551 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

I agree with just about all of your post but want to comment further on a few things:

TheAwesomologist wrote...
At best Hawke deals with a angry Sister, a scared elf boy, and a bunch of inexplecable psychotic blood mages. His influence only ever extends to one city and it's tenous at best (you get 3 years of being a Champion yet you see or gain nothing for it. If you become Viscount you see even less and still disappear).

And the problem with even these quests is that, unless you're metagaming, you're just guessing. You never have a clear option to influence someone's path.

Look I see your point. You bought DA2, hook, line, and sinker. I'm glad you enjoyed it, I really am. I thought the ending sucked and made it feel like I wasted my time playing second fiddle to a companion character. I don't play video games to feel helpless and sidelined (though moments like that in game are great for dramatic effect). Real life offers enough of those opportunities. Perhaps this ending could have worked if they sold it and packaged it better but the way it was executed it just sucked.

I get the story. I really do. The story is, "this is how the mage/templar war started." War/conflict, whatever it is by the time Cassandra is interrogating Varric. The execution could have been far, far better though.

[Vormaerin]

Zanallen wrote...



To be honest, I highly doubt that Loghain would have been able to marshal the strength or the dwarves or the elves to aid him. Especially not the elves, considering that he was selling city elves into slavery. As such, he would have just the human armies of Ferelden, an army already decimated due to Loghain's actions at Ostagar and made smaller due to his actions against Eamon.

No, he couldn't call on the elves or dwarves.   But we don't know how big those armies are, either.   In game mechanics terms, the "elf army" is the same strength as Arl Eamon's personal knights or the Templars.  Neither of which are realistically likely to be a huge force.   Granted, that's a game mechanic and no more realistic than doing one's shopping in full plate.   But we don't know if the elves are dozens, hundreds, or thousands.   Same with the dwarves.

So maybe that's a game breaker and maybe not.

[Aradace]

In regards to endings, what I want to know is why people have this obsession with wanting a hollywood ending in their video games? Thats one of the things I liked about DA2 was the fact that it wasnt essentially a "Yay!!! We won!!! Crack the bubly!!" ending. It's already been explained that the rest of Hawke's story will come to full closure through DLC. So in that regard, the "cliffhanger" ending is understandable because you want to leave it open for people to buy into the DLC to find out "what happened after".

That's one of the most annoying things I found about Origins. Unless you did US, you pretty much had a "happy" ending for the most part. Aside from the elves rioting or whatnot in the alienage allegedy in one of the epilogue stills and a few other minor incidents but I dont really count them because you dont really get to see or feel the impact that those events made. Everything you actually get to see, ending wise, in Origins is pretty much a cliche. You kill the ancient evil, save the day, get the guy/girl, and more or less ride off into the sunset from a metaphorical standpoint.

I prefer a darker ending. Victory but at a great cost. And no, Origins did not accomplish this well enough IMO except for in the US ending. Performing a ritual with an apostate mage to conceive a child that will absorb the taint and become an OGB does not constitute "victory at a cost" to me. IMO, ME2 accomplished this (slightly) better due to your squadmates being able to die during the Suicide Mission. Given, you pretty much have to deliberately kill them off to actually kill anyone but still, they executed it a little better than the DA team did.

And if not a "Victory but at great cost" ending, I like something that leaves me asking questions. Much the way that DA2's ending did IMO. To which, Im pretty sure most of those questions will be answered in future DLCs which is what makes it even better. It makes me WANT to play the DLCs in anticipation of what happened next. Admittedly, Legacy failed to provide any "closure" in that regard but Im sure that not all the DLC will be like that. It's just a matter of being patient at this ponit.

But to recap, I just dont understand the obsession with the "yay!!! we won!!" endings. Do people honestly think so little of their own lives and such that they have to look to a game to provide them with a "happy" ending? Im pretty sure that's not it because from what ive seen here, most folks dont seem to have those kinds of issues. So my second guess is that apparently, when these people were read to as children, their parents only read them the "Knights and Heroes" tales where the hero always saves the day and/or gets the girl so that's what they've come to expect in "every" fantasy setting? If not either of those options, then what? I honestly dont get it, it seems.

[TEWR]

people seem to be forgetting that Origins said the Warden's story wasn't over if he lived.

[Aradace]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people seem to be forgetting that Origins said the Warden's story wasn't over if he lived.

Right, because that epilogue still was written before Awakening was released, so it was a reference to Awakening, not some other future DA game where you get to play as the warden again.

[csfteeeer]

Aradace wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people seem to be forgetting that Origins said the Warden's story wasn't over if he lived.

Right, because that epilogue still was written before Awakening was released, so it was a reference to Awakening, not some other future DA game where you get to play as the warden again.

Even the Awakening epilogue says the warden's story hasn't ended.

[whykikyouwhy]

@Aradace - I would wager that the desire for a happy ending stems from a lot of different things. But I would imagine that it's mostly due to the fantasy genre - in a world where you can lob fireballs, wield fantastic weapons, and possibly even ride a griffon (maybe!), people would like to feel that all of their 2D blood, sweat and tears amounts to some sort of tangible victory. Maybe not exactly a happily ever after, but probably a "better than it was." It's about delusions of grandeur, getting to have your day and your cake, etc. If we can mold that world, why not mold it to be something grand.

Which is not to say that people are dissatisfied with their real lives. Only that IRL, we do not possess the same sort of malleability as in-game. So in-game, we flex our control over the world and celebrate our reloads of a saved game when things go awry.

[Aradace]

csfteeeer wrote...

Aradace wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people seem to be forgetting that Origins said the Warden's story wasn't over if he lived.

Right, because that epilogue still was written before Awakening was released, so it was a reference to Awakening, not some other future DA game where you get to play as the warden again.

Even the Awakening epilogue says the warden's story hasn't ended.

Which was written before the last of the DLC was released.  Again, referring to the DLC that followed.  Not another game entirely.

[MG800]

csfteeeer wrote...

Aradace wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people seem to be forgetting that Origins said the Warden's story wasn't over if he lived.

Right, because that epilogue still was written before Awakening was released, so it was a reference to Awakening, not some other future DA game where you get to play as the warden again.

Even the Awakening epilogue says the warden's story hasn't ended.

Is this a first game or movie you've seen? They always leave the door open. And if not a 'door' then at least a window. For what this time? For expansions. Or for making your character dead in some other DA game, followed by neat story, that's happening offscreen. There will be no "epic comeback".

[Aradace]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Aradace - I would wager that the desire for a happy ending stems from a lot of different things. But I would imagine that it's mostly due to the fantasy genre - in a world where you can lob fireballs, wield fantastic weapons, and possibly even ride a griffon (maybe!), people would like to feel that all of their 2D blood, sweat and tears amounts to some sort of tangible victory. Maybe not exactly a happily ever after, but probably a "better than it was." It's about delusions of grandeur, getting to have your day and your cake, etc. If we can mold that world, why not mold it to be something grand.

Which is not to say that people are dissatisfied with their real lives. Only that IRL, we do not possess the same sort of malleability as in-game. So in-game, we flex our control over the world and celebrate our reloads of a saved game when things go awry.

I can understand that I think.  In the words of Tali'Zorah though "I understand where you're coming from.  I dont agree with it.  But I understand"

[whykikyouwhy]

@Aradace - That's just my guess on the matter. Personally, I like a little shadow with my light. I trust the shadows more.

[Vormaerin]

csfteeeer wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
At least with Hawke, you don't feel like your companions are more important to the plot than you are (except maybe Anders, but then he's a villain).

Lol.
Then what would have happened if Varric didn't appear out of nowhere all like "Hey, you're a guy i don't know.....so you wanna team up to go to this expedition?"

You aren't a guy he doesn't know.  Or, at least, not a guy he doesn't know of.  You just spent a year making a name for yourself in the lower quarters where Varric hangs out.  That's why he offers you a place...they need the money and they need the muscle.

[Aradace]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Aradace - That's just my guess on the matter. Personally, I like a little shadow with my light. I trust the shadows more.

The issue I take with these typical happy endings is that you can see them coming a mile away.   I like to be surprised when the ending comes.  Take AC II for example (perhaps a bad example for some but hey, I like AC so deal ) When Minerva was speaking with Ezio and then turned directly into the camera and said "The rest is up to you, Desmond".  I actually said the exact same thing Desmond did at that point "What the ****?"  So yea, I guess you could say I like WTF endings, or at the very least an ending that you cant see coming a mile off.

Modifié par Aradace, 17 août 2011 - 04:33 .

[Monica21]

Aradace wrote...
But to recap, I just dont understand the obsession with the "yay!!! we won!!" endings. Do people honestly think so little of their own lives and such that they have to look to a game to provide them with a "happy" ending? Im pretty sure that's not it because from what ive seen here, most folks dont seem to have those kinds of issues. So my second guess is that apparently, when these people were read to as children, their parents only read them the "Knights and Heroes" tales where the hero always saves the day and/or gets the girl so that's what they've come to expect in "every" fantasy setting? If not either of those options, then what? I honestly dont get it, it seems.

I couldn't give a damn if the ending is happy or not, I just want a well-written ending and I didn't get that. There are flimsy reasons for Orsino's transformation, and really, if the guy was that susceptible should he even have been First Enchanter in the first place? There is no reason (as far as I can tell) for Meredith's sword.

That's what I mean when I say I want a good ending. I think there was a lot of interesting potential but no follow through.

[csfteeeer]

Vormaerin wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
At least with Hawke, you don't feel like your companions are more important to the plot than you are (except maybe Anders, but then he's a villain).

Lol.
Then what would have happened if Varric didn't appear out of nowhere all like "Hey, you're a guy i don't know.....so you wanna team up to go to this expedition?"

You aren't a guy he doesn't know.  Or, at least, not a guy he doesn't know of.  You just spent a year making a name for yourself in the lower quarters where Varric hangs out.  That's why he offers you a place...they need the money and they need the muscle.

Not my point.

What would have happened if Varric wasn't there?, if it's so true that the companions are not more important than Hawke.

[Aradace]

Monica21 wrote...

Aradace wrote...
But to recap, I just dont understand the obsession with the "yay!!! we won!!" endings. Do people honestly think so little of their own lives and such that they have to look to a game to provide them with a "happy" ending? Im pretty sure that's not it because from what ive seen here, most folks dont seem to have those kinds of issues. So my second guess is that apparently, when these people were read to as children, their parents only read them the "Knights and Heroes" tales where the hero always saves the day and/or gets the girl so that's what they've come to expect in "every" fantasy setting? If not either of those options, then what? I honestly dont get it, it seems.

I couldn't give a damn if the ending is happy or not, I just want a well-written ending and I didn't get that. There are flimsy reasons for Orsino's transformation, and really, if the guy was that susceptible should he even have been First Enchanter in the first place? There is no reason (as far as I can tell) for Meredith's sword.

That's what I mean when I say I want a good ending. I think there was a lot of interesting potential but no follow through.

I agree with the Orsino and Meredith aspects.  Both of those events could have used a little more "care" when being applied.  However, for me, it wasnt enough to ruin the ending or the experience as a whole. 

[nitefyre410]

Aradace wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Aradace - That's just my guess on the matter. Personally, I like a little shadow with my light. I trust the shadows more.

The issue I take with these typical happy endings is that you can see them coming a mile away.   I like to be surprised when the ending comes.  Take AC II for example (perhaps a bad example for some but hey, I like AC so deal ) When Minerva was speaking with Ezio and then turned directly into the camera and said "The rest is up to you, Desmond".  I actually said the exact same thing Desmond did at that point "What the ****?"  So yea, I guess you could say I like WTF endings, or at the very least an ending that you cant see coming a mile off.

 



That is a great example  actually

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I meant more in terms of how Hawke is inhibited at times, i.e. "Sheparding Wolves" and "Legacy," where Hawke let's the antagonist walk away even though the person is dangerous,  

How demonstrably dangerous was petrice at that point? Not very IMHO. As for Legacy you're misrepresenting it, Hawke didn't let a dangerous being go, he didn't know he was that dangerous being, you can argue that he should have picked up on it but thats different from what you're implying here, and you would have to acknowledge that your opinion is a long way from being universal. IMHO you're confusing whats presented to the player and what the characters ingame should pick up on.

I don't care how dangerous Petrice seemed at the moment, she tried to get Hawke and his companions killed to start a religious war with the Qunari, and he has killed people for much, much less. Hawke letting Petrice walk away was completely stupid, and is what allowed her to murder several Qunari, as a direct result of Hawke's inaction.

Also, I'm not misrepresenting anything about the conclusion of Legacy - it's another example of Hawke letting the villain walk away. Hawke can address directly that Lanius has changed dramatically - his posture, his voice, and he even starts talking like Corypheus. If the writers of Legacy were supposed to make me see Hawke as a dim-witted fool, they succeeded.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, I'm not misrepresenting anything about the conclusion of Legacy - it's another example of Hawke letting the villain walk away. Hawke can address directly that Lanius has changed dramatically - his posture, his voice, and he even starts talking like Corypheus. If the writers of Legacy were supposed to make me see Hawke as a dim-witted fool, they succeeded.

Well, you can't say that protrayal of Hawke isn't consisted. He's frankly a dim-witted fool as you put it almost from the time he steps off the boat but is so good at killing, he can get away with it (that and some judicious metagaming on BW's part such as the Templars failing to notice battlemagic in their OWN COURTYARD!)

The problem is, I personally don't think playing a dim witted fool is much fun.

-Polaris

[Aradace]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, I'm not misrepresenting anything about the conclusion of Legacy - it's another example of Hawke letting the villain walk away. Hawke can address directly that Lanius has changed dramatically - his posture, his voice, and he even starts talking like Corypheus. If the writers of Legacy were supposed to make me see Hawke as a dim-witted fool, they succeeded.

Well, you can't say that protrayal of Hawke isn't consisted. He's frankly a dim-witted fool as you put it almost from the time he steps off the boat but is so good at killing, he can get away with it (that and some judicious metagaming on BW's part such as the Templars failing to notice battlemagic in their OWN COURTYARD!)

The problem is, I personally don't think playing a dim witted fool is much fun.

-Polaris

If you want a game that pays that much attention to detail, then perhaps BW games are no longer for  you.  I suggest finding a game that has some sort of faction system.  Such as Morrowind (If memory serves) and Oblivion.  Because it's obvious you arent happy playing a game where ANY metagaming is involved.

[Vormaerin]

TheAwesomologist wrote...
100% of what Hawke does is because Flemeth tapped him on the shoulder.

According to Flemeth, tis the other way around.   Flemeth taps him on the shoulder because he's important.  But that's really beside the point.  Flemeth doesn't give you a magic ID card saying "look, act like Hawke's a hero"

People in DAO only listen to you because you are a gray warden.  Not because of anything you personally do.   You are completely interchangeable with every other Gray Warden.  Yes, you are a hero and badass and all that.  But that's not why anyone listens to you.  Its because of your warden status, the treaty papers, and Alistair.  Hawke isn't powerless and he doesn't have any external crutch (warden treaties) to make himself a factor in what happens. 

DA2 could have been much better executed.  There's no denying that.  I would have liked to have done some quests and/or some kind of interactive thing with the gaps between Acts.  But its still true that you spend a year making a name for yourself before you are well enough known to go freelance.   And even then, most of the city ignores you until you get rich and famous on a quest.

I liked both games.  I liked the gameplay (fighting, character building) and type of story in DA2 more.  DAO's larger budget shows, of course.  There's polish elements lacking all over the place in DA2.   But I disagree that Hawke is powerless or that Origins has choice and non linearity that DA2 lacks.

[Vormaerin]

csfteeeer wrote...

Not my point.

What would have happened if Varric wasn't there?, if it's so true that the companions are not more important than Hawke.

So if they make a companion a quest giver, he's automatically more important than the PC?   What?

[whykikyouwhy]

Hawke as. "Dim-witted fool" takes us back to expecttion and perspective. I didn't see Hawke like that. I didn't see her as "letting the villain walk away." Not to trample over the no spoiler tag (at least no more than already done), at the end of Legacy, there wasn't enough there to make Hawke do more than question, wonder and then walk on. The clues were visible for the player, yes, but that's a matter of meta, I suspect - our amalgalm of previous games and codex knowledge etc.

Were there decisions/options that I would have liked to have been made available to Hawke? Sure. But the lack of them did not skew my perception of her so much that I felt she was a fool. She was thrust into dire circumstances, pushed along with the current, but had opportunities to do the best possible in those circumstances. The choices, rather, the options, weren't always black and white. That didn't so much make her a fool as it made her human.

[IanPolaris]

Aradace wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, I'm not misrepresenting anything about the conclusion of Legacy - it's another example of Hawke letting the villain walk away. Hawke can address directly that Lanius has changed dramatically - his posture, his voice, and he even starts talking like Corypheus. If the writers of Legacy were supposed to make me see Hawke as a dim-witted fool, they succeeded.

Well, you can't say that protrayal of Hawke isn't consisted. He's frankly a dim-witted fool as you put it almost from the time he steps off the boat but is so good at killing, he can get away with it (that and some judicious metagaming on BW's part such as the Templars failing to notice battlemagic in their OWN COURTYARD!)

The problem is, I personally don't think playing a dim witted fool is much fun.

-Polaris

If you want a game that pays that much attention to detail, then perhaps BW games are no longer for  you.  I suggest finding a game that has some sort of faction system.  Such as Morrowind (If memory serves) and Oblivion.  Because it's obvious you arent happy playing a game where ANY metagaming is involved.

That is simply bullpucky.  All I ask is that I not be asked to play a moron and there have been reams of cases where Hawke even by modern CRPG standards is so hemmed in by the story as to come across as dimwitted at best.

-Polaris

[alex90c]

Vormaerin wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Not my point.

What would have happened if Varric wasn't there?, if it's so true that the companions are not more important than Hawke.

So if they make a companion a quest giver, he's automatically more important than the PC?   What?

Varric offers to work with Hawke to get him to the Deep Roads.

Varric not doing that (keeping Hawke updated, e.g. about Deep Roads maps by Anders) means Hawke doesn't go on the expedition.

= Varric more important than Hawke.

= Hawke is once again shown to be an ineffectual wanker.