551 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

@Aradace - are you saying that I rolled well for Diplomacy? : ) Thank you for the compliment but I would rather lay low in the shadows then have to make speeches.

I just enjoy when there's solid civil discourse. Too much "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you have to say" gets tiring. We're all here for *some* shred of love for that which is DA, so common ground, etc etc.

[Aradace]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@Aradace - are you saying that I rolled well for Diplomacy? : ) Thank you for the compliment but I would rather lay low in the shadows then have to make speeches.

I just enjoy when there's solid civil discourse. Too much "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you have to say" gets tiring. We're all here for *some* shred of love for that which is DA, so common ground, etc etc.

Me thinks you rolled a nat 20 on that diplomacy roll lol.

[Giubba]

Lestatman wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Lestatman wrote...


A good example of this and I am aware this is a no spoiler section is that no matter how powerful Hawke is he/she can't always save the day like some superhero. There is a specific storyline near the end of Act 2 which demonstrates this very well.

And putting the warden in that exact scenario, it'd play out the exact same way as it does for Hawke.

You might be right but I get the feeling that if the Warden had come up against the quest which involves the White Lily we might and I stress might have been given a choice as to how this quest line would have ended rather than they way it ended for Hawke but you could also be right it's just one of those things we could speculate.

I agree with Lestatman point of view.
In the end the Warden fells like the usual Hero able to overturn any kind of situation no matter what are the odds against him, it's a classic for fantasy main character but it's a scheme that is overabused.

Still funny if done correctly neverthless used to th bone.

[Aradace]

Giubba1985 wrote...

Lestatman wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Lestatman wrote...


A good example of this and I am aware this is a no spoiler section is that no matter how powerful Hawke is he/she can't always save the day like some superhero. There is a specific storyline near the end of Act 2 which demonstrates this very well.

And putting the warden in that exact scenario, it'd play out the exact same way as it does for Hawke.

You might be right but I get the feeling that if the Warden had come up against the quest which involves the White Lily we might and I stress might have been given a choice as to how this quest line would have ended rather than they way it ended for Hawke but you could also be right it's just one of those things we could speculate.

I agree with Lestatman point of view.
In the end the Warden fells like the usual Hero able to overturn any kind of situation no matter what are the odds against him, it's a classic for fantasy main character but it's a scheme that is overabused.

Still funny if done correctly neverthless used to th bone.

^And the bolded part is precisely why, for me at least, that I felt I could "relate" better to Hawke than the warden.  The Warden just felt way to cliche.  Where as Hawke felt "mortal".

[LobselVith8]

Isn't the problem with the White Lily killer that it required people to hold the idiot ball long enough that no one (Hawke included) was able to find a simple wooden hatch, Lestatman? I think the difference between The Warden and Hawke is that the Plot forced Hawke to hold the idiot ball quite a bit.

[TheAwesomologist]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@TheAwesomologist - I think Flemeth would have "survived" regardless. Hawke's errand, I suspect, was to set certain things in motion and maybe to show that Hawke could keep her end of the bargain - who knows what might have happened had Hawke not gone to Sundermount. Maybe she would have been barbequed along with some darkspawn (no one need cheer at that idea).

I think what may be part of the issue for a lot of players is perception and expectation. Some people expected an epic rise to power, but the rise to power was literal (refugee to noble to champion). Some people may have expected Hawke to change the world, but changes did occur to varying degrees and not all of them have manifested themselves in the game thus far.

I'm not saying that no one had a right to be disappointed or upset. I'm not saying one person's perception of what should have happened is better or more valid than anyone else's. But I think we can agree that we, as players, have approached the game from slightly different angles and we'll have our praise or our complaints (or both).

Personally, I felt that Hawke was a strong figure in the microcosm that was Kirkwall, just as the Warden was a strong figure in Fereldan. Different degrees, yes, and different plot arcs yet to be revealed/unveiled. I guess I just want to see how it all pans out.

I can't really argue with much of what you've said, one of the many reasons I tend to respect your posts btw. I've said before that much of Act 2 is enjoyable. Yes there's a rise to power, but once again not much of it has to do with Hawke or actions the player choses to take.

Act 3 however still makes very little sense to me. Why did Hawke sit idle for 3 years? Why is every mage in Kirkwall batshiat crazy? (and no, just because Kirkwall is cursed or whatever you learn via random bits of codex is not a valid explanation to in game events. Don't tell me, show me.) When did Thrask take stupid pills after I've spent the last 6 years helping him out? Why do I only JUST get to meet Orsino and Meredith when there are about 2 hours left in the game and then why am I suddenly their errand boy? What level of power does the champion actually have besides looking good in some snazzy armor? Why did Orsino give up hope when Hawke and Co were able to prevent any templar from leaving the hall let alone into the square part of the room? Why is Cullen so incompetent that when I take Anders to the Gallows and mention that he's plotting something yet Cullen does nothing (the same Cullen that had no trouble taking my sister away mind you)?

Don't even get me started on the Templar side...

Act 3 was a mess story-wise and seemed to do everything in its power to kill any enjoyment I had in the first 2 acts. It actively sought out ways to belittle any of Hawke's accomplishments. That's a failure in the game's writing and storytelling.

[Uccio]

Ramza_1 wrote...

I think one of the reasons DA2 is less enjoyable is that Hawke is powerless.  Many people have made the point already that nothing he does matters.  In act 3, for example, you can choose to side with the mages or the templars, but it makes zero difference in terms of gameplay or results to the world.  You still fight bajillions of blood mages demons, Orsino still somehow becomes the Harvester from the DAO golems dlc, and you still fight meredith. 

The other reason Hawke feels powerless is because of the bloated combat.  After killing the 1000th faceless bandit, its more like mowing the lawn than overcoming powerful and worthy foes. 

Also, I noticed that in DAO all the human enemies used the same ruleset as you.  Enemy mages used the same spells, had reasonable hp for a pc mage, and the challenge was in their AI.  Emissaries, for example, were really scary when they would use fireball on your clumped up group.  The enemies felt like a threat, but also could be delt with because the rules they functioned by were the same as yours. 

In DA2 it feels more gamey, less like your beating a foe and more like overcoming a silly mechanic of the game because the enemies play by different rules than you; the bosses are ridiculous hp sponges that sit there and wave their swords around generating some weird aura while you stab them in the face for 30 minutes.  The mages sit there with their hp sponges and cast ineffective charging spells rather than just using fireball like you do.  Also everyone is a paratrooper.

Furthermore, almost every foe you kill in DA2 is characterized by some kind of extreme.  They are all completely fascist templars, insane blood mages, greed-possessed thugs, and all are one-dimensional and unmemorable.  There are no truly great adversaries with complex motivations.  I swear every mage is whiny or insane, and all sound victimized.  If you play through with a sarcastic Hawke overtone, you will notice that there are MANY lines where all hawke does is say "your insane" or "great, another crazy" or "why is everyone I meet crazy".  The reason this is so is because there is basically nothing else appropriate for hawke to say. 

You don't feel powerful unless you use skill and wit to overcome worthy foes.  There ARE NO worthy villains in DA2.  Mages act like wimps or are insane.  Even end game bosses, like Orsino and Meredith, are just one dimensional crazies.  Orsino would have been a much more interesting boss fight if he had just behaved how an archmage should- by using every spell in the damned game intelligently.  Please see the end fight against Irenicus in BG2 for an example.  I felt badass after beating irenicus. 

Quoted for truth. + the bolded made me chuckle.

[whykikyouwhy]

@TheAwesomologist - Much obliged for your kind words.

I think many folks saw Act 3 as rushed and ripe with inconsistencies. I would have loved to have seen some involvement from Meredith and Orsino earlier as well, other than their brief cameos. Who are they? What makes them tick? Etc.

As for why the mages all seem batsh*t crazy - I think that may have been done to reflect and amplify the general attitude towards mages in Kirkwall. It's a long way from the Circle in Fereldan, it's a different world almost. Fear is thick in the air, apostates aren't trusted to go to the corner for a bottle of milk let alone go get their trousers mended. It may nothave been handled or executed in the most fluid way, but that was the impression that I got - that once you entered Kirkwall, you were entering a place where mages were the perceived enemy, and therefore it became a much more difficult decision to side with them. Otherwise, it might have been too easy - "oh, they're being subjegated and oppressed. I have to support them!"

All in all though, I was pulled into the story and I found Hawke to be relatable. There was just a whole lot of crazy in Kirkwall, on many levels. Even the most stalwart and powerful hero would find it a mess and a challenge, I would think. Or they would just wind up in the Hanged Man, sipping that rat-flavored whiskey.

[Aradace]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

 Or they would just wind up in the Hanged Man, sipping that rat-flavored whiskey.

Alistair cameo much? lol

[Elhanan]

harkness72 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Thanks, but again some seem to misperceive the message: Humor; not arrogance. But seeing as some are more involved with the latter rather than that of the former, such mistakes are understandable.

DA2 is a fine game; the OP has a different opinion. Play the game to form your own.

Actually I have played the game, twice, to get the two (count em') different endings. Despite claiming you were trying to be humorous, the final sentence of the last post is filled with ingnorance and arrogance. How do you know what I have and haven't played? 

Also, would you mind clarifying how "some" are more involved with arrogance than homour? 

If one reads carefully. I gave my opinion, and that of the OP. The latter part is directed at all others.

Do you still require an answer to how some seem more arrogant?

EDIT: Partial confusion to multiple complainers using Loghain avatars. I still recommend playing the game to give an informed opinion on gameplay issues.

Modifié par Elhanan, 16 août 2011 - 07:45 .

[TheAwesomologist]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@TheAwesomologist - Much obliged for your kind words.

I think many folks saw Act 3 as rushed and ripe with inconsistencies. I would have loved to have seen some involvement from Meredith and Orsino earlier as well, other than their brief cameos. Who are they? What makes them tick? Etc.

As for why the mages all seem batsh*t crazy - I think that may have been done to reflect and amplify the general attitude towards mages in Kirkwall. It's a long way from the Circle in Fereldan, it's a different world almost. Fear is thick in the air, apostates aren't trusted to go to the corner for a bottle of milk let alone go get their trousers mended. It may nothave been handled or executed in the most fluid way, but that was the impression that I got - that once you entered Kirkwall, you were entering a place where mages were the perceived enemy, and therefore it became a much more difficult decision to side with them. Otherwise, it might have been too easy - "oh, they're being subjegated and oppressed. I have to support them!"

All in all though, I was pulled into the story and I found Hawke to be relatable. There was just a whole lot of crazy in Kirkwall, on many levels. Even the most stalwart and powerful hero would find it a mess and a challenge, I would think. Or they would just wind up in the Hanged Man, sipping that rat-flavored whiskey.

I won't argue that the game couldn't be found enjoyable. In the end, yes DA2 was "enjoyable", but so is breakfast most days. DA2 is still better than a lot of games out there, but in the end I simply expect better than this from Bioware. We all have our mistakes and misses. Here's hoping DA3 will be a better game.

[Aradace]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@TheAwesomologist - Much obliged for your kind words.

I think many folks saw Act 3 as rushed and ripe with inconsistencies. I would have loved to have seen some involvement from Meredith and Orsino earlier as well, other than their brief cameos. Who are they? What makes them tick? Etc.

As for why the mages all seem batsh*t crazy - I think that may have been done to reflect and amplify the general attitude towards mages in Kirkwall. It's a long way from the Circle in Fereldan, it's a different world almost. Fear is thick in the air, apostates aren't trusted to go to the corner for a bottle of milk let alone go get their trousers mended. It may nothave been handled or executed in the most fluid way, but that was the impression that I got - that once you entered Kirkwall, you were entering a place where mages were the perceived enemy, and therefore it became a much more difficult decision to side with them. Otherwise, it might have been too easy - "oh, they're being subjegated and oppressed. I have to support them!"

All in all though, I was pulled into the story and I found Hawke to be relatable. There was just a whole lot of crazy in Kirkwall, on many levels. Even the most stalwart and powerful hero would find it a mess and a challenge, I would think. Or they would just wind up in the Hanged Man, sipping that rat-flavored whiskey.

I won't argue that the game couldn't be found enjoyable. In the end, yes DA2 was "enjoyable", but so is breakfast most days. DA2 is still better than a lot of games out there, but in the end I simply expect better than this from Bioware. We all have our mistakes and misses. Here's hoping DA3 will be a better game.

Another great thing about diversity of opinions is that there are some folks who feel that way about Origins and find DA2 to be the better of the two games.  I for one, when put next to DA2, found Origins to be, as you described "Enjoyable" like breakfast is most days.  But in the end, I found myself almost literally (even on nightmare) sleeping though most battles in Origins.  It's the combat in DA2 that sold me more than anything else.

[King Cousland]

Elhanan wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Thanks, but again some seem to misperceive the message: Humor; not arrogance. But seeing as some are more involved with the latter rather than that of the former, such mistakes are understandable.

DA2 is a fine game; the OP has a different opinion. Play the game to form your own.

Actually I have played the game, twice, to get the two (count em') different endings. Despite claiming you were trying to be humorous, the final sentence of the last post is filled with ingnorance and arrogance. How do you know what I have and haven't played? 

Also, would you mind clarifying how "some" are more involved with arrogance than homour? 

If one reads carefully. I gave my opinion, and that of the OP. The latter part is directed at all others.

Do you still require an answer to how some seem more arrogant?

EDIT: Partial confusion to multiple complainers using Loghain avatars. I still recommend playing the game to give an informed opinion on gameplay issues.

So, are you talking to me or another person with a Loghain avatar? If your are talking to me, you'd know (if one reads carefully ) that I have played the game.  

Modifié par harkness72, 16 août 2011 - 07:58 .

[TheAwesomologist]

Aradace wrote...

Another great thing about diversity of opinions is that there are some folks who feel that way about Origins and find DA2 to be the better of the two games.  I for one, when put next to DA2, found Origins to be, as you described "Enjoyable" like breakfast is most days.  But in the end, I found myself almost literally (even on nightmare) sleeping though most battles in Origins.  It's the combat in DA2 that sold me more than anything else.

I enjoyed the combat in DA2 for the most part. I did not like ninja waves as a way of adding difficulty though. I'd rather have difficult enemies (Legacy added more in the way of Genlock and hurlock alpha's, also they used more ranged enemies and waves that made sense).
Faster combat is fun. Hawke swing Bloom around like a toothpick... eh, a little too anime for me.
I didn't find combat in DA2 tactically engaging though, especially as an Archer or a Warrior who can plough through enemies like butter. Toss in CCC's and combat becomes that boring thing that gets in the way of the story. Tactically CCC's were just a matter of setting up the right script for my companions which means in a fight I'm only pausing to target creatures out of my field of view as opposed to setting up combos or requesting specific powers to be used. In DA:O I actually switched between characters much more often and it wasn't rare to have an ally drop. In DA2, on Hardcore on my first play through I got the Achievement of making it through an Act without suffering an injury.

But that may just be me and how I play. I'd like it if DA games offered a higher difficulty that didn't just involve dodging my allies attacks.

[Lestatman]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Isn't the problem with the White Lily killer that it required people to hold the idiot ball long enough that no one (Hawke included) was able to find a simple wooden hatch, Lestatman? I think the difference between The Warden and Hawke is that the Plot forced Hawke to hold the idiot ball quite a bit.

Erm ... on my 1st ever walkthrough I guess I did hold the idiot ball lol.

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...

Hawke did have power: over choice.

Without Hawke, Kirkwall might still be under the tyranical rule of Meredith, the fraudulent influence of Orsino, or the heavily demonic corruption caused by other powerful beings in the region.

Without Hawke and the end of Act I Meredith and Orsino might still be at loggerheads, but she was not ruling the city. The mage/templar conflict might very well have happened at Starkhaven instead, which seems to be much more of a hotbed of unrest than Kirkwall is, at least in Act I.

Hawke could choose to allow freedom for the innocent, or those more aligned with murder.
Hawke could help influence his comapanions, and their POV of life.

Hawke could have romance, or wait.

Hawke could allow street crime to flourish, or deal with it.

Hawke could even return the smallest articles of treasured mementoes to their owners, or not.

Small or large, choices are still choices; Hawke simply could not master the destiny of war.

None of these things change anything or amount to a "rise to power" at all. Your rise to power isn't much more than stumbling into something lucky.

[Realmzmaster]

Monica21 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Hawke did have power: over choice.

Without Hawke, Kirkwall might still be under the tyranical rule of Meredith, the fraudulent influence of Orsino, or the heavily demonic corruption caused by other powerful beings in the region.

Without Hawke and the end of Act I Meredith and Orsino might still be at loggerheads, but she was not ruling the city. The mage/templar conflict might very well have happened at Starkhaven instead, which seems to be much more of a hotbed of unrest than Kirkwall is, at least in Act I.

Hawke could choose to allow freedom for the innocent, or those more aligned with murder.
Hawke could help influence his comapanions, and their POV of life.

Hawke could have romance, or wait.

Hawke could allow street crime to flourish, or deal with it.

Hawke could even return the smallest articles of treasured mementoes to their owners, or not.

Small or large, choices are still choices; Hawke simply could not master the destiny of war.

None of these things change anything or amount to a "rise to power" at all. Your rise to power isn't much more than stumbling into something lucky.

Interesting! If my memory of history is correct most people's rise to power was due to luck or a lucky occurrance. It can be about being at the right place at the right time. Luck plays a part in any rise to power, because there are always factors outside the person's control.

In fact those outside forces can cause anything the person chooses to have no effect. No matter what choice is made the outcome remains the same.

That is why some forum mates feel Hawke is powerless. Maybe because it is too close to real life. Many of us like to think our choices make a difference and get frustrated when the outcome is the same no matter what is done.

Gamers want the choices they make to have a big epic impact on the game. I like DA2 because it is more personal and the choices I make are not epic, but affect or do not affect the individual.

Some gamers want their choices to have a more far reaching effect rather than an immediate effect. In the quest Dissent you have an choice at the end that will effect someone's life depending on the adive Hawke gives. The result of that advice is seen at the end of Act II. It affects one individual that Hawke came in contact.

But this is my opinion.

[Elhanan]

Monica21 wrote...

Without Hawke and the end of Act I Meredith and Orsino might still be at loggerheads, but she was not ruling the city. The mage/templar conflict might very well have happened at Starkhaven instead, which seems to be much more of a hotbed of unrest than Kirkwall is, at least in Act I.

None of these things change anything or amount to a "rise to power" at all. Your rise to power isn't much more than stumbling into something lucky.

Reason I use wording like'may', and 'might', as I am not the author. But seeing what did unfold in the story, it would appear that Hawke as the Chamion was indeed the most powerful character in Kirkwall; just not powerful enough to alter the destiny of war.

A partial quote of something I posted later:

"The OP offered the usual rant that major events had no consequence, but also stated that nothing mattered. I agreed that Hawke could not alter the main storyline; the conflict of Chantry vs Circles. But there is power in every choice on the way, on the kind of person Hawke will be in getting to the end game.

Currently, I am attempting to play a Mage that will eventually side with the Templars. The motivation I am trying to use is love of family, and trying to mend relationships. And I am also trying to finally explore the more harsh responses to see what occurs with Intimidation, but am finding that path extremly difficult as to who and when to choose those replies. My current rule of thumb is to be gracious or humoress with allies, but offer stone cold responses to foes.

The point is that all those small choices matter, whether they affect moral, friendship, rivalry, or not. Sometimes the replies simply do not mesh with the RP concept I wished to use. Sometimes there is no effect IG at all; just a greater or weaker gaming experience. And I contend that even that matters.

Plus, I am all for the final storyline, as this was a motivation for several of my DAO characters going forward; not even knowing the events of DA2 at the time. Those choices now seem more important, though they were only small ones at the time."

Smaller choices in DAO now become more meaningful in DA2. While I have no idea if the same can be said of DA2 choices, I do contend that that each choice has consequence; time will tell if they will become more meaningful than personal moral decisions, and the like.

[FieryDove]

Realmzmaster wrote...

That is why some forum mates feel Hawke is powerless. Maybe because it is too close to real life. Many of us like to think our choices make a difference and get frustrated when the outcome is the same no matter what is done.

Gamers want the choices they make to have a big epic impact on the game. I like DA2 because it is more personal and the choices I make are not epic, but affect or do not affect the individual.

It might also have something to do with what was promised. Not just a rise to *power* but more powerful/important than the warden or the most important person in Thedas etc.

Nowhere that I can recall did it say you will rise to power and be the most important person by DA3/4/5, it was advertised for this game.

Not to mention every decision we make will shape the world.

Now we can all blame the marketing department but things like this get handed down from on high in the Bioware/EA chain of command yes?

I am just pointing out some other possible reasons.

Modifié par FieryDove, 16 août 2011 - 09:42 .

[LobselVith8]

Lestatman wrote...

Erm... On my 1st ever walkthrough I guess I did hold the idiot ball lol.

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, or how Hawke and the City Guard aren't able to locate a simple hatch across the span of three years until the plot dictates Hawke finds it (Quentin's lair). It makes Hawke look more than a little foolish, and I think it's a mistake. Hawke doesn't need to be treated as though he sustained brain damage in order to deal with trials and tribulations.

Earlier I had mentioned the "rise to power" and how Hamilton and Laidlaw talked about how Hawke would play an important role and be able to shape Kirkwall with each of his actions, but we don't see that in the context of the story - our actions as Hawke aren't shaping Kirkwall in response to particular actions, and Aveline has a point when she says Hawke is little more than a highwayman who stumbled onto being Champion. I guess I was hoping that Hawke would be able to obtain his power through his intelligence, rather than (in Carver's words) punching his way to a title he seems to do nothing with for years.

[Monica21]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Interesting! If my memory of history is correct most people's rise to power was due to luck or a lucky occurrance. It can be about being at the right place at the right time. Luck plays a part in any rise to power, because there are always factors outside the person's control.

Then you have a poor memory of history. Alexander the Great didn't get the title because he stumbled across a few kingdoms waving a sword. Heck, Donald Trump didn't get to be rich because he found a unknown Monet in his parents' garage. It takes a significant amount of planning, execution, and foresight to be great. Hawke has none of that. Hawke saved some sovereigns and got lucky. That's pretty much it.

I would have liked to have seen much more planning and more foresight, or at least some evidence of forethought on Hawke's part instead of just some bumbling around Kirkwall.

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...

You can imagine all the UNCREATED-BY-THE-DEVS consequences... in your head.   But they don't exist outside of it, and therefore, they don't exist in DA2.

By the same token there are no consequences to any choice in DAO.

[Aradace]

Morroian wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

You can imagine all the UNCREATED-BY-THE-DEVS consequences... in your head.   But they don't exist outside of it, and therefore, they don't exist in DA2.

By the same token there are no consequences to any choice in DAO.

^QFT.  You can almost guarantee that little to none of the choices you made in DAO will have any kind of true impact on Thedas in the next DA game.  In the grand scheme of things, your choices are just as meaningless in Origins as they are in DA2.

[King Cousland]

Morroian wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

You can imagine all the UNCREATED-BY-THE-DEVS consequences... in your head.   But they don't exist outside of it, and therefore, they don't exist in DA2.

By the same token there are no consequences to any choice in DAO.

Actaully, there are. There's lots of them. Even if it's only mentioned in the epilogue, there's at least some acknowledgement. There is very little in DAII, despite promises prior to release.   

[Aradace]

harkness72 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

You can imagine all the UNCREATED-BY-THE-DEVS consequences... in your head.   But they don't exist outside of it, and therefore, they don't exist in DA2.

By the same token there are no consequences to any choice in DAO.

Actaully, there are. There's lots of them. Even if it's only mentioned in the epilogue, there's at least some acknowledgement. There is very little in DAII, despite promises prior to release.   

yes but most of those choices have little to no bearing on DA2.  Which means it's very likely theyll have little to no impact on DA3.