447 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Zjarcal wrote...

Indeed. And to claim that it's no different than DAO just because one didn't see it is rather unfair.

I think it's perfectly fair given the subject of this thread is entirely down to individual impressions, which in turn are result of equally personal experiences with the game. Additionally if the supposed reactivity only happens in certain situations/setups and it isn't hard to miss most of it, then there isn't exactly so much of it there to speak of.

[Ryzaki]

Aaleel wrote...

I got a lot of references to my relationship with Leliana. Alistar asks about it, Morrigan, Wynne asks if it's the best thing that you two date, and keeps asking you about all the way to when she pretty much apologizes for interfering in your affairs.

Then there's the party banter when Wynne says she sees how Alister is looking at you, how you swing your hips and all that.

 

Yeah then of course is Leliana's teasing about Alistair, Morrigan's "I don't know what you see in that fool." and so on. And of course Alistair's reaction to you romancing Zev and so on. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 06:50 .

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

I suppose it calls for a follow-up question, then. If the game gives you impression that the motivations of the character are meaningless (by not giving you opportunity to express them) why even metagame it? The game equally doesn't care about your personal motivations after all. And using your own reasoning, if no one else in the world cares about these motivations, why should you?

Because I care about it as a game. Which is a distinctly meta non-roleplaying sort of thing.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 06:51 .

[Shevy]

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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

I tried many different character types, but it never felt like "mine". More like a person, Varric tells me about.
I never found something to identify with my Hawkes.

[Anathemic]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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.

In my Pokemon Ruby version I could change the world more than Hawke could in DA2...

[Zjarcal]

tmp7704 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Indeed. And to claim that it's no different than DAO just because one didn't see it is rather unfair.

I think it's perfectly fair given the subject of this thread is entirely down to individual impressions, which in turn are result of equally personal experiences with the game. Additionally if the supposed reactivity only happens in certain situations/setups and it isn't hard to miss most of it, then there isn't exactly so much of it there to speak of.

Well, then if I play a DAO run where I don't recruit any companions and then complain that the game has no interactivity between characters is that fair too?

[tmp7704]

Master Shiori wrote...

They do actually. Off the top of my head:
(snip the list)

I was asking specifically about instances of questioning PC how they're doing and/or if they have any problems. The instances you list (acknowledging existence of LI, expression of casual interest or references to personal background event) are something which happens in DAO as well, and not quite the same thing.

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

In my Pokemon Ruby version I could change the world more than Hawke could in DA2...

I question the necessity of making random comments deriding DA2 without actually contributing to the conversation in any way.

[tmp7704]

Zjarcal wrote...

Well, then if I play a DAO run where I don't recruit any companions and then complain that the game has no interactivity between characters is that fair too?

Not really considering you'll still be saddled with at least one of them

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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.

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.

I don't see these types of narratives in games very often. They crop up more often in literature and a little less often in film. They're also my favorite types of stories, as they seem more realistic than traditional "happily ever after" endings.

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.

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.

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.

[Aaleel]

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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

I didn't create Hawke, well at least not by any mechanics in the game.

Hawke has a big name after a year, how.  What did I do.  Hawke is the cities best hope to talk to the Qunari, I have this personal relationship with the Viscount so I'm his go to person, even though I've never had any dealings with Qunari.  Once again how, why.  All this has to be filled in by myself, may as well write fan-fiction.

Then there's the fact that no matter how I would try to remake Hawke, he/she is still going to decide things one way, be ignored and have people do what they want, and have events transpire the same way.

There still will be gaps that have to be filled in by me only with nothing I can do in the game.  So basically I would be creating another Hawke to change his personality so I would now be snarky instead of nice as Hawke's decisions are ignored and the story unfolds the same way.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

Because I care about it as a game. Which is a distinctly meta non-roleplaying sort of thing.

Afraid you just lost me. What is the "it" that you care about? Just the act of playing a game (any game) for the sake of experience of playing a game, or something else?

[Addai]

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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

Because you can only work with the limitations you're given.

With Hawke, it starts out badly and is only downhill from there.  There's no context for your character's family or background.  You don't know why you should care for the people you're with.  Plus, you're capable fighters running away from a Blight rather than fighting it- something which does not endear me to Hawke from the very first moments of the game.

[hoorayforicecream]

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't create Hawke, well at least not by any mechanics in the game.

Hawke has a big name after a year, how.  What did I do.  Hawke is the cities best hope to talk to the Qunari, I have this personal relationship with the Viscount so I'm his go to person, even though I've never had any dealings with Qunari.  Once again how, why.  All this has to be filled in by myself, may as well write fan-fiction.

The Viscount asks for Hawke because the Arishok asks for Hawke. Hawke met the Arishok through a random dealing, and for whatever reason, the Arishok remembers Hawke. From a metagame perspective, you have to have dealings with the Qunari in Act 1, or you can't progress, just like you have to have dealings with Redcliffe in DA:O or you can't progress.

Then there's the fact that no matter how I would try to remake Hawke, he/she is still going to decide things one way, be ignored and have people do what they want, and have events transpire the same way.

One could say the same about DA:O. If the Warden doesn't want to fight the archdemon (or even not become a Warden), it doesn't matter. Still gotta do it anyway.

[highcastle]

Addai67 wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.

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

Because you can only work with the limitations you're given.

With Hawke, it starts out badly and is only downhill from there.  There's no context for your character's family or background.  You don't know why you should care for the people you're with.  Plus, you're capable fighters running away from a Blight rather than fighting it- something which does not endear me to Hawke from the very first moments of the game.

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.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Because I care about it as a game. Which is a distinctly meta non-roleplaying sort of thing.

Afraid you just lost me. What is the "it" that you care about? Just the act of playing a game (any game) for the sake of experience of playing a game, or something else?

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.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 juin 2011 - 07:09 .

[Aaleel]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't create Hawke, well at least not by any mechanics in the game.

Hawke has a big name after a year, how.  What did I do.  Hawke is the cities best hope to talk to the Qunari, I have this personal relationship with the Viscount so I'm his go to person, even though I've never had any dealings with Qunari.  Once again how, why.  All this has to be filled in by myself, may as well write fan-fiction.

The Viscount asks for Hawke because the Arishok asks for Hawke. Hawke met the Arishok through a random dealing, and for whatever reason, the Arishok remembers Hawke. From a metagame perspective, you have to have dealings with the Qunari in Act 1, or you can't progress, just like you have to have dealings with Redcliffe in DA:O or you can't progress.

Then there's the fact that no matter how I would try to remake Hawke, he/she is still going to decide things one way, be ignored and have people do what they want, and have events transpire the same way.

One could say the same about DA:O. If the Warden doesn't want to fight the archdemon (or even not become a Warden), it doesn't matter. Still gotta do it anyway.

The whole you have to be a warden and fight the arch demon regardless is a cop out.  Because during the game you're given plenty of choices of A & B.  A has and outcome of C, and B has an outcome of D.  In DA2 the vast majority of decisions A & B both have an outcome of C so the choices don't matter.

And you said it yourself, for whatever reason the Arishok wants you.  That's my whole point, you're made to assume too much, and have to fill in too many blanks in Hawke's story.

[Addai]

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.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

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?

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).

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.

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. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 07:21 .

[highcastle]

Aaleel wrote...

The whole you have to be a warden and fight the arch demon regardless is a cop out.  Because during the game  you're given plenty of choices of A & B.  A has and outcome of C,  and B has an outcome of D.  In DA2 the vast majority of decisions A & B both have an outcome of C so the choices don't matter.

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've said before, I don't mind limitations of choices if it makes for a stronger narrative. DAA and DA2 had to ignore  various outcomes to quests of DAO or else downplay their impact because the wide variations was limiting. By restricting DA2 to a single outcome, they have a much firmer ground on which to build the framework of their next story.

And you said it yourself, for whatever reason the Arishok wants you.  That's my whole point, you're made to assume too much, and have to fill in too many blanks in Hawke's story.

What do you have to assume? You met him in Act 1. You impressed him. No one else has. He wants you. Where is the assumption here?

Modifié par highcastle, 05 juin 2011 - 07:21 .

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

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.

[highcastle]

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.

Your opinion. I would call it equally cowardly to abandon my family to an uncertain fate in Gwaren to fight for a homeland I've spent my whole life running from/not connected to anyway.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.