38 réponses à ce sujet

[Alyka]

You guys crack me up! I want Mad Hermit back too!
And where is Wade and Herren? Bring them back!

[rak72]

thats1evildude wrote...

rak72 wrote...

My beef with the Grand Oak is that he would try to rhyme one word with the SAME word - you can't do that sh!t.

Well, at least he ain't rhyming Kodak with Kodak. The Grand Oak keeps his shameless shilling to a minimum.

How do you face your fellow rappers after that???

Modifié par rak72, 20 septembre 2011 - 02:41 .

[Aradace]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Aradace wrote...

yeaaaaaa....I killed his ass because he's completely, utterly, and officially bat-****-crazy. Of course, that doesnt mean BioWare COULDNT bring him back. Maker knows it wouldnt be the first time they've handwaved a character's death >.>

Like I said above, I'm not sure the Warden actually killed him. Morrigan says he uses illusions and when you enter the area the tree stump begins to magically glow before he just "appears".

Right, so all the crap I looted off him was "illusionary" too right?  *shakes head* Yea, sure, give BW MORE fuel and/or reasons to handwave yet ANOTHER decision.  While we're at it, let's bring the Architect back too even if we decided to kill him.  And Im sure they'll come up with some half-baked excuse as to why he isnt really dead either.  Bad enough that I have a gut feeling that Anders will be back for DA3 regardless if you killed him at the end of DA2 or not.  

Sorry, I didnt mean to get worked up over something so trivial but having my decisions essentially handwaved, no matter how minute or miniscule they may seem, just reaaaaaalllllly rubs me raw.  At this rate, DA3 will feature one class, one specialization, 0 customization, no face editing and no dialog choices.  Ok, rant's done and sorry once again for going off like that lol 

[TEWR]

Aradace wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Aradace wrote...

yeaaaaaa....I killed his ass because he's completely, utterly, and officially bat-****-crazy. Of course, that doesnt mean BioWare COULDNT bring him back. Maker knows it wouldnt be the first time they've handwaved a character's death >.>

Like I said above, I'm not sure the Warden actually killed him. Morrigan says he uses illusions and when you enter the area the tree stump begins to magically glow before he just "appears".

Right, so all the crap I looted off him was "illusionary" too right?  *shakes head* Yea, sure, give BW MORE fuel and/or reasons to handwave yet ANOTHER decision.  While we're at it, let's bring the Architect back too even if we decided to kill him.  And Im sure they'll come up with some half-baked excuse as to why he isnt really dead either.  Bad enough that I have a gut feeling that Anders will be back for DA3 regardless if you killed him at the end of DA2 or not.  

Sorry, I didnt mean to get worked up over something so trivial but having my decisions essentially handwaved, no matter how minute or miniscule they may seem, just reaaaaaalllllly rubs me raw.  At this rate, DA3 will feature one class, one specialization, 0 customization, no face editing and no dialog choices.  Ok, rant's done and sorry once again for going off like that lol 

That he's lootable doesn't mean much. Perhaps he can make copies of himself much like a Pride Demon and interacts with the world that way. He is a blood mage, and the Pride Demon's copies can in fact do real damage to a person.

All I'm saying is that the stump starts glowing the exact second he appears.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 septembre 2011 - 10:06 .

[Aradace]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...



Gameplay =/= lore. That he's lootable doesn't mean much. Perhaps he can make copies of himself much like a Pride Demon and interacts with the world that way. He is a blood mage, and the Pride Demon's copies can in fact do real damage to a person.

All I'm saying is that the stump starts glowing the exact second he appears.

This is one of those things that no matter how they explained it, it wouldnt be good enough for me.  Like Leliana.  I dont care how BW explains her still being alive, (and believe me, Ive heard it all at this point) I'll never be ok with it because it was a decision that was essentially handwaved.  And that is essentially my point about the hermit.  Sure, your reason for him still being alive in that scenario is plausable, but the fact is, it doesnt matter because it is still basically my decision to kill him being handwaved in this hypothetical situation.  

I guess my point is that it's not about you, it's not about me, it's not about the hermit.  Its about BW handwaving yet ANOTHER decision made by the player.  Hence why I went on the random tangent that I did:?.  If they did decide to bring him back, there is, of course, nothing I could do about it.  It would just leave a really sour taste in my mouth is all.

[whykikyouwhy]

Aradace wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Aradace wrote...

yeaaaaaa....I killed his ass because he's completely, utterly, and officially bat-****-crazy. Of course, that doesnt mean BioWare COULDNT bring him back. Maker knows it wouldnt be the first time they've handwaved a character's death >.>

Like I said above, I'm not sure the Warden actually killed him. Morrigan says he uses illusions and when you enter the area the tree stump begins to magically glow before he just "appears".

Right, so all the crap I looted off him was "illusionary" too right?  *shakes head* Yea, sure, give BW MORE fuel and/or reasons to handwave yet ANOTHER decision.  While we're at it, let's bring the Architect back too even if we decided to kill him.  And Im sure they'll come up with some half-baked excuse as to why he isnt really dead either.  Bad enough that I have a gut feeling that Anders will be back for DA3 regardless if you killed him at the end of DA2 or not.  

Sorry, I didnt mean to get worked up over something so trivial but having my decisions essentially handwaved, no matter how minute or miniscule they may seem, just reaaaaaalllllly rubs me raw.  At this rate, DA3 will feature one class, one specialization, 0 customization, no face editing and no dialog choices.  Ok, rant's done and sorry once again for going off like that lol 

I understand your frustration - it's something echoed in one way or the other by folks on these forums regarding decisions and whether or not anything we do via our PCs matter. But the story is not our own. For as much control as we exercise over the Warden or Hawke, they're small pieces in the larger world (and really they're pawns on the chessboard that Flemeth is playing on, but that's another matter entirely).

Bioware has a plan. I believe this, though some may call that naive. I think there is a good chunk of the DA story already written out, and has been for some time. The areas that cause frustration - where "choice" does not seem to matter - are not so much about the ramifications of those decisions for the world as a whole, but more for the PC. So...killing Leliana (an example I hesitate to bring up, lest the bonfires begin). It wasn't about actually extinguishing her existence in the DA world but about what that decision did and said about the Warden. Her death was a perceived death. Or comic book death, or soap opera death...whatever you want to call it. It was smoke and mirrors because the Warden did the deed, then walked away without checking a pulse, thus allowing for any manner of thing to happen in a world of magic and spirits.

So it may be the same with the hermit. Maybe his death was perceived only. Maybe you killed an avatar or aspect, as with Flemeth in her DA:O High Dragon form. The fact is that the DA world is so vast and only so many answers have been provided to us that the amount of possibilities that we have not even considered or discovered is tremendous.

Thus, for me at least, it's not hand-waving. We're only given glimpses - bits and pieces. Small playable chapters of a larger lore. The Warden isn't the ultimate hero, I don't think. Neither is Hawke. Both help to move the story along - it's a sweeping epic that will have numerous players and heroes who will each serve a purpose. I can even make the parallel with PnP gaming - the DM will always throw in a twist or turn because he/she is ultimately in control and is the one pulling the strings and carving out the words for the story.

I think this is why the devs have only stepped in on a few matters to settle some questions and provide answers, because there is a larger story still unfolding and things have already been put in place. And yeah, maybe I'm giving them a lot of credit, but I'm an audience member. I don't know what the true inner workings of their creative environment entails. I pay my retail price, I pop the disc in the computer and I play for hours on end....in their world. So I give them a bit of flex room because I know they still have more to tell me.

Not sure if that will ease your ire any...and that's really just my take on things. I know I would be exceptionally bitter if I thought that Bioware was just f**king with me...and maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fact is, I had too much d*mn fun playing DA:O and DA2 to want to welcome that sort of bitterness. (I have enough of that from my job).

Ok...diatribe over. Please feel free to resume all conversation about a batty old man in the woods.

[Zanallen]

The way I see it is this: If you choose to kill the Hermit/Leliana/Zevran/Etc then you made your choice and that choice stands. The Warden attacked that character with the intent to kill. Now, whether or not that character stays dead or was actually dead to begin with is up to Bioware.

[Aradace]

@whykik - Then why give us the decision to "kill" a character if all they're going to do is potentially bring them back? Why give us choices at all? Why not just turn the DA franchise into another JRPG and make it COMPLETELY linear? Why not make DA3 another FFXIII? I'd personally rather have 0 choice at all than to have the "illusion" of choice. At least in ME2, if someone on your squad died, they were dead...the end...not coming back. It gives death (albiet even if its not your own) a sense of "finality".

If every single character I decide to kill, has the potential to be brought back later on, then why even give us the illusion? It's a crude statement but the addage, "Dont crap in my hand and tell me it's a candy bar" comes to mind. If you're going to put choice of any kind in a game of this caliber, then the writers need to not be lazy and take into consideration that the player(s) may kill this character, or make this decision, etc. etc. If it was the writers plan to bring said character(s) back anyway, then they should have them die in a cutscene, or by the hand of some other character/NPC other than the PC. That way, when that character is brought back, it doesnt feel like the decision to kill that character was taken away from you.

[TEWR]

Aradace wrote...

@whykik - Then why give us the decision to "kill" a character if all they're going to do is potentially bring them back? Why give us choices at all? Why not just turn the DA franchise into another JRPG and make it COMPLETELY linear? Why not make DA3 another FFXIII? I'd personally rather have 0 choice at all than to have the "illusion" of choice. At least in ME2, if someone on your squad died, they were dead...the end...not coming back. It gives death (albiet even if its not your own) a sense of "finality".

If every single character I decide to kill, has the potential to be brought back later on, then why even give us the illusion? It's a crude statement but the addage, "Dont crap in my hand and tell me it's a candy bar" comes to mind. If you're going to put choice of any kind in a game of this caliber, then the writers need to not be lazy and take into consideration that the player(s) may kill this character, or make this decision, etc. etc. If it was the writers plan to bring said character(s) back anyway, then they should have them die in a cutscene, or by the hand of some other character/NPC other than the PC. That way, when that character is brought back, it doesnt feel like the decision to kill that character was taken away from you.

Perhaps so you can see a change in their personality? If you kill them and they're brought back, perhaps they're a different person. Perhaps Leliana will be a different person for people who killed her.

You still make the actual choice to fight Leliana.

[Aradace]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@whykik - Then why give us the decision to "kill" a character if all they're going to do is potentially bring them back? Why give us choices at all? Why not just turn the DA franchise into another JRPG and make it COMPLETELY linear? Why not make DA3 another FFXIII? I'd personally rather have 0 choice at all than to have the "illusion" of choice. At least in ME2, if someone on your squad died, they were dead...the end...not coming back. It gives death (albiet even if its not your own) a sense of "finality".

If every single character I decide to kill, has the potential to be brought back later on, then why even give us the illusion? It's a crude statement but the addage, "Dont crap in my hand and tell me it's a candy bar" comes to mind. If you're going to put choice of any kind in a game of this caliber, then the writers need to not be lazy and take into consideration that the player(s) may kill this character, or make this decision, etc. etc. If it was the writers plan to bring said character(s) back anyway, then they should have them die in a cutscene, or by the hand of some other character/NPC other than the PC. That way, when that character is brought back, it doesnt feel like the decision to kill that character was taken away from you.

Perhaps so you can see a change in their personality? If you kill them and they're brought back, perhaps they're a different person. Perhaps Leliana will be a different person for people who killed her.

You still make the actual choice to fight Leliana.

still not ok with it.  But let's get back on topic lol.  I dont like the hermit because he's bat-****-crazy so I'd personally say no-go on bringing him back  lol

Modifié par Aradace, 20 septembre 2011 - 10:42 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Aradace wrote...

@whykik - Then why give us the decision to "kill" a character if all they're going to do is potentially bring them back? Why give us choices at all? Why not just turn the DA franchise into another JRPG and make it COMPLETELY linear? Why not make DA3 another FFXIII? I'd personally rather have 0 choice at all than to have the "illusion" of choice. At least in ME2, if someone on your squad died, they were dead...the end...not coming back. It gives death (albiet even if its not your own) a sense of "finality".

If every single character I decide to kill, has the potential to be brought back later on, then why even give us the illusion? It's a crude statement but the addage, "Dont crap in my hand and tell me it's a candy bar" comes to mind. If you're going to put choice of any kind in a game of this caliber, then the writers need to not be lazy and take into consideration that the player(s) may kill this character, or make this decision, etc. etc. If it was the writers plan to bring said character(s) back anyway, then they should have them die in a cutscene, or by the hand of some other character/NPC other than the PC. That way, when that character is brought back, it doesnt feel like the decision to kill that character was taken away from you.

I can't answer the why other than to speculate. Until one of the writers steps in here or in a Q&A session or what not, it's just me trying to make sense of it. And for me, making the decision your PC's decision is what makes sense.

It's that whole role-playing aspect. I mean, my DM is an evil, evil guy and half the time, the party would do something, think it was final, only to have it rise up and bite us in the rump later on. And we would cry foul, etc, to which he would reply something like "well, I wasn't going to let that happen." The choice is there for the character - to build the character, add layers to the personality. But for the grand scheme of the game...that choice was superceded by other forces.

Look at the flip side of this - to choices not given or provided. Plenty of people have been more than pissed off about how All that Remains was carried out. They wanted various options all along the quest. But Leandra was always intended to die. That part of the story had to happen, and thus that all had to play out a certain way. Those alternate options couldn't be considered because A had to happen, then B, then C.

I think the same thing is going on with certain parts of the narrative, such as Leliana and maybe the hermit (of course, we are speculating that he will return...he may not), but because the actions of the Warden (or Hawke) would have additional ramifications (the Warden would only have the opportunity to kill Leliana if he/she was going to defile the ashes), then certain choices were presented. But again, to add layers to the PC, not necessarily the core story. Leliana may be static - she may always need to be alive. That added choice in DA:O was to see how the Warden would handle the confrontation. Then, she reappears in DA2, and the player is left to wonder how...something that I think has yet to be explained (but believe that it will).

Maybe it's my parallels to my tabletop frustration that allow me to sort of shrug at things like this, because I know that my power in certain fantasy worlds is limited. I accept the limitations, though I am not always pleased with them. But I have a bit of faith in the overall story and the big picture - because I want to hear how it all turns out. So I bite my tongue and wait. Which isn't said to negate or dismiss how you (or others) feel. That's just what I have to do.

Of course, I didn't kill Leliana or the hermit, so my investment in that outcome is different. But I understand your frustration.

[Aradace]

whykikyouwhy wrote...


*snip* Plenty of people have been more than pissed off about how All that Remains was carried out. They wanted various options all along the quest. But Leandra was always intended to die. That part of the story had to happen, and thus that all had to play out a certain way. Those alternate options couldn't be considered because A had to happen, then B, then C. *snip*

Which is fine.  I guess Im one of the few people who didnt mind how All That Remains turned out.  Using your example, is kind of reinforcing my previous point;  That as long as the character is "killed" in a CS or by some other NPC or whatnot, then Im fine with it.  I know I know, "spirit of roleplaying" and all that.  But in that regard, if that were really the case, then why not give us the ability to check our kills? (Through dialog in the case of DA and of course, not EVERY kill)  I like your explanation and all but still, I am, under no circumstances ok with a character that Ive had a hand in "killing" being brought back to life.  

[TEWR]

Aradace wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...


*snip* Plenty of people have been more than pissed off about how All that Remains was carried out. They wanted various options all along the quest. But Leandra was always intended to die. That part of the story had to happen, and thus that all had to play out a certain way. Those alternate options couldn't be considered because A had to happen, then B, then C. *snip*

Which is fine.  I guess Im one of the few people who didnt mind how All That Remains turned out.  Using your example, is kind of reinforcing my previous point;  That as long as the character is "killed" in a CS or by some other NPC or whatnot, then Im fine with it.  I know I know, "spirit of roleplaying" and all that.  But in that regard, if that were really the case, then why not give us the ability to check our kills? (Through dialog in the case of DA and of course, not EVERY kill)  I like your explanation and all but still, I am, under no circumstances ok with a character that Ive had a hand in "killing" being brought back to life.  

One thing I disliked about All That Remains was the constant flopping Leandra did in the battle. She should've just stayed in the chair and the chair should've been turned around by Quentin.

Leandra's death didn't bug me really (though I do think both siblings should've survived, as that would've allowed for a more emotional attachment to the family with all sorts of dialogue between Leandra and her children).

[Aradace]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

 (though I do think both siblings should've survived, as that would've allowed for a more emotional attachment to the family with all sorts of dialogue between Leandra and her children).

Im not so sure about that lol...Bethany, I like and I actually grew attached to, to a degree.  But Carver?  Holy inferiority complexes batman!!  Carver deserves his fate when he dies in non-mage Hawke playthroughs.  Carver is the only character that I dislike more than Fenris.  I'd sooner stomach Fenris any day of the week than endure a nano-second of Carver.  And when I do play mage, I make sure to take him into the deeproads with me, WITHOUT Anders in tow mind you