163 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

MerinTB wrote...

I don't mean to start sounding too much like Sylvius here (he can make his own points quite well) but the game went out of its way to constantly remind me that I didn't get to decide Hawke's personality, choices or anything meaningful outside of class, equipment and love interest.  Hawke kept saying things in cut scenes, or even after I chose my "paraphrase" in a dialog scene, that made me hit my head against the desk.

That doesn't bother me I guess because I'm taking more a 3rd person role playing approach in directing a character not me. I still get to make define and shape about Hawke's character. 

[MerinTB]

Morroian wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

I don't mean to start sounding too much like Sylvius here (he can make his own points quite well) but the game went out of its way to constantly remind me that I didn't get to decide Hawke's personality, choices or anything meaningful outside of class, equipment and love interest.  Hawke kept saying things in cut scenes, or even after I chose my "paraphrase" in a dialog scene, that made me hit my head against the desk.

That doesn't bother me I guess because I'm taking more a 3rd person role playing approach in directing a character not me. I still get to make define and shape about Hawke's character. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

[Pasquale1234]

MerinTB wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

This x 1000.

While I understand that DA2 had many aspects that many people seemed to find enjoyable, for *me* it failed as an RPG.

[TheRealJayDee]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

This x 1000.

While I understand that DA2 had many aspects that many people seemed to find enjoyable, for *me* it failed as an RPG.

Thirded. Among the numerous problems I had with DA2 this is one of the most important ones. DA:O didn't get anywhere near the control you have over your character's actions in a pen and paper RPG, but like MerinTB said, it was way better than DA2 in allowing you to create and play a consistent version of the character you, the player, wanted to play.

And the third person narration I find quite problematic in the way they used it. It's a roleplaying game, but you actually never see "your" character. You don't decide what "your" Hawke does, you decide what the Hawke in the particular version of Varric's story you're following is supposed to have done, according to Varric. That might even work if executed diffeently, but as it is this form of narration makes it pretty hard for me to connect with "my" Hawke. The positive thing about it: I can blame the new elves and darkspawn completely on Varric's narration and imagine that in DA3 we will see them again as they really are.

So, yes, let's have a new protagonist for DA3 (which we will), over whose actions, words and feelings we have as much control as possible, and let us experience his story through his own eyes (no, not first person view).

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 24 septembre 2011 - 01:10 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Double Post.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 septembre 2011 - 03:21 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Zanallen wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Because we view things in first person perspective?

I do, yes. I don't see myself talking to people. Not do I see myself when wandering around or as I type this currently. But that doesn't answer my question. Would you prefer if the DA games were in first person?

Yes I do.  I also prefer combat to be done in 3rd person view because we are playing party based RPG and first person view is terrible to view, control and assign your party member. ( I  can single handed combat effectively in first person view because I am used to first person view since I played TES: ARENA and FPS Counter Strike. However, I am not used to combat with party members in first person view mode since the day I played Realm of Arkania, Neverwinter Night and Jagged Alliance )  
But my main concern isn't about camera view. It's about experiencing the story through the character's eye. It's about how you feel, think and act as the character in the game.

Zanallen wrote...
And the next time? There are, I believe, three such scenes with Loghain. Not too mention that the Warden couldn't possibly have seen Cailan's death while he was being overwhelmed in the tower.

You can take those scene out and nothing will affect how you view the world as the character. To me, those scenes are meaningless ( I mostly ignore them ) because my Warden can know about Cailan death's and Loghain plan through his interaction with the NPC even without those scenes. The Scenes serve nothing to my role-playing except for dramatic sequence and story depth.

 

Zanallen wrote...
And nothing Varric says to Cassandra affects Hawke's role. He just sets the scene for us as we move between acts.

Oh I disagree. You take out both Varric and Cassandra and you don't even have Dragon Age 2. It's their set up that make Hawke exist. Without Varric and Cassand there is no Hawke and his story.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 septembre 2011 - 03:18 .

[DeathDragon185]

Hawke was great. PLEASE keep her. And for those complaining about the lack of origin stories. they very rarely changed the game at all. infact you pretty much have to chose Dwaf noble to beat the game on nightmare.

[Sepewrath]

MerinTB wrote...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

And what comes with the territory is a highly generalized story, where all those decisions you are deciding that your character does, has nothing to do with the story i.e. DAO. Yes DAO definitely gave you greater control over deciding what kind of person your character was. Unfortunately to support that, everything your character did was irrelevant, the only things that mattered, were the things you had no control over.

Maybe you want to be a selfish character who tells others to solve their own problems, so you tell Cammen and Gheyna to beat it, you can not help the mages in Circle Tower or Morrigan. But you cant blow off Eamon, the Dalish, the Dwarves and those are the things that matter. Your character is not the blow people off type, as Zaeed would say their a "big gaddam hero" Because those are the choices that matter, I would rather a PC where everything they does matter at the cost of a pseudo choice regarding personality.  

[RagingCyclone]

Sepewrath wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

And what comes with the territory is a highly generalized story, where all those decisions you are deciding that your character does, has nothing to do with the story i.e. DAO. Yes DAO definitely gave you greater control over deciding what kind of person your character was. Unfortunately to support that, everything your character did was irrelevant, the only things that mattered, were the things you had no control over.

Maybe you want to be a selfish character who tells others to solve their own problems, so you tell Cammen and Gheyna to beat it, you can not help the mages in Circle Tower or Morrigan. But you cant blow off Eamon, the Dalish, the Dwarves and those are the things that matter. Your character is not the blow people off type, as Zaeed would say their a "big gaddam hero" Because those are the choices that matter, I would rather a PC where everything they does matter at the cost of a pseudo choice regarding personality.  

And Hawke was different? There wasn't a single decision that made a difference in DA2...not a single one. Every Act has the same outcome and every main and secondary quest the same. The only decisions Hawke could make with any impact regarded the companions...and that's it.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sepewrath wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

And what comes with the territory is a highly generalized story, where all those decisions you are deciding that your character does, has nothing to do with the story i.e. DAO. Yes DAO definitely gave you greater control over deciding what kind of person your character was. Unfortunately to support that, everything your character did was irrelevant, the only things that mattered, were the things you had no control over.

Then improve it and make it relevant. That is RPG developer or Game Master job. Not you. 

Sepewrath wrote...
Maybe you want to be a selfish character who tells others to solve their own problems, so you tell Cammen and Gheyna to beat it, you can not help the mages in Circle Tower or Morrigan. But you cant blow off Eamon, the Dalish, the Dwarves and those are the things that matter. Your character is not the blow people off type, as Zaeed would say their a "big gaddam hero" Because those are the choices that matter,

 Ah but you forget, Cammen quest is side quest while Circle of Tower and Eamon is main plot. You can don't do Cammen quest but Circle of Tower, Eamon and everything else that matter to you, is your priority to accomplish your goal. Whether they matter or not is irrelevant to your personality wise. It's all about your goal and your motivation. If you don't want to save the world because you are too selfish that you can't blow off Eamon, then what the purpose of you playing DAO?

Sepewrath wrote...
I would rather a PC where everything they does matter at the cost of a pseudo choice regarding personality. 

You mean like what Hawke does? I know I don't send Feynriel to Dalish Camp because I believe he'll be better trained at Mage Circle despite all the blood mage crisis nonsense.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 septembre 2011 - 07:01 .

[Salaya]

MerinTB wrote...

...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

This -I couldn't say better.

The origins, the multiple dialogue choices and the feeling of true choice, helped a lot to make it possible. In DA2, it's all restricted to tone. Also, the absence of skill trees makes things even worse -the warden could choose to be a diplomat, spending efforts (exp.) in that particular tree, thus, defining your character-concept in a deeper level-.

[TheChris92]

Salaya wrote...

I'd rather not play a DA2 DLC that isn't Hawke-related, thank you very much.

I am looking forward to a fresh charcter for da3, but da2 dlc should be about Hawke and with Hawke as the controlled character or I aren't buying them.

Similarly.

Not even with [insert yor favorite companion or NPC here] as a main charcater? Personally, I think that a DLC with Varric as protagonist would be great.

Varric is a character, with a pre-set personality who isn't your own. I'd rather play DLC's that involves my own character, and not somebody else. The problem I had with the DLC's in Origins, was that they didn't include the characters from the main game, which I thought was a shame. I also prefer a voiced protagonist, over a silent one, as to me it makes the conversations, and story, more alive. I wouldn't mind different Origins for future sequels though, but speaking of the origins in the first game. I'd say that there really wasn't much variety, between them all, except for the beginning and the occasional few lines during the game. The story pretty much folds out the same way.

Modifié par TheChris92, 24 septembre 2011 - 10:44 .

[billy the squid]

Salaya wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks "I'm playing me" in the game.

I create a character concept, and do my best to stick to that concept through the game world.

DA:O allowed that.  Heck, compared to DA2, Mass Effect kinda allowed that with caveats.  But DA2 tried to make me think it was my Hawke, and then would turn around and "tell me" what "my" Hawke had done at certain points in the game.  Things that MY Hawke wouldn't have done.

That's what bothers me.  In an RPG.  I understand not everyone cares about it.  I do.

This -I couldn't say better.

The origins, the multiple dialogue choices and the feeling of true choice, helped a lot to make it possible. In DA2, it's all restricted to tone. Also, the absence of skill trees makes things even worse -the warden could choose to be a diplomat, spending efforts (exp.) in that particular tree, thus, defining your character-concept in a deeper level-.

I hated the removal of skill trees, but I think that comes partly from the segregation and siplification of the attribute system, essentially restricting the benefit of placing points in attributes to class specific types. ie: strength and constitution for warriors everything else is largely pointless.

In DAO if I wanted to use persuasion of coercion I had to place points in cunning, and my strength or other attributes would then determine whether I would be successful in persuading or coercion. I liked this, it made me feel that placing points in something other than stregth had some effect, particularly with piercing weapons etc. Da2 removed this. Whether it was in the name of accesssibility I don't know, but it seems to be the overiding theme in many points of the sequal, simplification. Illustration, better explaination and modification would be the prefered option to improve the system rather than wholesale removal or the said simplification, particularly if it still works.

[Travie]

I don't accept the premise that we couldn't make significant choices in DA:O.

On the playthrough I carried over to DA2 I played a 'baddie' warden who killed every member of his team that went out of line (around 4 of them).

Its not like they all came magically back to life in DA2, completely removing that cho....

Nevermind, carry on.

[Sepewrath]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Ah but you forget, Cammen quest is side quest while Circle of Tower and Eamon is main plot. You can don't do Cammen quest but Circle of Tower, Eamon and everything else that matter to you, is your priority to accomplish your goal. Whether they matter or not is irrelevant to your personality wise. It's all about your goal and your motivation. If you don't want to save the world because you are too selfish that you can't blow off Eamon, then what the purpose of you playing DAO?

Exactly, so when people are whining about how all their choices are disregarded and Hawke is led to the same spot regardless and then complain. Why are you playing DA2? Hawke cant leave Kirkwall, Hawke cant kill Petrice, because those this game is designed to push to a specific end point.

You have two choices, you either go there or you don't play the game, same as Origins. Nothing you did in Origins mattered, nothing you imagined your character to be mattered. It was all just a race to get you on that roof, DA2 was no different and I'm going to go out on the limb and say no matter how they handle the PC in DA3, its going to do the same thing.

RagingCyclone wrote...
And Hawke was different? There wasn't a
single decision that made a difference in DA2...not a single one. Every
Act has the same outcome and every main and secondary quest the same.
The only decisions Hawke could make with any impact regarded the
companions...and that's it.

Nope, choices didn't matter at all in DA2, outside of cameos and a few lines of dialogue, not in the least bit. But the difference between Hawke and the Warden is, if Hawke didn't show up in Kirkwall, the situation would have been completely different. The Warden served only to be the catalyst for the Origin stories.

You could have played the entire game as Alistair and not changed a thing in DAO. You couldn't play the game as Isabela, Anders or Aveline without completely changing the story. That is what I mean, the story was designed around Hawkes actions, you had little control over those actions, but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

[Big I]

Sepewrath wrote...

...but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

1) The Warden can kill or have killed Alistair, Wynne, Shale, Leliana, Sten and Zevran. Hawke can kill Anders, and that's it; even giving Isabella to the Arishok has no lasting effect.


2) The Warden can choose between different outcomes in all five main army recruitment quests (templars or mages, werewolves or elves etc). Hawke has one branching choice, siding with Petrice, and that's only open to Aggressive Hawke.


3) Stopping the Blight is more significant that watching Anders start a war.

[addiction21]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

...but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

1) The Warden can kill or have killed Alistair, Wynne, Shale, Leliana, Sten and Zevran. Hawke can kill Anders, and that's it; even giving Isabella to the Arishok has no lasting effect.


2) The Warden can choose between different outcomes in all five main army recruitment quests (templars or mages, werewolves or elves etc). Hawke has one branching choice, siding with Petrice, and that's only open to Aggressive Hawke.


3) Stopping the Blight is more significant that watching Anders start a war.

1. So killing a companion is the end all be all of a lasting effect? Sorry I find DA2's take with companions better then what most all of DA:O's was. DA:O "you did something I dont like so please kill me now"
In DA2 you can have a myraid of different outcomes depending on interactions and reputation other then :lets fight". They can change their views and defend those they thought they hated, go against their nature and walk into a certain death sentence with you deciding the outcome, disowning you as a friend or family member and so on.
All those and the others I did not cover are jsut as valid as "hey lets fight"

2. Hawke has far more branching choices then that one thing. Not as many as  Iwant and not in as many areas as I would like but theres more then just that one.

3. The blight only does effect a tiny corner while "Anders war" rocks the very foundation of the status quo forThedas. How is it more significant? For DA:O it is but not for the world at large.

[RagingCyclone]

Sepewrath wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
And Hawke was different? There wasn't a
single decision that made a difference in DA2...not a single one. Every
Act has the same outcome and every main and secondary quest the same.
The only decisions Hawke could make with any impact regarded the
companions...and that's it.

Nope, choices didn't matter at all in DA2, outside of cameos and a few lines of dialogue, not in the least bit. But the difference between Hawke and the Warden is, if Hawke didn't show up in Kirkwall, the situation would have been completely different. The Warden served only to be the catalyst for the Origin stories.

You could have played the entire game as Alistair and not changed a thing in DAO. You couldn't play the game as Isabela, Anders or Aveline without completely changing the story. That is what I mean, the story was designed around Hawkes actions, you had little control over those actions, but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

We must have played different games...events in Kirkwall were happening and did happen whether Hawke was there or not. Hawke was essentially a bystander for most of the game. Again, the warden and Hawke are similar in that regard. Both serve significance as the pc for you to see events unfold. But where the warden can effect change in some areas, Hawke does not. I've said before (might have been a different thread, not sure) but the brilliance of Act 3 was that Hawke could not change anything. But to say one is better than the other using the argument that Kirkwall needed Hawke is a pipe dream. Neither are that important to the storyline as far as events unfolding around them. The blight began and would have ended without the warden, and events (avoiding spoilers) would have happened in Kirkwall without Hawke.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sepewrath wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Ah but you forget, Cammen quest is side quest while Circle of Tower and Eamon is main plot. You can don't do Cammen quest but Circle of Tower, Eamon and everything else that matter to you, is your priority to accomplish your goal. Whether they matter or not is irrelevant to your personality wise. It's all about your goal and your motivation. If you don't want to save the world because you are too selfish that you can't blow off Eamon, then what the purpose of you playing DAO?

Exactly, so when people are whining about how all their choices are disregarded and Hawke is led to the same spot regardless and then complain. Why are you playing DA2? Hawke cant leave Kirkwall, Hawke cant kill Petrice, because those this game is designed to push to a specific end point.

You have two choices, you either go there or you don't play the game, same as Origins. Nothing you did in Origins mattered, nothing you imagined your character to be mattered. It was all just a race to get you on that roof, DA2 was no different

 

1. It was labelled Rise to Power and meant to be personal story. Did it?
2. I want to know the story, the motivation and the purpose of my character. There isn't any.. It isn't really about my character. It's about a reluctant third person narrator and a seeker who is interested to know what Hawke been up to for the course of 10 years. 
 
I played 9 times, 3 incompleted and 6 completed play through. There is no personal goal. No motivation. No choices. No replay value. Nothing at all. So why am I playing DA 2?. I don't. I stopped playing months ago. Already uninstalled it and not looking forward for any DLC or expansion. I am done with DA 2. The game is already over just as Hawke's story is already ended before you even begin DA 2.

On the other hand, I continue to play DAO. Mostly with toolset to create my own companions and single player campaign mod which is completely independant from the blight story. I have my motivation and goal. But I am also looking forward for better graphic engine and better toolset in DA 3 which is why I am still here. Otherwise, I could care less with DA franchise like the rest of silent majority.

Sepewrath wrote...
and I'm going to go out on the limb and say no matter how they handle the PC in DA3, its going to do the same thing.

Really? But choices that matter in my role-play isn't the only thing I want in DA 3. There is one little tiny thing that I want the most. Toolset.
 

Sepewrath wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
And Hawke was different? There wasn't a
single decision that made a difference in DA2...not a single one. Every
Act has the same outcome and every main and secondary quest the same.
The only decisions Hawke could make with any impact regarded the
companions...and that's it.

Nope, choices didn't matter at all in DA2, outside of cameos and a few lines of dialogue, not in the least bit. But the difference between Hawke and the Warden is, if Hawke didn't show up in Kirkwall, the situation would have been completely different. The Warden served only to be the catalyst for the Origin stories.

You could have played the entire game as Alistair and not changed a thing in DAO.

Alistair is a capable leader but without the Warden, he is nothing, let alone to gather army and stop the blight. You do aware that in order to gather an army you need to help Arl Eamon. Dallish Elves, The mage/Templar and the Dwarves first? You believe Alistair is capable to complete this mission alone? Have you not listening to what he said at Flemeth hut? He can't do it alone. 

Sepewrath wrote...
You couldn't play the game as Isabela, Anders or Aveline without completely changing the story. That is what I mean, the story was designed around Hawkes actions, you had little control over those actions, but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

This is where I think you completely miss DA 2 timeline. DA 2 event begin with Varrick been dragged to interrogation room until Cassandra left the building and met Leliana, 3 years after Hawke story. Hawke story is already over before you even begin playing DA 2. It's over. The war already erupted. There is no Isabela. No Fenris. No Aveline. No Companions except Varric alone. Your Hawke is gone. You don't even know your own character past. You do nothing at all except watching from monitor and imagine what happen in the past. And you believe Hawke as a character mattered?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 septembre 2011 - 12:16 .

[jbrand2002uk]

So what makes the players Warden so special? raising an army and ending the blight could have been done by any other Warden besides Alastair and "Your Warden" hence "Your Warden" is unimportant

Modifié par jbrand2002uk, 25 septembre 2011 - 12:29 .

[billy the squid]

I felt the blight was more a plot device to introduce players to the world of Dragon Age and the basic factions, lore, mythology etc. The blight could certainly have been handled better, having an actual influence and direct impact on the Warden's journey as their travels progress rather than being a distant threat only brough in towards the end.

As to Hawke I agree. If DA2's main thrust was to tell a more personal story on Hawke's rise to power as its focus then it makes little sense considering most of Hawke's actions were rendered pointless. There is a difference between the limitations of one's actions and a the game rendering the acts irrelevant creating frustration and a tedious game.

For instance the Mage vs Templar conflict as I said earlier in this thread suffers heavily form that lack of purpose. The idea had potential, but it brings none of the differing factions in from DAO within the Circle of Magi and Chantry effectively, no chance to erode Meredith's support, safeguard sections of the Circle, establish if other Templar factions side with Meredith etc. Anders simply blows up the chantry, which is a daft plan and seems to scream plot device. Whilst both Orsino and Meredith go barking mad. Act 3 was a debacle.

Modifié par billy the squid, 25 septembre 2011 - 12:39 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

So what makes the players Warden so special? raising an army and ending the blight could have been done by any other Warden besides Alastair and "Your Warden" hence "Your Warden" is unimportant

That's true but when any warden come to end the blight, Kirkwall may be gone already. Ferelden is surely gone. It takes weeks for any wardens from Fort Weisshupt to reach Ferelden. Didn't Alistair told you that when your  party reach Loitering?

Why the warden is so special? He is special because I am the Warden whereas, Hawke is nothing but BioWare's character whose personaliy is partly tainted with preset scripts. He has no motivation. No perception. No goal. No value apart from cinematic driven character. Good to watch but very weak to be claimed as Player Character.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I thought everyone thinking Hawke had a "branching" story and "mattered as a character" has been shot already.

[TheRealJayDee]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

[

Sepewrath wrote...
You couldn't play the game as Isabela, Anders or Aveline without completely changing the story. That is what I mean, the story was designed around Hawkes actions, you had little control over those actions, but Hawke as a character mattered. The Warden did not.

This is where I think you completely miss DA 2 timeline. DA 2 event begin with Varrick been dragged to interrogation room until Cassandra left the building and met Leliana, 3 years after Hawke story. Hawke story is already over before you even begin playing DA 2. It's over. The war already erupted. There is no Isabela. No Fenris. No Aveline. No Companions except Varric alone. Your Hawke is gone. You don't even know your own character past. You do nothing at all except watching from monitor and imagine what happen in the past. And you believe Hawke as a character mattered?

Listen to this man (?), he speaks the truth.