68 réponses à ce sujet

[Macropodmum]

Tommyspa wrote...

Question: Will it be funny when in a future game when you encounter Hawke and ask him/her about Kirkwall and other Hawke stuff when (s)he says "That never happened" or "It didn't happen like that"?

I think that there are always going to be differences in a story when told by a different party, personally I think that would be easier to swallow than "It didn't happen at all"

[DreamerM]

Tommyspa wrote...

Question: Will it be funny when in a future game when you encounter Hawke and ask him/her about Kirkwall and other Hawke stuff when (s)he says "That never happened" or "It didn't happen like that"?

I don't think you could ever actually put a heavily customized PC from a previous game actually INTO a later game where they can actually talk to the PC of that game. Hawke might do this more easily then the Warden would (Hawke at least can only have had one of three personalities: you could have just selected one and the rest of the game's dialog would just play itself out) but still, people would complain that "my!Hawke wouldn't say that!"

But I will be interested once the story is back in the "Real World" as opposed to the Story World, and we learn where Verric embellished, what he got wrong, and what he covered up...

Modifié par DreamerM, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:31 .

[LightningSamus]

I have thought this but never hared it with anyone.

[Gillborn]

Too bad Varric ''lied''.I liked him a lot during my journeys in Kirkwall.But if he was the reason behind the limited choises Hawke could make next time i see him i will punch him:P

[nightscrawl]

telephasic wrote...

I just saw the interview with David Gaider where he makes the point that Varric was designed to be an unreliable narrator.  In that, he might not have been just fibbing during the inital prologue, but continuing to fib throughout his retelling.  

This got me to thinking about how people are so let down by the ending in Act 3 - that Hawke is powerless to change anything, and presented as a bystander.  At least, that's how Varric presents it. 

Well, at least we know what their response will be when everything is retconned for DA3!! Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoy DA2, but your post doesn't make me feel optimistic.

On the other hand, even though we know that Varric makes stuff up (we see it throughout the game), there has to be some point where we have to take the scenes we played at face value. The reason is that the 3rd party narrator is a story telling device used in film and books all the time. You wouldn't be able to have a decent story or engage the reader if the caveat of the narrator possibly lying about everything was present in all of those scenarios. But I do admit that it gives Bioware a back door if they feel they need it for whatever reason in the future.

I actually wouldn't mind if it came out that certain scenes were embellished by Varric in the retelling. However, they have to let us know during the game itself through some dialogue or something. I don't want to read interviews and crap before playing a new game, I want to be 100% surprised. Even if it's something as lame as a letter from Varric stating "Don't worry, I made sure they didn't catch on."

[Macropodmum]

I remember hearing Varric say someways through that there is always truth to the stories regardless of what else is changed or embellished so I can't see the whole lot being a lie

[Annarl]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I may have had a lot of problems with the DA2 story, but if they use the "Varric made it up" excuse to introduce retcons about DA2 to future titles I would be furious. Why the hell did I even play the game if the "real" story happened off-screen?

I too have a lot of problems with the story in DA2 but if they pull a Varric lied...I don't think I'll ever buy another DA game.  Because why bother playing...since nothing is real, its a lie told by an unreliable storyteller.  When I first started hearing the Varric is wrong excuse on the forums I thought it was weak but if Bioware actually uses it, well, I will lose all respect for them.

Maybe I could see holding part of the story back but Varric lying would be very weak.  Edited to say but the more I think about this the more I don't like it...the more I hate it actually.  It means we weren't given all of Hawkes decisions or Hawke's real story.  It means we aren't really role playing Hawke at all.  No I really don't like this excuse.

Modifié par omearaee, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:36 .

[Dragonella1]

My preferred option is Varric is telling the truth, mostly the truth but not necessary the whole truth. I think it would be fine if Varric was hiding some facts from Cassandra, but only if she couldn’t get them from other source and there was reasonable motivation for him to do that. For example Hawke was much more involved in politics that we see in the game or his meeting with Alistair had much more implications (in case if Alistair is not a king, meeting with Anora’s emissary has place), but Varric is hiding this to protect coconspirators who are still in politics.

[dewayne31]

I think he lied bout certain events and he might of left out a few things too.

Modifié par dewayne31, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:24 .

[Dragonella1]

I’m fine with that as long as he is the only witness that Cassandra has and there is logical explanation to his lies, not only his vivid imagination.
By the way another legitimate in my eyes reason of omissions might be that Varric assumed that the Seeker already knows that. For example highly discussed fate of the mages spared during pro-templar ending.

[Icy Magebane]

I think the "unreliable narrator" bit will be used to canonize certain events in the future, or to explain changes that make DA3 easier to write, but it seems unreasonable that Bioware would tell us a story simply to deceive us. I mean, we might see a change here and a retcon there, but that's it. I don't see this turning into a situation where the "true" history of Kirkwall is unrecognizable simply because the story was told through Varric.

[thesilverlinedviking]

 Soooo.... my Hawke's story was just one big lie? 

[Rifneno]

thesilverlinedviking wrote...

 Soooo.... my Hawke's story was just one big lie? 

Only the part with the cake. </meme>

[Perles75]

I don't really think they'll use the "Varric lied" as excuse of erasing everything happened in DA2, but they could use it to smooth a couple things here and there.

[Sidney]

nightscrawl wrote...

On the other hand, even though we know that Varric makes stuff up (we see it throughout the game), there has to be some point where we have to take the scenes we played at face value. The reason is that the 3rd party narrator is a story telling device used in film and books all the time. You wouldn't be able to have a decent story or engage the reader if the caveat of the narrator possibly lying about everything was present in all of those scenarios. But I do admit that it gives Bioware a back door if they feel they need it for whatever reason in the future.

Varric's telling does cause issues. He skips to the important stuff (well sorta of important) as he sees it. Hawke could have been doing a ton of cool stuff in year 5 but if Varric wasn't along/aware he's not sharing it.

You do have to assume Varric is telling the truth most of the time. We know when Varric lies flat out since the game slaps us in the face with that. Now as for his shadings of the truth that becomes more problematic since the game doesn't even hint at other areas of unrelaibility. A big part of that is that Varric isn't involved enough as a narrator to tell where his motives lie. Essentially he drops in at the start of each act. If there was more back and forth with Cassandra - say before each "major" quest you got some interaction then maybe you could get a feel that he's fibbing but right now there's nothing like that. The only in game "evidence" we have is that he says he'll tell the truth and when he lies Cassandra can catch him at it. I'd say based on what we know Varric is telling the story as it happened.

[Rifneno]

Seriously, they can't go that route. It's just not an option. Look at the replies here... have you ever seen the community THIS united about an issue? If someone said the sun is hot, we'd have a 70 page argument about it. Even if "Varric lied" was their original plan, they've got to come up with a new one now. Because a blind nug could see the DA fanbase would respond with more nerdrage than the entire Incredible Hulk series if they told us "Varric lied" to retcon anything more important than the color of Isabela's bandanna.

[magelet]

I seems unlikely to me that they would retcon it in such a dramatic way. Mainly because it would disrupt the story too much. In order to explain what really happened it would take too much...re-explaining that would be unnecessary if they just let Varric's story be what really happened.

[Macropodmum]

Also the seeker doesn't appear to be a total fool and does tend to say if she thinks Varric is lying

[DRTJR]

I think it's just Minor things like the number of faceless goons, the lack of clean up at Fenris manor, the Vertal fight when looking for Zeveran, Orsino becoming a harvester in the Mage ending (I think he mentioned that he could after getting an arrow to the heart.

[FieryDove]

Rifneno wrote...

Only the part with the cake. </meme>

The cake is not a lie, its PIE!

The cake was posion.

As to the thread title, I will never understand why Hawke was so powerless. Maybe a dlc will explain it. ( or marketing for DA3 when the time rolls round)

[magelet]

As to the thread title, I will never understand why Hawke was so powerless.

Hawke is powerless because Hawke is just a regular person.

It was something that I liked about this game, because it wasn't like you were some kind of super powerful superhero that could just save the day no matter what; you were just a normal person who was trying to get by, protect your family or whatever.

It made this game different from a lot of video games and it made the story more interesting in my opinion.

[Lord Gremlin]

FieryDove wrote...

I have considered this.

Also a incoming DLC with Varric saying..."And then Hawke wakes up."

But if Varric was just covering everything up, why bother playing...a game? An intro movie to DA3 would have worked as well and cheaper to develop.

..and wouldn't get EA any cash in between DAO and DA3.

[erynnar]

Foolsfolly wrote...

If Varric lied then DA2 was a complete and abysmal failure.

As is it's just an alright game. But if the entire story is reduced to "HA! Didn't happen." Than the game's disk is only good for being a drink coaster.

Or a frisbee for my friend's dog. Yeah, let's hope they don't pull a "Bobby in the Shower" ala Dallas the TV show (for all of you too young to know what show that is, as Aldous would say..."you can look that up.":lol:)

Nail in the coffin, indeed.

[Lord Gremlin]

erynnar wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

If Varric lied then DA2 was a complete and abysmal failure.

As is it's just an alright game. But if the entire story is reduced to "HA! Didn't happen." Than the game's disk is only good for being a drink coaster.

Or a frisbee for my friend's dog. Yeah, let's hope they don't pull a "Bobby in the Shower" ala Dallas the TV show (for all of you too young to know what show that is, as Aldous would say..."you can look that up.":lol:)

Nail in the coffin, indeed.

Actually, you can use the disk instead of scarecrow to scare away birds from your garden. If, like, they're making a mess.

[Saberchic]

@OP: I don't think Varric lied.

I believe that there are some things that are simply beyond our control, no matter what we do. That's how I took Act 3 in DA2.

Tensions had been brewing for years. Meredith is slowly going insane, Elthina does absolutely nothing to diffuse either side, the blood mages are getting more desparate, etc.

By the time Act 3 hits, it's a powder keg waiting to explode. I figure that there's nothing Hawke can do to stop what's coming. At least, that's the sense I got when I played it.

I know a lot of people hated that, but I think what happened needed to happen in order to really set up the climate for the next game.