214 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

My impression of DA2 is that it did not contain tragedy or drama, but melodrama. The game is filled with moments that struck me as being blatant attempts to wrench an emotional reaction from me. For example, when your sibling is killed by an ogre, or when Wesley dies, it's shown as this great tragic event, but because neither Wesley nor your sibling has received any development up to that point, the impact of it was approximately nil.

Of course it was nil we'd only just met him/her, you're meant to role play how your Hawke would feel.

That's a little difficult since the sibling who dies is a complete stranger to you. I thought the Human Noble Origin did a better job at getting the protagonist to identify with and care about his family before tragedy struck.

[Arthur Cousland]

Leandra's death didn't bother me so much as how it happened. She didn't just die, but she was hacked to pieces so some psychopath could magically bring his dead wife back to life. At that moment, I just imagine that if that happened to my mother, I would have ripped Quintus to shreds.

If Leandra needed to die, that's one thing, but it was disturbing to see her as a thrall of a necromancer with stitches all over. If I was Hawke, I would have had nightmares for weeks or longer after that.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 16 août 2011 - 02:31 .

[Redcoat]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

My impression of DA2 is that it did not contain tragedy or drama, but melodrama. The game is filled with moments that struck me as being blatant attempts to wrench an emotional reaction from me. For example, when your sibling is killed by an ogre, or when Wesley dies, it's shown as this great tragic event, but because neither Wesley nor your sibling has received any development up to that point, the impact of it was approximately nil.

Tragedy works when it flows from the inevitable (a Grey Warden must sacrifice himself to slay the archdemon) or arises from a character flaw (Loghain's zeal to protect Ferelden from Orlais). DA2's tragedy flavour of "tragedy" is just "bad things suddenly happening that you can do nothing about."

- Hawke's sibling is mashed into a fine paste by an ogre. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!
- Hawke goes to the Deep Roads, and no matter what he choses to do, he ends up losing a sibling, who either dies outright or joins the Grey Wardens, Templars, or the Circle. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!
- Hawke is asked to deal with the qunari, who end up going on a rampage, killing the viscount and who knows how many others. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!
- Hawke learns of a serial killer that has an established MO, and this serial killer ends up murdering Hawke's mother. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!
- Hawke takes ownership of a mine, only to have giant spiders kill the workers. He solves that problem, only to have a High Dragon swoop in and destroy it and kill everyone there. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!
- Anders plans to committ a terrorist act against the chantry, igniting an all-out war between the mages and templars. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!

Are you sensing a pattern here? This sort of plot, about a character who is a cosmic plaything, he ends up suffering through disaster after disaster, might make for a good movie or novel, but it's a wretched basis for a game, which needs to involve the player, and not only that, is produced by a company that trumpets "Choice & Consequences" as a feature of their titles. I imagine this is where the complaints about DA2 feeling like an "interactive movie" come from. I get the feeling the writers really, really wanted to tell this particular story, player agency be damned. Now, I understand that they wanted to break away from the typical "heroic fantasy" protagonist who saves the day and give us someone less typical of the genre, but the "failure narrative" is delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

As for being grim or dark, DA2 is neither. It's grimdark, which is darkness turned up to such an absurd degree that you cannot take things seriously. This might work in Warhammer 40K, but in DA2...not so much. Both sides of the central conflict are either insane, incompetent, or ineffectual (or some combination of the three), so that choosing a side is less an agonising decision and more one of complete apathy. And the outcome is the same either way.

Odd how you start out saying that the ebst tragedies stem from the inevitable, then goes on to claim that all the inevitable tragedies of DA2 are bad.

Perhaps I should have clarified things more. When I said that tragedy flows from the inevitable, I meant things that are inevitable within the story's world itself. For example, you know that someone has to die to kill the archdemon (there's Morrigans offer, but who knows what the consequences of that will be down the line?). You can choose who sacrifices himself, but someone has to die regardless. Or to take Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The audience knows from history that Caesar has to die. Or in Macbeth, where it becomes obvious at some point that there is no way Macbeth is getting out of that situation alive, because he has no allies left and everyone has turned against him.

But in DA2, the "inevitable tragic happenings" of Hawke's life are less the result of circumstances beyond his control and more the result of Hawke being someone stupid and ineffective. I refuse to believe that there was nothing Hawke could do to stop his sister being taken away ("I just killed an ancient rock wraith, and yet these two templars are immune to my wrath? What about those templars I just killed in "Tranquility?" They weren't a problem then!"), that there was nothing he could do to stop his mother's murder, that there was nothing he could do to stop Anders from going Guy Fawkes.

This sort of plot might work in a non-interactive medium like theatre, literature, or film, but in a game - an interactive medium - it comes across less as "inevitability" and more like a dungeon master making choo-choo noises as he railroads the plot: "No, you can't save your mum! This is supposed to be tragic, damn it! No, you can't stab Anders until AFTER he blows up the chantry."

If you want tragedy, you have to set it up properly. Simply raining terrible events down upon a character over and over isn't tragedy, it's the writer trying way too hard to make his character suffer in order to get an emotional response from the audience.
 

Modifié par Redcoat, 14 août 2011 - 06:08 .

[Xilizhra]

I think the reason I never got the Chantry thing is that exploding it didn't make me suffer.

I do agree on the thing with Bethany, though she does beg you not to do anything yourself... I think the templar reprisal would be harsh, to say the least, since it's broad daylight and, unlike Bardel and his group in the Chantry, they were on a sanctioned mission. All that Remains was total ****, I'll give you that.

[Wulfram]

I choose to assume there was a whole bunch of Templars waiting outside to escort Bethany away. Making fighting back impractical.

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

I choose to assume there was a whole bunch of Templars waiting outside to escort Bethany away. Making fighting back impractical.

That's what I like to think as well. The entire incident should've happened outside with only Hawke and his family there and at least 50 Templars.

[TobiTobsen]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think the reason I never got the Chantry thing is that exploding it didn't make me suffer.

I do agree on the thing with Bethany, though she does beg you not to do anything yourself... I think the templar reprisal would be harsh, to say the least, since it's broad daylight and, unlike Bardel and his group in the Chantry, they were on a sanctioned mission. All that Remains was total ****, I'll give you that.

I think he/she is speaking about Ser Karras and his group of Templars that you can butcher for Grace. They are also on an official mission. And the whole "please don't do anything" stuff from Bethany... If my Hawke had the choice he wouldn't listen. Why should he let his sisters jump into a pool full of sharks just because she asks him to?

[Morroian]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Of course it was nil we'd only just met him/her, you're meant to role play how your Hawke would feel.

That's a little difficult since the sibling who dies is a complete stranger to you.

No its not you build his opinion of his family into your original conception of the character.

LobselVith8 wrote...

 I thought the Human Noble Origin did a better job at getting the protagonist to identify with and care about his family before tragedy struck

But thats the game manipulating you into caring for them not role playing. 

Modifié par Morroian, 14 août 2011 - 09:02 .

[cdtrk65]

Redcoat wrote...
his sort of plot might work in a non-interactive medium like theatre, literature, or film, but in a game - an interactive medium - it comes across less as "inevitability" and more like a dungeon master making choo-choo noises as he railroads the plot: "No, you can't save your mum! This is supposed to be tragic, damn it! No, you can't stab Anders until AFTER he blows up the chantry."

I wonder if the first set of missions (act 1) were taken out of the "All that remains." if people would be upset as they are about it. Just a wonder.

I've said elsewhere Hawke; seems to me, a passive hero. He kind of floats through the world without an real goals, where the Hero of Feralden had a clear goal to start with.

It might have been better to have both siblings survive and then end up on the opposite factions. Making Hawke decide between siblings on a lot of the mage vs templar quest. It would've given Hawke some motivation to stick around kirkwall and find a peaceful solution to the whole debate. Even if it ultimately ended in failure and a siblings death.

Besides sometimes death isn't the only type of tragedy. Imagine if the scenario above happened, and over the years Craver hardens toward mages and begins to act like the other templars, meanwhile Hawke tries to somehow stop his slide. On the other side Bethany begins to see the plight of other mages, and does things that are uncharacteristic of her, not resorting to blood magic but things she might not do otherwise. Hawke's role for her would either be encourage or discourage her from repeating the acts.

Along the way it would've paved the way for Hawke to meet the leaders of the factions much sooner, allowing them to be fleshed out more and they end events to be more of a final for Hawkes story.

Just my opinion...and I know don't why I critic and suggest for something that is already finished.

Modifié par cdtrk65, 14 août 2011 - 09:20 .

[Icinix]

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Of course it was nil we'd only just met him/her, you're meant to role play how your Hawke would feel.

That's a little difficult since the sibling who dies is a complete stranger to you.

No its not you build his opinion of his family into your original conception of the character.

LobselVith8 wrote...

 I thought the Human Noble Origin did a better job at getting the protagonist to identify with and care about his family before tragedy struck

But thats the game manipulating you into caring for them not role playing. 

I felt it was far stronger in the human noble origin, you have the opportunity to develop the first steps of your character with the relationship with your family. Only to have it ripped down around you. Even if the character you develop is someone who doesn't care much for the family, those bonds are very clearly displayed.

In DA2, your first steps are watching one of your siblings die, and you're left watching with a semi dis-interested gaze.  It never really captures that feeling. That feels more like forcing you (than roleplaying) by saying "Here is your family, we killed them, be sad" .The connection with family is handled better in the first 15 minutes of the human noble origin, than pretty much the whole DA2. I think though that was because they tried too hard to force the family on you at random intervals through DA2, as opposed to allowing the player to naturally develop those connections.

It started to capture a little bit of that feeling in Legacy though.

[katling73]

The thing with tragedy is that it needs to be done well or it tips over the edge into melodrama and/or tragedy fatigue. Unfortunately DA2 went with the latter in it's desire to be all 'dark' and 'moody' and 'mature'. Perhaps the reason why I felt so emotionally divorced from it by about halfway through Act 2. I don't mind well-done tragedy but when I'm just getting ****-slapped by tragedy left, right and centre, I get tired and bored and want to switch off.

Tragedy, when it's done well, does one of two things - it startles you (in a good way... so to speak) or it reduces you to tears. It comes when you think all is well. You're successful. You're doing well. You're awesome. Then without warning you get sideswiped by the tragedy truck and you're left shaken and startled and even shattered and you have to pick yourself up and start dealing with the situation. Put yourself back together because even though tragedy has just hit with all the force of a Mack truck, you can't just stop. Now there were a few occasions in DA2 that would have been utterly awesome if they'd been handled this way. If you'd had good things happen to you. If you'd achieve some goals, genuinely saved some people and so on and then WHAM! Tragedy. Imagine the effect if Mother's death had been handled this way! They clearly tried to do this. That's obvious. But they'd given us so much tragedy and blah up to this point that Leandra's death kind of got lost in the mix a bit.

Or you could have the kind of tragedy that you see coming. You SEE it. It's there. You know it's going to happen unless you do something. So you fight. You do all in your power to avert it. And maybe you succeed and end up shaken, trembling with reaction as you realise you have averted that inexorable tragedy. (And potentially, it can abruptly turn into surprise tragedy and knock you to your arse!) Or you fail and the tragedy occurs and you're left with the aftermath. Again the writers in DA2 attempted to do this. The whole thing with Anders fits into this category. But again, we'd been smacked with so much tragedy AND more importantly, they denied us so much choice that it lost it's effect. Imagine if we'd been able to stop Anders but someone else in the mage underground carried it out anyway. That would have been awesome. Just as you think you've achieved something, the rug gets whipped out from under your feet. Now THAT'S the way to handled tragedy.

Now of course, trying to do some of this in a game would be difficult. Of course it would. It's a game. There are limitations there that don't exist in a book or a movie. But it does come back to the idea that overloading with tragedy in an attempt to be 'dark' and 'edgy' tends to just reduce the effect of the tragedies that are being thrown at us. To me, being dark and edgy isn't constantly having bad things happen to a character, it's the ambiguous choices, morally or otherwise. For example, it's being presented with a situation where blood magic is the only course of action that would give the best solution (say, to saving the life of Seamus) but you have to use it in front of the Grand Cleric and the Knight Commander. Do you? If you do, what are the consequences? (And the devs would have to make sure there are consequences.) Are you willing to face those consequences and save Seamus? Or do you back off and let him die? What consequences does that choice have?

Now a game that offered you those sorts of choices interspersed with the tragic moments would have been far more interesting and offered far more to me than constant tragedy, tragedy, tragedy.

Modifié par katling73, 14 août 2011 - 11:43 .

[Carmen_Willow]

Playing this game reminded me of a movie experience I had some years ago.  I went with a friend to see a modern version of Shakespeare's King Lear.  The movie is titled A Thousand Acres, and at the end of it, when the lights came up (and the house was silent), a woman, a total stranger sitting next to me said, "Well--that was depressing!" 

I had the same feeling when the credits rolled on DA:2 for the first time.  I felt that way even more on the playthrough where I allowed my sibling to die in the Deep Roads. 

The OP got it dead on.  There's just nothing good that seems to happen in this tale (except for Fenris).

I had similar feelings at the end of many of the quests in ME.  I kept wondering when I was finally going to get to save someone.  At least in ME, I get to save someone at the end.  In DA:2, I just got to walk out the door with my head still on. yeehaw.

I've played the game a lot because I keep trying different game builds, but that mansion never gets any less lonely.

[Xilizhra]

Oh, I don't know. I saved Merrill, Anders, much of the Circle, Orana, Petrice if you want to look at it that way, Fenris, Isabela, Carver/Bethany... take your victories where you can.

[Quething]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, I don't know. I saved Merrill, Anders, much of the Circle, Orana, Petrice if you want to look at it that way, Fenris, Isabela, Carver/Bethany... take your victories where you can.

Did you actually save Orana? You got run out of town after killing Meredith. There's no real suggestion Hawke gets to swing casually by the Hawke estate to make sure the servants get out okay. (Bodhan and Sandal obviously did, but Orana seems significantly less capable of indepentent thought... another completely uneccessary tragedy, when the game could easily have established her growing more confident and shaking off her slave mentality for Hawkes that choose to pay her instead of reinforcing just how much she still had it in Act III).

[MichaelFinnegan]

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Of course it was nil we'd only just met him/her, you're meant to role play how your Hawke would feel.

That's a little difficult since the sibling who dies is a complete stranger to you.

No its not you build his opinion of his family into your original conception of the character.

I agree with what you said earlier. That we're meant to roleplay how our Hawkes would feel. The issue is not how one would like to roleplay that scenario, but why one ought to even bother. As has been suggested, the character sort of had no "game benefit." Only the surviving sibling had the game benefit, if I understood at all what was meant by some character having "game benefit."

The "original conception of the character" had precious little going for it. Unless you were metagaming, you'd not know how or why Bethany/Carver was supposed to be a friend/rival to Hawke's character - sure there was a meter suggesting the relationship was one way or another at the start, but that is the game putting some numbers without actually giving any background. There was hardly anything to roleplay, unless you'd build the sibling character from the ground-up, imagining in your own head the relationship he/she might have had with Hawke. That is certainly not what I would bother doing.

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

 I thought the Human Noble Origin did a better job at getting the protagonist to identify with and care about his family before tragedy struck

But thats the game manipulating you into caring for them not role playing.

Nope. It is one thing to say that the game is manipulating you, and still another to suggest that the roleplay can somehow happen without any prior knowledge or insight into the character whom Hawke was supposed to care about or despise. I'm one of those players who'd like to see almost everything in-game. The game ought to be mine to shape around my PC, but with the condition that everything else should react to whatever I do.

[Xilizhra]

Quething wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, I don't know. I saved Merrill, Anders, much of the Circle, Orana, Petrice if you want to look at it that way, Fenris, Isabela, Carver/Bethany... take your victories where you can.

Did you actually save Orana? You got run out of town after killing Meredith. There's no real suggestion Hawke gets to swing casually by the Hawke estate to make sure the servants get out okay. (Bodhan and Sandal obviously did, but Orana seems significantly less capable of indepentent thought... another completely uneccessary tragedy, when the game could easily have established her growing more confident and shaking off her slave mentality for Hawkes that choose to pay her instead of reinforcing just how much she still had it in Act III).

There's not really a suggestion otherwise either, so I suppose it's up to the individual players.

[MorrigansLove]

The tragedy in this game was overwhelming and made me think "Why would Hawke carry on with trying to help Kirkwall when the very same city has made his life a living hell?" It just doesn't seem believable, and it is just another reason why I feel Dragon Age 2 is an average game.

[Brockololly]

jamesp81 wrote...

There's also a reason Lord of the Rings is considered standard fantasy  these days, though. I've never been a fan of purely happy endings, there's no such thing as a happy ending when we're involved in war and we're dealing with politics / magic.

LotR gets called the "standard" for a reason.  It's the one all others are compared to.  Writing grim, unsatisfying plotlines is not "more mature", it's just grim and depressing.  I get that some people like that.  Can't really imagine why, but some people do.

For all the talk people have of LotR being the stereotypical "happy ending," I think people forget the Scouring of the Shire. Now sure, the hobbits win out in the end, but not without a cost. So sure, they come back victorious over Sauron only to find their homeland has been enslaved and turned into a cesspool.


On the topic of tragedy though it comes down to being able to care about your player character. If you don't have any sense of agency in what your player character is doing, I think its hard to get too involved in the plight of other characters. But tragedy is more or less going to involve something robbing the player of agency. But if you haven't felt much agency to start with, any attempted "tragedy" is likely going to come across as heavy handed melodrama  of the writers/devs trying to force an emotion on the player.

And as others have said, the "tragic" moments have to be used sparingly. If almost every quest or interaction the PC engages in ends up being railroaded to one common "tragic" outcome, thats not emotionally engaging, thats boring, as you start to wonder why your PC is bothering when everything they do is utterly pointless.

Even in Origins, I'd say Morrigan leaving a romancing Warden no matter what was "tragic" to a certain extent. The problem with that moment was how the explanations given by Morrigan were virtually non existent as to why the Warden couldn't come with her. So what starts out as a tragic, bittersweet romance ending with Morrigan leaving ends up with the player feeling handcuffed by the writers in not being able to question Morrigan and get answers.

Thats the problem with "tragedy" in a supposedly player choice driven RPG- tragedy is all about stripping out choice. It shouldn't be used often or else it loses its desired effect and when it is used, the player has to be able to buy into it feeling "real" within the game world and not like they're being artificially handicapped  by the devs/writers in the big tragic moment.

So for me, in DA2, because I never really was able to effectively roleplay Hawke how I wanted, I never really bought into most of the "tragedy." It turned into hamfisted melodrama.

People bring up Game of Thrones as being dark or tragic and yeah, its got its dark moments and horrible character deaths. But ignoring that its a totally different medium than a player driven RPG, its got its amazing moments too- for every main character death you have a totally badass moment like KING IN THE NORTH to get you out of feeling too gloomy over certain events.


It comes down to pacing and balancing those tragic moments with the moments of player empowerment and agency where the player/PC can have a moment of badassery. Its a very fine line between "tragedy" and a cheap "GOTCHA!" moment.

Modifié par Brockololly, 15 août 2011 - 11:23 .

[Foolsfolly]

JohnEpler wrote...

I realize now that I am probably partially responsible for a small amount of heartache, as I also did the scenes that killed off your sibling in the Deep Roads. Though I don't think any of the player lines were quite as good as Boulton's 'You always were a heartbreaker, Bethany.' Still conflicted on whether or not hiding the actual kill was the right call. At the time I felt so, but I go back and forth on that one.

Not to heap on any more doubt about your choice but...

I only killed my sibling once (and it was Bethany and I did enjoy the "heartbreaker" comment). But I thought it was a little weak in part because of the cut away. It felt like that should have been the saddest thing in the entire game. I set out to demoralize and deaden an optimistic Hawke (what? Punishing characters makes for fun stories!).

He'd lose his siblings, mother, and boyfriend (Anders getting murder knife'd for turning terrorist) and then leave the City of Chains forever.

But I felt that Wesley's death was sadder than Bethany's. Which shouldn't be. It felt disjointed, to me personally, because it had this fade to black in the middle of it. Like the audio cutting out in a song for a few seconds and coming back in. It just didn't flow well, in my opinion again.

Dragon Age has always been a game that has pushed the idea of tragedy.
When we first discussed having Alistair sacrifice himself out of love of
the Warden, there was debate over whether players would find that
moving or just be frustrated that he made a decision they couldn't
control.

A discussion that spurred countless arguments with my sister and I. She is of the opinion that it's frustrating and stupid. I'm of the opinion that it was the single most romantic thing I've ever seen from a video game character.

With us there is no middle ground, it's either inspired or garbage. I think you guys made the right choice.

[TEWR]

speaking of Wesley, I now kinda feel something for him because of the Aveline short story where she met him.

Before, I had never known that existed. Now I'll feel a little bit of something when he dies, though I still abhor the fact that I don't actually get to know him for a little while and have to rely on a short story. The siblings are the same way for me. I don't see the death in the beginning as being actually needed.

[Foolsfolly]

Redcoat wrote

- Hawke is asked to deal with the qunari, who end up going on a rampage, killing the viscount and who knows how many others. Hawke is powerless to prevent it. TRAGEDY!

To be completely honest that storyline has Hawke as a side character. The tragedy is the Viscount. The Viscount, Arishok, and to a lesser extent Petrice are the main characters of that storyline. Hawke's just there working for the Viscount and then can side with Petrice or not.

[Harid]

There should have been a prologue in Lothering. And during the smuggler/mercenary missions. I hope if anything Bioware learned from this game, they should have learned that players don't like their character acting like they know a character, we as players have never met, and likewise, that killing characters we barely know to establish a threat is poor storytelling.

[Foolsfolly]

I have often disagreed with the notion that we needed time in Lothering. I'm just sick of the cliche fantasy RPG story where the home town is burned down in the beginning. It's a cliche I'd like to see retired for a decade and then someone can come back to it and do it so well that we all remember how powerful such a thing used to be...before it was over used.

I think the best opening would have had the Hawkes showing up in Kirkwall. The fleeing from Lothering was only needed so Flemeth could be in the game and since Flemeth has no impact on the game I think losing Flemeth isn't that big of a loss.

Just have Hawke as a refugee in a strange city, broke, looking for work, and unknowingly trying to survive in a city that he will one day hold in his hand. A classic immigrant tale. Possible sibling deaths coming up through the game and player choices.

I really feel it was a missed opportunity in not having both siblings on opposite sides of the mage argument while Hawke's in the middle.

[Harid]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I have often disagreed with the notion that we needed time in Lothering. I'm just sick of the cliche fantasy RPG story where the home town is burned down in the beginning. It's a cliche I'd like to see retired for a decade and then someone can come back to it and do it so well that we all remember how powerful such a thing used to be...before it was over used.

I think the best opening would have had the Hawkes showing up in Kirkwall. The fleeing from Lothering was only needed so Flemeth could be in the game and since Flemeth has no impact on the game I think losing Flemeth isn't that big of a loss.

Just have Hawke as a refugee in a strange city, broke, looking for work, and unknowingly trying to survive in a city that he will one day hold in his hand. A classic immigrant tale. Possible sibling deaths coming up through the game and player choices.

I really feel it was a missed opportunity in not having both siblings on opposite sides of the mage argument while Hawke's in the middle.

Then you'd have to explain why he was in Kirkwall.  You'd be having the same hometown story, but instead of Lothering, it would be in Kirkwall.  It'd be just as cliched.  The only point of Lothering was a tie back to Origins, imo.  They should not have halfed assed it, though.

[Foolsfolly]

Then you'd have to explain why he was in Kirkwall. You'd be having the same hometown story, but instead of Lothering, it would be in Kirkwall.

No. Welcome to RPGs. If you had Hawke show up in Kirkwall via boat and only say that they're not from the Marshes then it's up to the player's imaginations. You could be a deserting military person, a wanted criminal, an apostate mage on the run from the Chantry, or anything you want it to be.

I'm also against the whole Hawke is tied to nobility thing. I wish Hawke wasn't that. His rise would be more meaningful if the station he rose to wasn't his birthright.

EDIT:

Not that it matters at all. Hawke is as pre-defined as many NPCs in the game.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 17 août 2011 - 07:09 .