276 réponses à ce sujet

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I just play differently than you do

To me, it seems like you don't play at all. You leave the game to play character for you. Because, overall, even "avatar"-like RPG's already are not about creating whole yours character. For example, in Fallout you always play as a "vault dweller". You can't play a mutant, or raider, or ghoul. You already have history, "family" and goals. The only way you can interact with Hawke, however, is by choosing his combat abilities and "mood". So what's there to play?

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 17 septembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[Maconbar]

Oh boy, a "what is an rpg?" discussion.

[AtreiyaN7]

I'm a PC gamer, and I did enjoy DA2 despite its flaws. Speak for yourself rather than all of "us." And does the world actually need what is basically an "I say <x> is a 'proper' RPG and <y> isn't" thread?

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I am a PC gamer, and I did't enjoy DA2, and I am still angry!

[Lord Gremlin]

Hm, I actually agree with OP on every point he makes, but I'm primarily a PS3 gamer. Although truth be told I was originally a hardcore PC gamer, I just moved to PS3 in this generation, since nobody does good, solid, large RPG games targeting PC. Maybe it's somehow related to the fact that my support stopped after I've bought DA2 Signature Edition.
You know, when it comes to RPG I can forgive a lot if you let me see consequences shaped by my actions. That's what I expect from Bioware games... Since, you know, ever since Jade Empire other gameplay aspects does not really deliver.
You see, in DA2 no matter what you do generally outcome is the same. It's just as much RPG as Red Dead Redemption for example. Example from RDR? You choose to kill a character or capture him alive. The only difference it makes? A single slightly different cutscene. In Origins I could see vastly different outcomes depending on my actions. Who rules Ferelden, who fought in battle for Denerim etc. OP mentions consequences that are mentioned in DA2 and happen in off-screen time.. Problem is, all important main story stuff is always the same.
Mr. Laidlaw, do you understand that there are developers out there who create much better action combat, much better visuals and much more robust and high-quality character appearance customization that you ever did?... Maybe you should stick to the story more?

[Adrian68b]

What I REALLY hated in DA2 (and also in every medieval Bioware RPG) was the resource/inventory system. It's simply stupid to think about a rune-crafter DWARF with NO runes available to sell and NO raw resources just waiting all his life in Hightown for the "timely" arrival of Hawke & Co, in order to get essential resources. The same in the case of potion/poison sellers. I ended up spending about 1/3 of my playtime searching like crazy for the x'th deposit of lyrium or n'th bunch of elfroot for some lazy merchant.
I understand the reason of a quest about some very rare ingredient (dragon blood, ambrosia), but not THIS.
Also, up to DAO we had crap items (i.e. items just for sell). Now we have crap items AND junk. How about something like crap items, valuable junk, not-so-valuable junk and really useless junk in DA3. Or a super-quest sending the hero to search a half-Thedas sized forest for a perfectly ordinary piece of wood.
I remember trying once a game named Arcatera (was given to me as a birthday present). It sounded promissing at a first glance (limited amount of playtime available, an innovative dialogue system). I ended up trowing it away because the designers also implemented the necessity of eating and drinking. And in the whole area available in game at that time I no food vendor was available. That's just bad designing, in my opinion.
The best in-game resource system I ever played was in Lord of the Realms 2. Simple but effective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'll grant that, but the Warden was also more capable of being YOUR character than Hawke was, because Hawke's speech and behaviour wasn't controlled by you.

As In Exile often points out, that depends on what kind of character you want Hawke or the Warden to be.

Exile correclty points out that both games cause some types of characters to fail, but in DA2 Hawke is always the character the designers wrote.  So while you'll get the character you want if you happen to want that character, you cannot be reasonably said to have created him.  He's not yours.  He cannot be.  He might be a character you enjoy playing, but he's not your character.

The Warden, on the other hand, can be your character.  He can't be any character, but that's a different issue (and arguably an impossible standard).

[Sharn01]

nedpepper wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

In short, Hawke is just a catalyst. But the essential one.

I have to disagree, I cant think of a single major plot point that would not play out exactly the same way without Hawke.  I am not referring to Hawke in specific either, I am referring to everything that Hawke did during the game had no effect on the over all plot.

• Isabela runs off to get the Tome of Koslun herself
• Hawke never existed so she has no reason to not run away
  
• Arishok gets butthurt
• No Hawke to stop the ArishokBye-bye Kirkwall

Hawke is not any stronger than any other companion he runs around with, any one of them could of stopped the Arishok. It's a party based game, your party is as strong as the protagnaist else they wouldn't take part in the combat in the first place. Merrill could of kicked Arishoks butt just as easily as Hawke. As for last part I assume you have played the game, Kirkwall ends up that way regardless. With the aspect of choice / consequence and especially branching instead of bottlenecking it was poor title / game with regards to this aspect and has been admitted as much on Biowares end how C+C and branching was not done very well and will try to improve on next time.

Merrill would have never been in a position to be near the Arishok without Hawke.  Fenris would have probably left Kirkwall in Act One if not for Hawke.  Aveline would have never gotten into the city without Hawke.  Almost all of your companions thrive in Kirkwall (with the exception of Varric) because of Hawke.  Someone already mentioned Anders.

So, if there's no Hawke, Kirkwall is a very different place.  The Arishok probably kills all the nobles and turns Kirkwall into a Qunari city and Meridith and the mage/templar issue probably becomes a case where the mages are killed without a voice.  If Hawke never gets off the boat from Ferelden,  Kirkwall wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.  Whether Hawke made it better or worse is a matter of perspective.

 
[*]The Arishok loses no matter how it plays out, he was in a no win situation when he attacked the city, the absolute worst case scenerio is that he manages to defeat Orsino and Merideth and the city has to wait a few weeks for reinforcements, as opposed to the qunari reinforcements, who not only have no way of knowing they are needed and will take over a year to get to the city even if there is some way to get a message to them.

[oblivionenss]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

JosephCurwen wrote...

Dragon Age 2 already killed Dragon Age 3 for PC gamers.

PC gamers who dislike good games, sure

[NedPepper]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

I just play differently than you do

To me, it seems like you don't play at all. You leave the game to play character for you. Because, overall, even "avatar"-like RPG's already are not about creating whole yours character. For example, in Fallout you always play as a "vault dweller". You can't play a mutant, or raider, or ghoul. You already have history, "family" and goals. The only way you can interact with Hawke, however, is by choosing his combat abilities and "mood". So what's there to play?

You create who Hawke is.  I'm not sure what makes this any different from any other western RPG.  In fact, Hawke can be man or woman, and can have any back story, personality, and motives that you choose to give him.  There's no disconnect.  It's a case of being disappointed by gameplay and using that cynical mindset toward the rest of the game.  That's my take, at least.  My Hawkes are all very different and every play through feels like a creative exercise.

Compare it to Deus Ex or even Shepard in Mass Effect.    I can even roleplay Hawke better than "the courier" in New Vegas. 

[Adrian68b]

"[*]The Arishok loses no matter how it plays out, he was in a no win situation when he attacked the city, the absolute worst case scenerio is that he manages to defeat Orsino and Merideth and the city has to wait a few weeks for reinforcements, as opposed to the qunari reinforcements, who not only have no way of knowing they are needed and will take over a year to get to the city even if there is some way to get a message to them."

I agree with your assessment regarding the Arishok/qunari intentions and capabilities. However, the absence of Hawke from Kirkwall has deeper consequences:

1. No Hawke = No Aveline, which leaves Kirkwall with a corrupt guard captain and a less effective complement of guardsmen (untrained, less reactive).
2. The viscount son is very likely killed earlier (act 1) -> Faster collapse of the Viscount leadership (also act1).
3. Blood mages attempt against templars unchecked (also no evidence about suspects) -.> Meredith likely to initiate RoA much earlier (act1). And this, combined with 1. and 2. -> civil war destroying Kirkwall because of no authority and no effective guards.
4. An infuriated Arishok acting much earlier (act1) against an already collapsed Kirkwall, possibly with city elf aid - > Kirkwal extinct.

It's just a quick sketch, of course. My point is that every quest or side-quest in DA2 change little itself. But combined, it's something else.

[Adrian68b]

Also, thank you for making me think deeper about inter-quest connections in DA2. It is something never attempted by Bioware until DA2.

[NedPepper]

Sharn01 wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

In short, Hawke is just a catalyst. But the essential one.

I have to disagree, I cant think of a single major plot point that would not play out exactly the same way without Hawke.  I am not referring to Hawke in specific either, I am referring to everything that Hawke did during the game had no effect on the over all plot.

• Isabela runs off to get the Tome of Koslun herself
  
• Hawke never existed so she has no reason to not run away
  
  
• Arishok gets butthurt
  
• No Hawke to stop the ArishokBye-bye Kirkwall

Hawke is not any stronger than any other companion he runs around with, any one of them could of stopped the Arishok. It's a party based game, your party is as strong as the protagnaist else they wouldn't take part in the combat in the first place. Merrill could of kicked Arishoks butt just as easily as Hawke. As for last part I assume you have played the game, Kirkwall ends up that way regardless. With the aspect of choice / consequence and especially branching instead of bottlenecking it was poor title / game with regards to this aspect and has been admitted as much on Biowares end how C+C and branching was not done very well and will try to improve on next time.

Merrill would have never been in a position to be near the Arishok without Hawke.  Fenris would have probably left Kirkwall in Act One if not for Hawke.  Aveline would have never gotten into the city without Hawke.  Almost all of your companions thrive in Kirkwall (with the exception of Varric) because of Hawke.  Someone already mentioned Anders.

So, if there's no Hawke, Kirkwall is a very different place.  The Arishok probably kills all the nobles and turns Kirkwall into a Qunari city and Meridith and the mage/templar issue probably becomes a case where the mages are killed without a voice.  If Hawke never gets off the boat from Ferelden,  Kirkwall wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.  Whether Hawke made it better or worse is a matter of perspective.

 
The Arishok loses no matter how it plays out, he was in a no win situation when he attacked the city, the absolute worst case scenerio is that he manages to defeat Orsino and Merideth and the city has to wait a few weeks for reinforcements, as opposed to the qunari reinforcements, who not only have no way of knowing they are needed and will take over a year to get to the city even if there is some way to get a message to them.

How do you know that?  Unless Meridith kills him, who else was there?  Because without Hawke, you don't even have a strong leader in Aveline in the City Guard.   Could the Arishok hold it?  I don't know, but it would probaby take an Exalted March against the Qunari and the Qunari/Thedas tensions would have been amplified without Hawke.  And the Arishok could turn every elf into a Qunari and probaby some of the Fereldens in Darktown.  He was already doing that.  That's how they really take over a city.  Through religion, not force.

[Adrian68b]

My mistake. I forgot about DAO-A. Bioware used a similar interconnected quest approach (the Warden fortress quests).

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

And this is where I see a sort of 'collison' in that analogy. The Warden is Hawke, but it's silent version. Does voice impact so much on roleplaying that it disallows one to be the PC's character?

Vastly.  When I choose to have Hawke spare the life of a slaver with which he just concluded a deal, how does he say that?  In that circumstance in DA2, Hawke sneered "Get out of my sight!"  But that's completely incompatible with the character I designed.  My Hawke viewed the slaver as a value-neutral business partner and bore him no ill will, so why was he sneering at him?

An unvoiced Hawke with the same dialogue option (the wheel option was "Yes.") wouldn't contradict my character design.

Hawke changes depending on the moods and dialouge options you choose. Thus you shape Hawke's character. He/she is now yours. It is no different with the Warden or any other Bioware RPG you play.

You've made two mistakes.  First, the voice means that we're shaping Hawke only within a very narrow range, and two, the parphrase system means that we don't even know what the options we're choosing are, so we can't even be reasonably said to have chosen them.

We can't actually choose dialogue, and the moods are extremely limited.  Compare that to DAO, where we can choose dialogue (so we can select ot avoid options based on what they actually say, because those specific words will be differently important to each different Warden), and the moods are left almost completely to our imagination, thus limiting us far less than DA2.

[element eater]

^ i concur

PresidentCowboy wrote...
[*]No Hawke to stop the Arishok[*]Bye-bye Kirkwall

im still not convinced that the Arishok would have been able to capture kirk wall even had Hawke not been there given the large number of milatarily powerful groups in krikwall and the lack of numbers and equipent amoungst the qunari 

imo all Hawke did was damage limitation 

Modifié par element eater, 18 septembre 2011 - 01:08 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I don't like going quoting everything and stuff, but it would be a bit simplier that way.

nedpepper wrote...
You create who Hawke is.

Umm, that's what developers stated many times to promote the game. And you are doing the same baseless statement.

..Hawke.. can have any back story, personality, and motives that you choose to give him

Sure, I cant pretend there is something in the game while it's actually is't there, but what's the point?

It's a case of being disappointed by gameplay and using that cynical mindset toward the rest of the game.

And here it seems it's the case of being delusional about your amount of psychiatric expertise.

My Hawkes are all very different and every play through feels like a creative exercise

That should go into a demotivation poster. Someone find a good picture.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 18 septembre 2011 - 01:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

nedpepper wrote...

In fact, Hawke can be man or woman, and can have any back story, personality, and motives that you choose to give him.

No he can't.  He can't like slavers, for example.  He cannot approve of Fenris's killing of Hadriana while at the same time opposing Fenris's hatred of mages generally.  There are all manner of things Hawke cannot do because of the personality design BioWare gave him.

[asaiasai]

culletron1 wrote...

Reno_Tarshil wrote...

Again it's your opinion and I'm not saying it's wrong but i'm not agreeing with it, I do however think it's unfair to lump everyone together by saying the community thinks DA2 is a bad game when the community is divided in half pretty much.

Well Judging by sales numbers it appears the community is half the size of the DA:O playing community and of the half that actually bought it half of those didn't like it....

Or if i may;

and of the half that actually bought it half of those didn't like it.... or paid half price for the game by waiting 5 months for the price drop. (i am in the group that waited for the game to drop to less than 30 bucks.)

Asai

[Adrian68b]

"No he can't. He can't like slavers, for example. He cannot approve of Fenris's killing of Hadriana while at the same time opposing Fenris's hatred of mages generally. There are all manner of things Hawke cannot do because of the personality design BioWare gave him."

It worked out pretty well for me. From my viewpoint, Hadriana was a slaver, not just a mage.

[Adrian68b]

"im still not convinced that the Arishok would have been able to capture kirk wall even had Hawke not been there given the large number of milatarily powerful groups in krikwall and the lack of numbers and equipent amoungst the qunari
imo all Hawke did was damage limitation"

I think the Arishok decision to attack Kirkwall was more or less suicidal (he cannot leave and cannot tolerate any longer the citizen's behavior). His action is an attempt of a honorably exit (failing his primary mission).
As for Hawke being just a damage limiter, I don't think so. If (as in my previous post) Kirkwall's military factions are busy fighting each other, the Arishok could just eliminate the survivors.

[Cutlasskiwi]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

I just play differently than you do

To me, it seems like you don't play at all. You leave the game to play character for you. Because, overall, even "avatar"-like RPG's already are not about creating whole yours character. For example, in Fallout you always play as a "vault dweller". You can't play a mutant, or raider, or ghoul. You already have history, "family" and goals. The only way you can interact with Hawke, however, is by choosing his combat abilities and "mood". So what's there to play?

I'll try and explain without using spoilers and still make it understandable.

I get to play how s/he feels and react (emotionally especially) to situations throughout the game and how to act in those situations. This was a big thing for me and it's one of the biggest reasons why I like DA2 as much as I do despite all its flaws. I think DA2 allowed for more possibilities to do this during the game than DAO did, but that's just me. I get to play and explore different kinds of friendships with followers and so on. This might not seem like a big deal to you but for me it is. In a rolelaying game I love it when I can roleplay on a emotional level like in DA2.

That with a combination of me liking the direction and overall plot of DA2. I just had constant disconects with DAO where I felt they really forced you to play characters that I didn't want to play. 

Modifié par Yellow Words, 18 septembre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Adrian68b]

The most stunning difference between DAO and DA2 is about the initial prestige of the played character. In DAO he and Alistair are heroes from the beginning (after Ostagar) simply because they are the ONLY surviving Grey Wardens in Ferelden (most important people during a Blight).
In contrast, Hawke is just another Fereldan refugee in Act1. Such as, he is ignored by the politically powerful people. DA2 quests are designed in order to gradually introduce Hawke to them (ex. Act 1: templar quest -> Cullen; seneschal -> Viscount).
And I loved it.