551 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

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.   

I sort of touched upon this earlier, but is it possible that the perception of consequences may have something to do, if only in part, with the size of the world within each game? You have a much broader map to play with in DA:O - more villages/towns/etc. More people to encounter, more ruins to explore, more trouble to get into.

In DA2, the world is smaller - it's seemingly just Kirkwall. A lot happens, yes, but the feel and scope is reduced. And a lot of what happens in Kirkwall is political, which is inherently more difficult to track by miles tread or loot acquired.

So too, DA2 didn't have the epilogue that DA:O had. We didn't get the scrolling updates. It was left as a sort of cliffhanger.

[Morroian]

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.

[Morroian]

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.   

Epilogue slide mentions are not consequences. None of them will have an effect on the world going forward therefore there are no real consequences.

[Elhanan]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

"Much like his contemporary Lord Nelson, Napoleon had no advantage of birth, or family wealth and all that he was later to achieve was due to his own ability and a large amount of being in the right place at the right time"

. http://www.historyof...e_napoleon.html

You say potato, I say tater; endless example debate

[Paper420]

I fully agree with OP, and sure this topic is old, regardless DA2 was a rushed game.

[King Cousland]

Elhanan wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

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.

"Much like his contemporary Lord Nelson, Napoleon had no advantage of birth, or family wealth and all that he was later to achieve was due to his own ability and a large amount of being in the right place at the right time"

. http://www.historyof...e_napoleon.html

You say potato, I say tater; endless example debate

Pahaha! His family was Corsican nobility! He was born to an extremely wealthy father who was a diplomat! 
http://www.bbc.co.uk..._napoleon.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon 

http://www.bbc.co.uk..._napoleon.shtml
I could list more sources, but I think I've made my point. However, your argument is flawed. Hawke was not born into wealth despite his mother being Kirkwall nobility. But without the Blight, they never woud have gone to Kirkwall. Without Varric, they never would have made it out of Lowtown (another example of companions being more important). I could go on...

Modifié par harkness72, 16 août 2011 - 11:26 .

[King Cousland]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par harkness72, 16 août 2011 - 11:25 .

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

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.

"Much like his contemporary Lord Nelson, Napoleon had no advantage of birth, or family wealth and all that he was later to achieve was due to his own ability and a large amount of being in the right place at the right time"

. http://www.historyof...e_napoleon.html

You say potato, I say tater; endless example debate

That's a terrible example, Elhanan. I know you can do better. Napoleon is one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. (Except for that bit about never getting involved in a land war in Asia.) He lost his realm once only to regain it. That's not planning and forethought? He just stumbled into his success? Napoleon didn't simply get lucky and be at the right place at the right time, he was a master tactician. Lottery winners are in the right place at the right time, not people who've had almost as many books written about them as Jesus.

Modifié par Monica21, 17 août 2011 - 12:05 .

[Monica21]

 I think the big problem with Hawke feeling powerless is that the story Varric tells is just the beginning of something. The story has promise, but how do you get to the end? You have to have two sides that somehow can't reach a resolution. I think the result was cheap and poorly executed despite the fact that it had a lot of potential, and what that turns into is a Hawke that ends up being carried on the waves rather than an actual force in anything. I think it would be much more interesting if, first, the decision was more satisfying, and second, if there was some kind of acknowledgement that some things can't be changed. The human side is much more interesting if you recognize its failings. Sometimes people just aren't heroes.

[Elhanan]

Monica21 wrote...

That's a terrible example, Elhanan. I know you can do better. Napoleon is one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. (Except for that bit about never getting involved in a land war in Asia.) He lost his realm once only to regain it. That's not planning and forethought? He just stumbled into his success? Napoleon didn't simply get lucky and be at the right place at the right time, he was a master tactician. Lottery winners are in the right place at the right time, not people who've had almost as many books written about them as Jesus.

True; ain't a historian. I just post what others have written.

However, while Napoleon may have come from wealth, it was being in the 'right place at the right time' that caught my eye, and the reason I posted that example.

From the Wiki (Rags to Riches):


[*]Fairy tales, such as Cinderella and Aladdin

[*]Genghis Khan who was homeless with just his mother and his siblings went on to create the largest land empire in history.

[*]The Roman Emperor Diocletian, born in poverty and whose father was a former slave (by some sources, the emperor himself was born in slavery) [1].

[*]The Arthurian story of Sir Gareth, who rises from a lowly kitchen boy to a prominent Knight of the Round Table.

[*]Pope Leo III was of commoner origin and attained the high position in spite of violent opposition from the nobility, who considered the papacy as their preserve.

Modifié par Elhanan, 17 août 2011 - 01:04 .

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...
True; ain't a historian. I just post what others have written.

However, while Napoleon may have come from wealth, it was being in the 'right place at the right time' that caught my eye, and the reason I posted that example.

From the Wiki (Rags to Riches):


[*]Fairy tales, such as Cinderella and Aladdin

[*]Genghis Khan who was homeless with just his mother and his siblings went on to create the largest land empire in history.

[*]The Roman Emperor Diocletian, born in poverty and whose father was a former slave (by some sources, the emperor himself was born in slavery) [1].

[*]The Arthurian story of Sir Gareth, who rises from a lowly kitchen boy to a prominent Knight of the Round Table.

[*]Pope Leo III was of commoner origin and attained the high position in spite of violent opposition from the nobility, who considered the papacy as their preserve.

Except DA2 isn't a rags to riches story. My point is that, fairy tales aside, things don't "just happen" to people. Nobody truly becomes great by sitting around and waiting for other people to ask them to do stuff. They have a plan and they take action. What action did Hawke take? Nothing. "Can you do X for me because Meredith is cracking down on Templars taking outside help?" "Can you talk to the Arishok because he asked for you?" Those things aren't action. 

I'm also not necessarily saying that it's A Bad Thing that Hawke is everyone's go-to girl. (Girl in my game, anyway.) I'm saying that the end was inevitable but I don't like how that inevitibality was portrayed.

[Elhanan]

Monica21 wrote...

Except DA2 isn't a rags to riches story. My point is that, fairy tales aside, things don't "just happen" to people. Nobody truly becomes great by sitting around and waiting for other people to ask them to do stuff. They have a plan and they take action. What action did Hawke take? Nothing. "Can you do X for me because Meredith is cracking down on Templars taking outside help?" "Can you talk to the Arishok because he asked for you?" Those things aren't action. 

I'm also not necessarily saying that it's A Bad Thing that Hawke is everyone's go-to girl. (Girl in my game, anyway.) I'm saying that the end was inevitable but I don't like how that inevitibality was portrayed.

As mentioned, endless example debate.Done.

You dislike it; other opinions differ, and folks like the OP continue to redux the entire thing.And  I liked Act 3; sue me.

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Except DA2 isn't a rags to riches story. My point is that, fairy tales aside, things don't "just happen" to people. Nobody truly becomes great by sitting around and waiting for other people to ask them to do stuff. They have a plan and they take action. What action did Hawke take? Nothing. "Can you do X for me because Meredith is cracking down on Templars taking outside help?" "Can you talk to the Arishok because he asked for you?" Those things aren't action. 

I'm also not necessarily saying that it's A Bad Thing that Hawke is everyone's go-to girl. (Girl in my game, anyway.) I'm saying that the end was inevitable but I don't like how that inevitibality was portrayed.

As mentioned, endless example debate.Done.

You dislike it; other opinions differ, and folks like the OP continue to redux the entire thing.And  I liked Act 3; sue me.

If your debate is really that this is a rags to riches story, then all I can say is .

As for Act 3, the point isn't whether or not you liked it or whether or not I liked it. The point is that the end had to be what it was. There had to be two sides that couldn't agree. Hawke was never supposed to be powerful beyond the Champion title and was never supposed to change the end. It's just like Cassandra said, Hawke was there at the beginning. Except what she's missing is that he's not much more than the most prominent figure in the story. If people think Hawke is powerless it's because he's supposed to be.

Modifié par Monica21, 17 août 2011 - 02:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

No, Donald Trump's father Fred Trump was already a real estate tycoon and developer. No rags to riches story. Even when declaring bankruptcy Trump was not poor. Alexander the Great was not a rags to riches story. His father was Phillip the Second of Macedon. Alexander the Great inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Your two examples started at a higher station than 99% of the population of their times. And Alexander acted upon the military expansion plans left by his father. So not my memory of history is quite intact.

[Harid]

Hawke's powerlessness to me, did not make me feel he deserved the Champion title, and he did little to prospectively deserve it in a lot of people's opinions. Ignoring the champion title, he doesn't deserve the statement that he was the most influential person in Dragon Age either, that Bioware gave him, especially given how he's been written so far, if Bioware is truly ending Hawke's story for Dragon Age 3, then they will have to make a large expansion to give a reason for Hawke to deserve such accolades.

I would also state that Chapter 3 did not have to end the way it did, because Bioware isn't going to really let us choose how this ends anyway; hardlining on both issues will lead to two entirely different universes that Bioware would have trouble making games for going forward. (If the mages win and shatter the Chantry, they would have to deal with making it so mages don't recreate the imperium, given Bioware has made Blood magic it's strongest magic class in game, and if the templars win, mages would get punished hard and have even less rights than they had before and would be locked in the circle, people would rat out apostates, there would be more templars, among other issues) Given this fact, there had to be some better way of causing this war anyway. Perhaps by building it properly and removing the Champion sub plot all together.

[Monica21]

Realmzmaster wrote...
No, Donald Trump's father Fred Trump was already a real estate tycoon and developer. No rags to riches story. Even when declaring bankruptcy Trump was not poor. Alexander the Great was not a rags to riches story. His father was Phillip the Second of Macedon. Alexander the Great inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Your two examples started at a higher station than 99% of the population of their times. And Alexander acted upon the military expansion plans left by his father. So not my memory of history is quite intact.

Point missed.

Where do you fail to see planning and execution in my examples? If Donald Trump sat around on his father's money he'd be sitting out summers at his house in the Hamptons instead of going out and building a bigger fortune. He didn't stumble into an even bigger pile of money, he planned to get an even bigger pile of money. Same with Alexander, except substitute land for money.

The point is entirely that Hawke is reactive. Hawke answers pleas for help and then stumbles into a ruin. It could have been a worthless ruin, but it wasn't. Then Hawke continues to answer pleas for help and stumbles into being the Champion, etc, etc. 

I'm not saying it's a bad story, I'm simply saying that the story is inevitable. The end had to be what it was so therefore Hawke had to be what he was. 

[Monica21]

Harid wrote...

Hawke's powerlessness to me, did not make me feel he deserved the Champion title, and he did little to prospectively deserve it in a lot of people's opinions. Ignoring the champion title, he doesn't deserve the statement that he was the most influential person in Dragon Age either, that Bioware gave him, especially given how he's been written so far, if Bioware is truly ending Hawke's story for Dragon Age 3, then they will have to make a large expansion to give a reason for Hawke to deserve such accolades.

I would disagree and say that he did deserve the Champion title if only because of what he did. But most influential person in Dragon Age? Definitely not. If anything, everyone else is influencing Hawke. 

I would also state that Chapter 3 did not have to end the way it did, because Bioware isn't going to really let us choose how this ends anyway; hardlining on both issues will lead to two entirely different universes that Bioware would have trouble making games for going forward. (If the mages win and shatter the Chantry, they would have to deal with making it so mages don't recreate the imperium, given Bioware has made Blood magic it's strongest magic class in game, and if the templars win, mages would get punished hard and have even less rights than they had before and would be locked in the circle, people would rat out apostates, there would be more templars, among other issues) Given this fact, there had to be some better way of causing this war anyway. Perhaps by building it properly and removing the Champion sub plot all together.

Eh, I kind of think Act 3 did have to end the way it did. Not with the specifics but with two sides who can't agree, at least the way I think they're taking the series. I think there definitely could have been a better way, but, now that I've had time to think about it, I can appreciate the direction and the new story without worrying about the parts that I didn't like.

[Harid]

Monica21 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
No, Donald Trump's father Fred Trump was already a real estate tycoon and developer. No rags to riches story. Even when declaring bankruptcy Trump was not poor. Alexander the Great was not a rags to riches story. His father was Phillip the Second of Macedon. Alexander the Great inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Your two examples started at a higher station than 99% of the population of their times. And Alexander acted upon the military expansion plans left by his father. So not my memory of history is quite intact.

Point missed.

Where do you fail to see planning and execution in my examples? If Donald Trump sat around on his father's money he'd be sitting out summers at his house in the Hamptons instead of going out and building a bigger fortune. He didn't stumble into an even bigger pile of money, he planned to get an even bigger pile of money. Same with Alexander, except substitute land for money.

The point is entirely that Hawke is reactive. Hawke answers pleas for help and then stumbles into a ruin. It could have been a worthless ruin, but it wasn't. Then Hawke continues to answer pleas for help and stumbles into being the Champion, etc, etc. 

I'm not saying it's a bad story, I'm simply saying that the story is inevitable. The end had to be what it was so therefore Hawke had to be what he was. 

Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy.  He didn't make more money with his father's money, he made considerably less to file for bankruptcy.  If he sat around with his father's money, he would have considerably more money that he has now.  He is a bad example, stop using him.  The same goes for Alexander the Great for the reasons given.

Monica21 wrote...
Eh, I kind of think Act 3 did have to end the way it did. Not with the specifics but with two sides who can't agree, at least the way I think they're taking the series. I think there definitely could have been a better way, but, now that I've had time to think about it, I can appreciate the direction and the new story without worrying about the parts that I didn't like.

I disagree because compromise is going to occur anyway for Bioware to make a consistant universe going forward, so them writing this war poorly just leads me to think that the conflict would have collapsed into itself within 3 years, but I don't think we are going to agree here.

I can't just handwave such a **** story.  All it tells me is that some gamers are willing to take utter **** and handwave it when they should be telling devs we deserve better.

Modifié par Harid, 17 août 2011 - 03:13 .

[Monica21]

Harid wrote...
Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy.  He didn't make more money with his father's money, he made considerably less to file for bankruptcy.  If he sat around with his father's money, he would have considerably more money that he has now.  He is a bad example, stop using him.

Uh, Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy years ago, got it all back and then some, and wrote a book about how he did it. I'd say he's a fair example.

[Harid]

Monica21 wrote...

Harid wrote...
Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy.  He didn't make more money with his father's money, he made considerably less to file for bankruptcy.  If he sat around with his father's money, he would have considerably more money that he has now.  He is a bad example, stop using him.

Uh, Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy years ago, got it all back and then some, and wrote a book about how he did it. I'd say he's a fair example.

Skirting Bankruptcy laws doesn't make him a good example in my opinion, but you are free to have your idols, scumbag they may be.

[Monica21]

Harid wrote...
Skirting Bankruptcy laws doesn't make him a good example in my opinion, but you are free to have your idols, scumbag they may be.

Don't be a jerk. I never set him up as an idol. I used him as an example of someone who planned his way to get what he wanted instead of waiting for it to come to him. That's all.

[Realmzmaster]

Monica21 wrote...

Harid wrote...
Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy.  He didn't make more money with his father's money, he made considerably less to file for bankruptcy.  If he sat around with his father's money, he would have considerably more money that he has now.  He is a bad example, stop using him.

Uh, Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy years ago, got it all back and then some, and wrote a book about how he did it. I'd say he's a fair example.

No Donald Trump filed for business bankruptcy. He never filed for personal bankruptcy. Also Trump financed his developments with high interest junk bonds so as far as careful planning that is a bust. The recession hit and he was unable to make loan payments. So if that is your definition of careful planning I will pass.

Now if you want to say Trump was a gambler then he was depending on some luck to help him out and it soured on him.

[Monica21]

Realmzmaster wrote...
No Donald Trump filed for business bankruptcy. He never filed for personal bankruptcy. Also Trump financed his developments with high interest junk bonds so as far as careful planning that is a bust. The recession hit and he was unable to make loan payments. So if that is your definition of careful planning I will pass.

Now if you want to say Trump was a gambler then he was depending on some luck to help him out and it soured on him.

Do you or do you not understand my point? Or do you want to argue about Donald Trump? I'll pass on the latter. My point stands if only because you've said nothing to refute it.

Modifié par Monica21, 17 août 2011 - 03:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...
 Alexander the Great was not a rags to riches story. His father was Phillip the Second of Macedon. Alexander the Great inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Your two examples started at a higher station than 99% of the population of their times. And Alexander acted upon the military expansion plans left by his father. So not my memory of history is quite intact.

There is a difference between siezing an opportunity presented, and just waiting for something to come to you.

Suggesting that Alexander was just lucky, or that Octavian was just lucky, is a skewed version of history that ignores all that they went through and all the effort they put to do what they do which was by no means pre-determined.
"Luck" played a part, but it doesn't take advantage of itself. It needs a mind to realize when to sieze an opportunity, and actual effort in doing so. There was none of that for Hawke, and his sole real involvement in the story is through *blind* luck and brute strength, without him actually using his brain once, and I'd argue that Bartrand had a much stronger impact than him.

And I could spend pages arguing against the notion that DA2 was somehow realistic, and that this is what pisses people off.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[Harid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
 Alexander the Great was not a rags to riches story. His father was Phillip the Second of Macedon. Alexander the Great inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Your two examples started at a higher station than 99% of the population of their times. And Alexander acted upon the military expansion plans left by his father. So not my memory of history is quite intact.

There is a difference between siezing an opportunity presented, and just waiting for something to come to you.

Suggesting that Alexander was just lucky, or that Octavian was just lucky, is a skewed version of history that ignores all that they went through and all the effort they put to do what they do which was by no means pre-determined.
"Luck" played a part, but it doesn't take advantage of itself. It needs a mind to realize when to sieze an opportunity, and actual effort in doing so. There was none of that for Hawke, and his sole real involvement in the story is through *blind* luck, without him actually using his brain once, and I'd argue that Bartrand had a much stronger impact than him.

And I could spend pages arguing against the notion that DA2 was somehow realistic, and that this is what pisses people off.

I don't think the above poster meant to say that Alexander the Great was lucky, just that given his station it was easier for him to reach where he did relative to some Lanista or slave that rose though the ranks to run Rome, neither of which happened as far as I can remember my Roman history.

He's a bad comparison to Hawke because of, well, the things you stated, as well as Hawke's rags to riches story.