144 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

ipgd wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

One would expect him to have some political capital that would make him some sort of third unnoficial power in Kirkwall

Why? He's a celebrity, not politician or a particularly large noble family with established financial or social ties to other houses. What does he have to hold over the other nobles or the templars or the chantry or the viscount's office? His stock is entirely his name recognition.

After all, no matter what power Meredith holds, she can't go against the nobles of Kirkwall.

She can, and does. The game makes it pretty clear that the templars have always been the ultimate authority in Kirkwall, re: how they "dealt" with the last viscount that defied them.

Part of the problem with this is that in the marketing, Bioware hyped up Hawke becoming the Champion of Kirkwall.  So when we became champion, alot of us expected that we would now have some great power or influence.  Instead, all it ment was instead of running errands for merchants, we were running them for templars and mages.  I know that some folks thought that was a cool story element, but personally, it wasn't fun to play.

[ipgd]

OdanUrr wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Why? He's a celebrity, not politician or a particularly large noble family with established financial or social ties to other houses. What does he have to hold over the other nobles or the templars or the chantry or the viscount's office? His stock is entirely his name recognition.

Hawke does, in fact, help nobles throughout the game, perhaps most notably when s/he saves their lives from certain event in Act II. As I see it, one needn't be a politician to have political capital though, understandably, it's often associated with politicians.

Gratefulness doesn't really mean much in the scheme of things. I'm sure they like Hawke, but why would they go out of their way to do anything for him? Who does he have deep personal ties with? How many daughters has he married off? Where are his monetary investments? Who is he bribing? Who is he blackmailing? Does he have ties to the Carta or the Coterie? What businesses does he own? What markets does he corner? How many men are in his service? The Nobles probably wouldn't lift a finger unless they had something to gain if they did or something to fear if they didn't, and they likely wouldn't hesitate to screw him over if they would benefit; Hawke has virtually no political recourse outside good will and killing people.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 juillet 2011 - 12:07 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

ME didn't change as dynamicly as DA did between the first and second installments. ME is a RPG to alot of people, it really isn't a very mechanically smooth shooter. People interested in shooters usually go elsewhere for a more intense experience with better combat mechanics. ME has a pretty good story, and a fixed protagonist giving pretty much everyone a similar experience after two or three playthroughs. Shepard customization pretty much stays the same between games, with skills varying somewhat and being the key thing slimmed down.

DA started out by giving the players a few more freedoms than the original ME. In fact, the origins were so important it made it into the game title and the concept was praised by alot of reviewers when it first came out. That idea was totally tossed out with DA 2, we got a set protagonist whose racial background is set and whose in game dialogue is pretty much set, with a few flavors pretty much saying the same thing. The lack of roleplaying consequences, and the lack of decisions when compared to Origins tends to make it a lackluster experience for people who actively enjoy customizing a hero's story outside of mere physical appearance. Those who just want a set character and an amusing story were not bothered, but Origins had a fundamentally different experience for players who wanted the "more but better" experience most sequels offer. In my opinion alot of issues would of been solved if Bioware really should of called it something other than Dragon Age 2 and EA gave them another year to work on it.

[OdanUrr]

ademska wrote...

in these discussion we've sometimes got a tendency to operate under videogame logic, ie having an innate ability to enact sweeping changes in simplistic, finitely-defined worlds.

hawke helped out a handful of nobles and defeated the arishok in combat, but for the reasons ipgd stated he's got no real political agency. the sources of conflict are institutions headed by single characters, but it's still an institutional issue. one man, even someone of hawke's status, cannot possibly realistically hope to cause as much change as people want from him.

if you don't want to look at da2 outside of a videogame narrative filter, then try this on: to make any sort of significant impact, hawke would have had to permanently sway elthina, meredith, and orsino's viewpoints. it's not something that can be done through combat, which is hawke's only real capital.

arguing with posters in this thread should be enough to convince you persuading people on issues is no easy feat.

It's true that the Templar-Mage conflict was bound to find a negative outlet somewhere, sometime, and DA2 decided it would be Kirkwall. It's also probably that Hawke wouldn't have had much of an impact even if he'd tried. The crux of the matter for me is that he doesn't really try that hard. Hawke seems to be a reactive character most of the time instead of being proactive: when things happen, he responds, with his weapons more often than not. This is what really rubs me the wrong way. If he'd tried and failed, I understood, but he doesn't, and I don't.

[Morroian]

OdanUrr wrote...

Power is an abstract concept. Do you mean to say they have strength in numbers? I don't know if this is true of Kirkwall, perhaps it is. But the Guard doesn't answer to the Templars and I'm sure the Circle of Kirkwall would jump at the chance of defying Templar authority. Any government based in strength by numbers alone eventually crumbles when faced with a larger enemy army.

The only institution left is the Chantry. I agree it seems determined in maintining any status quo where the Templars hold some measure of power over the mages. However, I don't think it can actually overrule the will of the ruling government.

The background to the game and Kirkwall is that the previous Viscount was killed by the templars and they appointed Dumar as their puppet. Bran outright says in Act 3 if you ask him about becoming Viscount that templar support is needed.

[ademska]

OdanUrr wrote...

It's true that the Templar-Mage conflict was bound to find a negative outlet somewhere, sometime, and DA2 decided it would be Kirkwall. It's also probably that Hawke wouldn't have had much of an impact even if he'd tried. The crux of the matter for me is that he doesn't really try that hard. Hawke seems to be a reactive character most of the time instead of being proactive: when things happen, he responds, with his weapons more often than not. This is what really rubs me the wrong way. If he'd tried and failed, I understood, but he doesn't, and I don't.

i understand that, but we don't know what, if anything, he tried to do during those three years. the framed narrative means varric was only telling cassandra (and us) what was politically relevant and made an impact on stuff. maybe he tried, maybe he didn't, but even if he didn't, doesn't that make sense? hawke has two friends, possibly a lover, who are known apostates. if bethany is alive, she's possibly in the circle. if hawke is a mage, there's even more reason to not rock the boat too much. we don't know if he tried, and you can fault the game design for that, which is fine, but you can't ever know definitively.

the overarching point here is that this is still a deliberate deconstruction of the hailed 'champion of kirkwall' being completely ineffectual in stopping the coming war and ultimately disappearing from public eye.

he's just a guy, unfortunately gifted with natural charisma and battle prowess who tried to make a life for himself and his family, and in the end the world beat him down. that's depressing for a videogame story, but it's so very different and, to me, incredibly compelling.

[Ronin2006]

ademska wrote...

... gifted with natural charisma ...

No, he really wasn't.

[upsettingshorts]

Ronin2006 wrote...

No, he really wasn't.

I don't see how the Hawke of your game is relevant to theirs.

[ademska]

Ronin2006 wrote...

No, he really doesn't.

HURF DURF

Modifié par ademska, 11 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[Ronin2006]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

No, he really wasn't.

I don't see how the Hawke of your game is relevant to theirs.

Because I played the exact same game?  No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist.

[upsettingshorts]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Because I played the exact same game?  No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist.

Says you.

If I were to say, "The Warden was incapable of being anything other than a gameplay device for interrogating characters in talking head theater, let alone resemble something capable of participating in human interactions" would you say that the fact I played the same game - Dragon Age: Origins - is enough to justify my opinion as this objectively correct universal truth?

Because guess what, that's what I believe.  That's what you're doing.  But the difference is, I recognize this is subjective.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[ademska]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Because I played the exact same game?  No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist.

you saw him that way, which is fine. i didn't. it's subjective.

in the game he's presented as someone who naturally draws people to him. he's even got lines referencing the phenomenon. that is charisma.

Modifié par ademska, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[ipgd]

It's that time again!

[Ronin2006]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Because I played the exact same game?  No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist.

Says you.

If I were to say, "The Warden was incapable of being anything other than being a bland gameplay device for interrogating characters in talking head theater, let alone even approaching something resembling a human" would you say that the fact I played the same game - Dragon Age: Origins - is enough to justify my opinion as this objectively correct universal truth?

Because guess what, that's what I believe.  But the difference is, I recognize this is subjective.

Oh here we go, criticise DAO and reflexively defend DA2.

The failings of DAO do not compensate for the even greater failings of DA2.  No matter what DAO did wrong, just because DA2 did something different, doesn't mean they did it right.

Oh, I know what I type is subjective, that's a moot point because I never claimed otherwise.

[upsettingshorts]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Oh here we go, criticise DAO and reflexively defend DA2.

That wasn't what I was doing.  I was demonstrating that using the same non-justification for another example doesn't work either.

[OdanUrr]

ipgd wrote...

It's that time again!

Genius.

[ipgd]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Oh here we go, criticise DAO and reflexively defend DA2.

The failings of DAO do not compensate for the even greater failings of DA2.  No matter what DAO did wrong, just because DA2 did something different, doesn't mean they did it right.

That was not the point of his point. Read it again.

Oh, I know what I type is subjective, that's a moot point because I never claimed otherwise.

I dunno what about "No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist" suggests that.

[Tommyspa]

I want Laidlaw in control because of how ambitious DA2 was. Now that said, the time to refine that unreached ambition is necessary to making a much better DA3.

[Ronin2006]

ipgd wrote...

It's that time again!

It was never expressed as anything other than my opinion.

I made a statement, it was my opinion.  Should there be a caveat attached to it that states that it's an opinion?  I've done that before, I even wrote a post and said *warning this is an opinion, don't bother arguing this point* and people still jump and down with this kind of rubbish.

Or maybe, I assumed, like most people who don't resort to poor arguments, that people would actually have the capacity to interpret my post as such.

People who have their own opinions threatened by statements of opinion that are to contrary to their own are clearly a little insecure.

[OdanUrr]

Tommyspa wrote...

I want Laidlaw in control because of how ambitious DA2 was. Now that said, the time to refine that unreached ambition is necessary to making a much better DA3.

What are you talking about? This thread isn't about Laid... wait a sec...

(checks thread title)

Oh, my bad.

[ipgd]

Ronin2006 wrote...

It was never expressed as anything other than my opinion.

I made a statement, it was my opinion.  Should there be a caveat attached to it that states that it's an opinion?  I've done that before, I even wrote a post and said *warning this is an opinion, don't bother arguing this point* and people still jump and down with this kind of rubbish.

Or maybe, I assumed, like most people who don't resort to poor arguments, that people would actually have the capacity to interpret my post as such.

People who have their own opinions threatened by statements of opinion that are to contrary to their own are clearly a little insecure.

Opinions can be phrased in ways that are not aggressive, definitive and dismissive. The reason you have people jumping down your throat is probably because you word your opinions as if they are undeniable facts and that you are very angry at the world for daring to create the concept of dissent and disagreement.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:13 .

[ademska]

Ronin2006 wrote...

It was never expressed as anything other than my opinion.

Ronin2006 wrote...

Because I played the exact same game?  No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist.

you sure about that?

and regardless, i wasn't presenting an argument of opinion. you may not have found it effective, but hawke's several lines of dialogue about "people always coming to me with their problems" is an intentional bid at making hawke a naturally charismatic person.

i emphasized the important parts. hopefully that helps.

Modifié par ademska, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:16 .

[Ronin2006]

ipgd wrote...

I dunno what about "No matter your dialogue choices, Hawke is a bland and uninspired protagonist" suggests that.

You must be a little special.

I didn't realise that you are not able to knowingly state an opinion without having to expressly state that it's an opinion in the first place.

It's a little bit inferred from the very nature of the sentence that it's an opinion, and meant to be taken as such.

Would it help you sleep a little better if I began every sentence with "In my opinion..."?  Because that would get tedious, and for most of the rational English speaking world, isn't necessary.

Of course, nothing you state actually invalidates the point or provides a counter argument of any real substance.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:16 .

[Tommyspa]

OdanUrr wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I want Laidlaw in control because of how ambitious DA2 was. Now that said, the time to refine that unreached ambition is necessary to making a much better DA3.

What are you talking about? This thread isn't about Laid... wait a sec...

(checks thread title)

Oh, my bad.

I chose to ignore the fact/opinion bickering. HA!

[ademska]

oh good, i'm glad your entrance into the thread is an apropos-of-nothing flash of agitated opinion

and now you've jumped in the name-calling end of the pool

KEEP IT UP BRO YOU'RE ON A ROLL