nothing really comes immediately to mind.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

When making those choices, don't you feel that you are creating a rationale for your Warden and applying it? Why would a Warden choose Bhelen? There can be many reasons (some even contradictory) and through RPing, you can choose why your Warden picks him. And that choice allows you to define and / or show his / her beliefs and personality.

Sure, I could, but the game plays on precisely the same anyway.  That isn't the same as "but Hawke does X or Y and Z still happens."  What I mean to say is "The Warden does X or Y for A or B, but the game doesn't acknowledge, give the opportunity or even care much about A or B."  That I, in my head, have a reason for doing something isn't really enough for me when it comes to playing a game.  

In the same way that when I push the ability button for "Scythe" I want to see my 2HW plow through mooks like they're red-colored butter, I want my characters to be asked their opinion on something and see the characters around them react to it.  

That's why I'm always saying that DA2 gave me lots of choice.  It's narrow focus - on the mage/templar plot and the Qunari for example, gave me opportunities to do those kinds of things in almost every quest.  That the Qunari always do their SPOILER thing, and Anders always does his SPOILER thing, and the endgame plays out like SPOILER isn't as important to me as being able to define my character with and through those around him leading up to that point.  That isn't to say DA2 always succeeded - my extremist-hating peacekeeper type had Anders saying, "You've supported the mages at every turn" even though he did not - but I definitely enjoyed thinking about "how would Hawke deal with this particular mage/templar crisis given these stakes at this time" in Act 1 versus Act 3, when the situation had escalated.  

Satyricon331 wrote...

Personally, I couldn't roleplay Hawke. He was in this unhappy space where it wasn't me roleplaying, but pulling someone's strings. I guess I was roleplaying a Fade spirit who possessed him.

That's how I've played every BioWare protagonist.  So it wasn't any different for me.  But then, this runs into
the third person vs. first person narrative player dichotomy over which I honestly believe common ground cannot be achieved. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 juin 2011 - 05:35 .

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Because the Warden doesn't emote. The player can emote, but the Warden never reflects this. It's in part a lack of facial expressions and in part a lack od recognition to personal events.

The personal experiences of the Warden are referred to throughout the game. Returning to the Alienage as city elf or getting to face Howe as Cousland felt quite different than the opposite (where the personal factor wasn't present)  In case of city elf you get additionally area-wide different reactions based on what choices you've made in the origin section.

You can also express emotions through the offered dialogue options so i''ve never felt that part to be lacking, personally.

Outside of two conversations, no one cares that Cousland wants to look for his brother or lost his family. In DA2, deaths and losses get called back constantly, and Hawke can genuinely grieve. This was what was missing in DAO for me.

I think it's rather biased way to put it, since the supposed constant call back to DA2 deaths and losses doesn't extend in practice beyond couple conversations, either. There was definitely no universal 10-year long mourning over Bethany's fate in my game (i can recall only two instances where it actually was brought up) and the other death also produced little else beyond single extra cutscene and few "man, did that suck" from the companions... then it was never mentioned again.

And aside from these two events, is there any deaths and losses or anything emotions-related in DA2 that gets called back constantly? Honestly, i'm trying to remember but nothing really comes immediately to mind.

Once again, I have to wonder whether we're playing the same game. After Carver met a particular fate in the Deep Roads, I had Varric mentioning it, Leandra, Bodahn, Varric again, Gamlen, etc. People brought it up. Hawke himself could bring it up. It goes beyond the immediate reaction right after the fact, and continued throughout the game. Were there a few less mentions in Act 3? Yes. Because at this point, 6 years have passed and presumably Hawke would have achieved some distance.

And personally, I thought the dialogue options to reflect specific origins were limited on many occasions. Human nobles and city elves got the most call-backs to their origins, but even these were restricted. One of the things that bugged me after killing Howe, for instance, was that no one seemed to care. I'd just fufilled my revenge--which I'd been planning on throughout the game--and no one asks me how I'm feeling or seems to care at all. Contrast this with DA2 where everyone has a comment after a big event, everyone wants to know how you're doing and holding up. That's the difference, at least to me.

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

Possibly you missed it, but I said already the game reacts to personality tone by having characters respond differently regarding your dominant personality and also by unique dialogue choices open only to diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive Hawkes. Where is the lack of reactivity that you seem to see?

I was writing the other reply first   But regarding what you say -- no, i haven't actually seen DA2 characters react to different conversation tones in a manner that would be different from how the DAO characters react to the dialogue lines you pick. The occasional extra option provided depending on your dominant personality is a difference, that's true. But since this mechanics works much like the paragon/renegade conversation options of ME2 which largely lock down your rp ability and force you to focus on single personality "mode", i'd rather that sort of reactivity wasn't put in the game at all.

[Aaleel]

I was just made to assume too much as Hawke, or I just had things told to me with no foundation and spent too much time writing Hawke in my head, rather than things in the game shaping Hawke.

I've built this big name for myself after one year. How, what did I do, why am I different.

My family is from Kirkwall and has history there. What is it. How do I find out about my past.

When the blight ended why did we stay. Why did we go on in poverty when we could have gone back and built our life back in Lothering.

How is my sister doing in the circle is it really as bad as people say? Are the mages in the city a danger to my brother as a templar. Can I talk to them as I decide what side I'm on.

My family. Where were the natural family interactions. How is my mom doing, Why can't I talk to her when I come home. Why does my dog have more interactions himself than I have with my family the entire game.

Hawke was kind of just there, not really putting myself into Hawke, and not really role playing Hawke. Nothing in the game really defined Hawke, it was mostly what I filled into the gaps in my mind.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Upsettingshorts

Hence the impass, because I really do not recall anyone actually asking Hawke why he does what he does or the game giving me that much opportunity to show what Hawke thinks and it being relevent. I remember Varric asking Hawke what he wants, and Hawke can laughbly say "power" and not do a thing to get it. But other than that, I do not recall any instance when companions or NPCs stop Hawke and ask him " why did you do this?". Nor do I recall characters reacting properly should they have asked.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 05:40 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure, I could, but the game plays on precisely the same anyway.  That isn't the same as "but Hawke does X or Y and Z still happens."  What I mean to say is "The Warden does X or Y for A or B, but the game doesn't acknowledge, give the opportunity or even care much about A or B."  That I, in my head, have a reason for doing something isn't really enough for me when it comes to playing a game.  

I think the biggest difference when comparing the two is that in DA:O, you've got only one person's reactions to go on how you think things went, and that's a lot tougher (at least for me) to visualize than two. The only times I had problems with that in DA2 was when I chose an option that I thought was one thing, but was entirely something else. However, that problem is in no way limited to DA2 - I had the same problems in DA:O, such as after the sex scene with Leliana, and the Warden has an option to say something like "That's creepy" after Leliana talks about eyelashes. I have no way to gauge inflection, so the statement could be a denial, could be a joke, or somewhere in between, and I am unsure what it is I am actually picking. There were fewer such situations in DA2 (I'm a mage!), but I felt the ones that did kind of stuck out more because of how much better it worked (for me) most of the time.

[upsettingshorts]

But the game asks you how you feel about Ferelden and Lothering, on several occasions. You're given an opportunity to express those views.

I've only selected, "I don't care about that place" and "I'm glad to be rid of it" and "I have no interest in going back" so I can't elaborate on what the other options say, but it did appear to me as if the player could say that they felt differently.

But the greater point is that characters are interested in how you feel about things. And you are given the opportunity to say so.

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Possibly you missed it, but I said already the game reacts to personality tone by having characters respond differently regarding your dominant personality and also by unique dialogue choices open only to diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive Hawkes. Where is the lack of reactivity that you seem to see?

I was writing the other reply first   But regarding what you say -- no, i haven't actually seen DA2 characters react to different conversation tones in a manner that would be different from how the DAO characters react to the dialogue lines you pick. The occasional extra option provided depending on your dominant personality is a difference, that's true. But since this mechanics works much like the paragon/renegade conversation options of ME2 which largely lock down your rp ability and force you to focus on single personality "mode", i'd rather that sort of reactivity wasn't put in the game at all.

Where it differs from ME is that you're penalized in ME for varying personalities. DA2 rewards you no matter what. Whichever dialogue choice you happen to favor more, that's the one you get the bonuses for. It even resets the count a bit at the start of each Act to give you the option to change your dominant personality in case Hawke was changed by the events of the previous years. 

Also, I don't see how you don't see characters responding differently to personality lines. Or perhaps I'm misreading you. But try being snarky with Aveline versus being aggressive. Watch the differences in the way she treats you. Do the same thing to Alistair in DAO. Little changes. Immediate responses to the individual lines might vary, but the way they greet your character and other little references don't change.

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Upsettingshorts

Hence the impass, because I really do not recall anyone actually asking Hawke why he does what he does or the game giving me that much opportunity to show what Hawke thinks and it being relevent. I remember Varric asking Hawke what he wants, and Hawke can laughbly say "power" and not do a thing to get it. But other than that, I do not recall any instance when companions or NPCs stop Hawke and ask him " why did you do this?". Nor do I recall characters reacting properly should they have asked.

Varric asks what you want to do in Kirkwall before and after the expedition. If you're a mage, Fenris asks what kind of mage you are. He also asks how you felt about Lothering. After the Deep Roads, Varric asks how you're holding up. After a certain Act 2 quest, Aveline asks about how you're coping. Isabela, Leandra, Gamlen, and Varric all make inquiries about your love interest.

There are so many more examples of people asking Hawke what he thinks and how he feels. As for characters "reacting properly," I'm not sure what you mean. They react true to their personalities on all occasions. As NPCs, their reactions should not be up to you.

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

Once again, I have to wonder whether we're playing the same game. After Carver met a particular fate in the Deep Roads, I had Varric mentioning it, Leandra, Bodahn, Varric again, Gamlen, etc. People brought it up. Hawke himself could bring it up.

It seems we did play different games indeed, because my Carver survived the Deep Roads (almost) fine and that "almost" got pretty much universally ignored until the very end of the game where Carver brings it up himself. My Bethany was squished early and the only people who mentioned that was the family members who did it once or twice each.

One of the things that bugged me after killing Howe, for instance, was that no one seemed to care. I'd just fufilled my revenge--which I'd been planning on throughout the game--and no one asks me how I'm feeling or seems to care at all.

It's a personal difference here i guess, but the idea that i'd feel inclined to question a friend how they feel after exacting long-planned revenge feels just odd to me. Like something from a talk show maybe. "Tonight, we welcome Protagonist Cousland who has just managed to kill sworn enemy. Tell us all, how did that feel, Protagonist?" It's just so... navel-gazing

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But the game asks you how you feel about Ferelden and Lothering, on several occasions. You're given an opportunity to express those views.

I've only selected, "I don't care about that place" and "I'm glad to be rid of it" and "I have no interest in going back" so I can't elaborate on what the other options say, but it did appear to me as if the player could say that they felt differently.

But the greater point is that characters are interested in how you feel about things. And you are given the opportunity to say so.

I remember DA:O also having similar questions. And just like DA2, those who ask do not really react that differently or seem to care that much (I do not recall it ever becoming more than a one line convo).  

And what was there, did not really make moments like slaughtering Merrill's clan and her not reacting to that. Or supporting Templars and Anders for some reason still thinking I support mages...etc feel any less immersion breaking.

Yes, characters failing to care about the PC is a big flaw. I didn't feel DA2 did much to alleviate it.

[DivusJackyl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Oh DA2 misses plenty of macro-level opportunities for reactivity, which is something I legitimately expected it to have given the frame narrative and narrower focus. Something both Alpha Protocol and The Witcher 2 pulled off with or without such tools to help them.

However, DA2 succeeds on the micro-level for reactivity in individual conversations, and companion responses to player character choices.

This.  Which is what makes my head spin on an opinion. 

 With Hawke by the end of act 2, I was making decisions *I* normaly don't make b/c I actually found it *difficult* to meta-game outside of the role I created for Hawke.  Decisions I knew might screw me later in the game.   My problem with this was that regardless of the depth of character that I created for Hawke, in the grand  arc of  the story,  it felt impotent.  The decisions I made for Hawke existed in regards to how people related to him but they did not exist in the world around him.  The reason why I would waffle away from Hawke as that choice is the depth of connection I ended feeling with the character I *created* from the beginning of the game to the end was really met with frustration on not seeing that personality have effect on those macro-level events. 

As a character - Hawke
As a protagonist - Warden

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
Varric asks what you want to do in Kirkwall before and after the expedition. If you're a mage, Fenris asks what kind of mage you are. He also asks how you felt about Lothering. After the Deep Roads, Varric asks how you're holding up. After a certain Act 2 quest, Aveline asks about how you're coping. Isabela, Leandra, Gamlen, and Varric all make inquiries about your love interest..

Origins also had moments like this, though small.

There are so many more examples of people asking Hawke what he thinks and how he feels. As for characters "reacting properly," I'm not sure what you mean. They react true to their personalities on all occasions. As NPCs, their reactions should not be up to you.

Their reaction however does not differ in any meaningful way depending on your answer. It's just a one line convo and they are like "I see" and they move on. 

I don't know if it's possible, but say you tell fenris you are a blood mage. How do you think he'd react?
Yes, Origins had the same flaw.

[Master Shiori]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think it's rather biased way to put it, since the supposed constant call back to DA2 deaths and losses doesn't extend in practice beyond couple conversations, either. There was definitely no universal 10-year long mourning over Bethany's fate in my game (i can recall only two instances where it actually was brought up) and the other death also produced little else beyond single extra cutscene and few "man, did that suck" from the companions... then it was never mentioned again.

And aside from these two events, is there any deaths and losses or anything emotions-related in DA2 that gets called back constantly? Honestly, i'm trying to remember but nothing really comes immediately to mind.

Deaths and losses don't need to be called back constantly. Giving you a scene where you character grieves and having npcs start conversation with you where they take interested in your emotional state and express their symphathy is enough.

Origins never gave you a chance to mourn your loss nor did your companions really care about what you went through. Sure, you got dialogue and options at certain points in the story that were specific to your origin, but your companions never bothered to simply ask how you're doing and whether or not you had problems that need to be voiced.

[Aaleel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But the game asks you how you feel about Ferelden and Lothering, on several occasions. You're given an opportunity to express those views.

I've only selected, "I don't care about that place" and "I'm glad to be rid of it" and "I have no interest in going back" so I can't elaborate on what the other options say, but it did appear to me as if the player could say that they felt differently.

But the greater point is that characters are interested in how you feel about things. And you are given the opportunity to say so.

Since it's supposed to be more of a personal story.  I'm talking about coming back to city one day people celebrating news that the Blight is over.

Then your family mybe Bethany wanting to leave the templar filled city and go home.  Some sort clue to how your whole family feels about it.  Then maybe some underlying resentment that you made the family stay.  Maybe your sibling saying things my not have happened if you just left.

If one line asking about is all it takes, heck Wynne asks you if you're a mage do you miss the tower, will you go back when it's all over.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

When making those choices, don't you feel that you are creating a rationale for your Warden and applying it?

I didn't, really. When I was approaching these choices, it wasn't about what the Warden would do, but what I would do. I was scarcely aware of the Warden at all.

Granted, there were some moments where I would make actual roleplaying decisions, almost entirely tied to the Origins stories -- with my dwarf noble, for instance, I agreed to help Bhelen and later betrayed him because she wanted to screw him over based on what transpired in her Origin. But with my first playthrough as a human noble, any character-based motivations evaporated and I chose Bhelen because I prefered his politics; this was the same for the elves and the werewolves and the mages and Connor and Isolde because my Wardens had no reason to care. Basically, whenever I departed from the aspects of the game that defined who my Wardens were as people (the Origins and the return), they ceased to be characters and returned to being avatars. My motivations would boil down to a meta desire to do what I would do, or deliberately choose things I wouldn't do because I wanted to see the outcome as a detached player.

With Hawke, I did get the impression that he had some sort of personal stake in nearly everything. He felt like he continuously existed as a character, and that influenced all of the decisions I made in the game. I made my choices based on what he would have done -- and while the character I'd created in him was often very similar to what would have happened if I were just playing a "what would I do" avatar, the thought process involved was extremely different, hence the immersion.

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

Where it differs from ME is that you're penalized in ME for varying personalities. DA2 rewards you no matter what. Whichever dialogue choice you happen to favor more, that's the one you get the bonuses for.

It doesn't reward you "no matter what". It only rewards you if your current dominant personality happens to match the one which grants you the extra option for the given quest, at the time when you do that quest. Which means with a bit of bad luck you could actually miss all these extra options if you change the personality around.

(case in point, i don't remember getting any of these extra options in my game. The ones which i did get were all tied to picking the mage class. So much for supposed extra reactivity and rewarding me no matter what tones i pick)
 

Also, I don't see how you don't see characters responding differently to personality lines. Or perhaps I'm misreading you.

I think you're misreading it. What i meant was, in DA2 if you select aggressive line then the character will react differently than if you picked flirty line. But the very same thing happens in DAO -- insulting people will have them react different than using the friendly lines or flirting with them.

My point was that particular aspects of reactivity is the same in both games, not that DA2 was lacking it.

[Satyricon331]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sure, I could, but the game plays on precisely the same anyway.  That isn't the same as "but Hawke does X or Y and Z still happens."  What I mean to say is "The Warden does X or Y for A or B, but the game doesn't acknowledge, give the opportunity or even care much about A or B."  That I, in my head, have a reason for doing something isn't really enough for me when it comes to playing a game.  
*snip*

Satyricon331 wrote...
Personally, I couldn't roleplay Hawke. He was in this unhappy space where it wasn't me roleplaying, but pulling someone's strings. I guess I was roleplaying a Fade spirit who possessed him.

That's how I've played every BioWare protagonist.  So it wasn't any different for me.  But then, this runs into
the third person vs. first person narrative player dichotomy over which I honestly believe common ground cannot be achieved. 

Doltish site logging me out!   It should auto-save your drafts to your account if it's going to keep having such problems.

If you want to characterize it as an issue of 1st or 3rd person, well, I think that point is fair as it goes, but it's slightly misleading for my point.  I had access to the Warden's internal monologue and "A or B" motivations, and could use them to formulate his decisions.  I had no such access for Hawke.  I'm not sure if it was the voicing or if it was the emoting, paraphrased dialogue wheel.  It also was partly that there had been several decision points where some I-felt-obvious choices had been omitted, which is a risk for every RP game but was a huge issue for me in DA2.