703 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

@Winter: Ella doesn't die as long as you stop Anders. You don't have to be diplo Hawke.

[HAM Hawke]

b09boy wrote...

I find it amusing the number of things the DA2 storyline was about.

"The game is about how you can't always change how things are going to turn out."
"The game is about how the mage/templar war began."
"The game is about Hawke's rise to power."
"The game is about family."
"The game is about being in the center of events as they're happening."
"The game has a very personal story."
"The game has a very epic story."

All of this is correct. The game tries to be about all of this. Problem being these sort of themes conflict without very exacting attention. If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice? Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail? There's no follow-through so the theme falls flat. If it's about the mage/templar war, what's the point of any of the story aside from the third act? If it's about Hawke's rise to power, where is s/he at the end and why do we skip so many important story points in which Hawke is raised to power? if the game is about family, why are they all gone by the mid point of the game? If it's about being a bystander, why isn't Hawke being the one interviewed? Or why not make Varric the protagonist - he was along for the ride just as much. Why would an onlooker tell the story about an onlooker? If it's a personal story why don't we get the opportunity to develop the motivations of Hawke and the other central characters in the story? If it's an epic story, why is Hawke so ineffectual?

That's what DLC is for silly!

[ThePasserby]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

All hail Upsettingshorts! All hail the One who Decides how Games are Played!

I said I'd argue it, not decree it.  But then, I'd have to use words like a fencer to actually have been choosing my words carefully. 

He's just as much in the right to argue otherwise as I am to make the case. 

Also if you've been around here long enough, you'd know that I'm practically the BSN's poster boy for the "we all approach these games pretty differently" position. 

I'm just happy I'm not the one who tells others how to play their games. Scan through my posts. Doesn't matter if you have a reputation for something or other here, all I see here is an attempt to invalidate another player's experience of the game.

[b09boy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

b09boy wrote...

If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice?

Because it's a roleplaying game?  My Hawke doesn't have the same motivations as yours, nor does he draw the same conclusions.  But DA2 presents a hell of a lot of instances where we can flesh out those differences and have a unique experience during the course of a game in which not much of what actually happens is significantly different.

Which brings us to the follow-up question I posted directly after the small bit you quoted.

[ThePasserby]

HAM Hawke wrote...

b09boy wrote...

I find it amusing the number of things the DA2 storyline was about.

"The game is about how you can't always change how things are going to turn out."
"The game is about how the mage/templar war began."
"The game is about Hawke's rise to power."
"The game is about family."
"The game is about being in the center of events as they're happening."
"The game has a very personal story."
"The game has a very epic story."

All of this is correct. The game tries to be about all of this. Problem being these sort of themes conflict without very exacting attention. If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice? Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail? There's no follow-through so the theme falls flat. If it's about the mage/templar war, what's the point of any of the story aside from the third act? If it's about Hawke's rise to power, where is s/he at the end and why do we skip so many important story points in which Hawke is raised to power? if the game is about family, why are they all gone by the mid point of the game? If it's about being a bystander, why isn't Hawke being the one interviewed? Or why not make Varric the protagonist - he was along for the ride just as much. Why would an onlooker tell the story about an onlooker? If it's a personal story why don't we get the opportunity to develop the motivations of Hawke and the other central characters in the story? If it's an epic story, why is Hawke so ineffectual?

That's what DLC is for silly!

Right ... you must be referring to the one where Tallis makes off with the names of Qunari spies while Hawke stands there grasping his new shiny.

[ipgd]

ThePasserby wrote...


I'm just happy I'm not the one who tells others how to play their games. Scan through my posts. Doesn't matter if you have a reputation for something or other here, all I see here is an attempt to invalidate another player's experience of the game.

Are you actually reading his posts or just imagining whatever you think is the most ridiculous strawman possible?

[upsettingshorts]

ThePasserby wrote...

I'm just happy I'm not the one who tells others how to play their games. Scan through my posts. Doesn't matter if you have a reputation for something or other here, all I see here is an attempt to invalidate another player's experience of the game.

I made the argument to Wulfram and we're having a discussion like adults about it.  He didn't take offense and seemed to get where I was going, you're just flailing because no-one is taking you seriously anymore. 

b09boy wrote...

Which brings us to the follow-up question I posted directly after the small bit you quoted.

Apologies, I'll address it here:

b09boy wrote...

Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail?

Sometimes he can, other times he can't and they write in a good but-thou-must, other times he can't and the but-thou-must is so clumsy I want to punch my keyboard. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:49 .

[TheCreeper]

How is someone who killed the Arishok and either sucessfully put down a Mage Revolt or helped that mage revolt and was (mostly) successful freaking ineffectual? Was The Grey Warden ineffectual for not stopping the Fifth Blight at Ostagar? Was Commander Shepard ineffectual for getting killed by the collectors or not killing all of the Reapers in ME1? There are certain things that are always going to be beyond control of the PC, Hawke had no way of knowning that Meredith had that idol (do you think there was a paper trail to follow? it could have been sold outside free marches for all hawke knew) and by the time Act 3 started so much was set into motion that even if Meredith had died before attempting to enact the right things might have still gone horribly wrong.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

@Winter: Ella doesn't die as long as you stop Anders. You don't have to be diplo Hawke.

No, you do have to be a diplomatic Hawke. My snarky Hawkes and my aggressive Hawkes never had that option.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Honestly- no.  I don't have a long gaming track record, but let's take the Courier, Shepard, and the Warden as examples.  Shepard does get massively screwed over time and again.  So, it's possible that by ME3 when she's back to working for *spoiler* after being screwed over by *spoiler* that she was railroaded into helping- yes, it's possible I could come to hate Shepard.  But at the end of the day, she'll have saved the galaxy, so I'm pretty sure she'll still rate as somewhat competent.

So success is the only measure of competence?  I'm not sure I follow.  

No.  I keep saying this.  *is this microphone on*

Even if Hawke had attempted and failed, I could have lived with it.  Some would surely still complain, but it's the fact that at key points Hawke inexplicably does nothing that grates on me.  Example- when Anders asks if you want him to leave, Hawke should be able to say "I'm afraid I can't let you do that" and attack him.  Even if Anders does something magetastic and escapes, at least I could say that Hawke tried to stop him and her involvement with him was tragic.  As it is, she's just a dip.

Take a look at it from this perspective:  "Hawke is thought of as the most important person in Thedas, but who was he/she?"  And then the game reveals - and it is meant to be a reveal, based on the interrogation bookends and the frame narrative - you that he/she was just a relatively normal person who was caught up in the course of events.  That's not going to be a story everyone prefers to the hero who saves the world, but it's a perfectly valid one to tell.   It's about deconstructing that hero as someone who was flawed and sometimes impotent in the face of forces well beyond his ability to control.

The story reads more like this to me:  Everyone thinks this person is world-changing, but she's really just clueless or doesn't give a damn.  Like someone said up above, all their Hawke wanted to do was screw elves and troll the nobles.  If that's the kind of character you can get into, then yes the game lets you do it.  That's pretty much the conclusion I had to come to about Hawke myself.  The only personality I liked was sarcastic, and the only way her story made sense was that she was a wisecracking twit who just didn't give a crap.  Call me crazy, I can't feel good about that character.

This is exacerbated by the fact that I think the whole buildup to the mage-templar war is kind of ridiculous.  I don't buy it.  I'm not sure I even buy act 2, which everyone else seems to like better.  Hawke is an idiot, but she's not the only one.

Is there anything wrong with portraying a popular hero who has been built up into something they weren't, and then breaking that legend down into the truth?  Is it simply a question of mismanaged expectations, or are such stories inherently less interesting to you?

If you can find reasons to care about Hawke in the first place, I can see how you might be able to work out a satisfying story.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:51 .

[TheCreeper]

My snarky hawke stopped Anders everytime, what the heck are you talking about?

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sometimes he can, other times he can't and they write in a good but-thou-must, other times he can't and the but-thou-must is so clumsy I want to punch my keyboard. 

"Escort this Qunari for me!"
"No."
*Quests updates with escort Qunari objective*
"What the ..?"

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:52 .

[ipgd]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


No, you do have to be a diplomatic Hawke. My snarky Hawkes and my aggressive Hawkes never had that option.

No, you don't. I stopped him on all of my Hawkes.

The option is determined by how much friendship/rivalry you have with him. It's a star option; all of the personality-linked options have the corresponding tone icons.

Modifié par ipgd, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:52 .

[ThePasserby]

Anyroad2 wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

Anyroad2 wrote...

Yeah. I knew it came to that once he told me that my viewpoint on things were worthless because I didn't play a decade old expansion to Boulders Gate 2 that he did. That apparently made me a "new fan", even though I've been playing Bioware games since KotOR. >_>

You don't think that what Bioware has done in Balder's Gate has any bearing on a game touted as Balder's Gate's spiritual successor. Okaayyy ...

*gently backs away*

I'm not going to argue with you anymore,  because its pointless.

Have fun trolling.

Bye!

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

@Winter: Ella doesn't die as long as you stop Anders. You don't have to be diplo Hawke.

No, you do have to be a diplomatic Hawke. My snarky Hawkes and my aggressive Hawkes never had that option.

No you don't. My aggressive Hawkes stop him. You need a certain amount of friendship/rivalry. 

[AtreiyaN7]

ThePasserby wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...



Really? I guess Hawke's goal was to have his mother murdered and made a walking doll. (ThePasserby)

How about that part up above where you tried to twist events in order to fit your point about Hawke's failure/ineptitude?

Wasn't that in reply to "Hawke achieves his/her goals"?

We can assume that one of Hawke's goals is to keep his mother safe.

But she died. So, we can only draw two conclusions:

1) Hawke failed (so he doesn't achieves his/her goals)

2) it was his goal to have his mother killed all long (so he does achieves his goals)

Take your pick.

And no, there can't be any middle paths like "he can't be expected to win all the time!", because the statement "Hawke achieves his/her goals" precludes that.

So you have to choose, 1 or 2?

If you choose 1, then the statement "Hawke achieves his/her goals" is false.

If you choose 2, then that statement's veracity is maintained.

So pick.

There you go again: ignoring the whole post and context of the example while trying to twist things. You're ignoring the entire quest chain and picking something that suits your purposes. What did the actual quest chain involve? It involved Hawke track down the serial killer over a period of years. Leandra getting caught up in it and being murdered herself was a tragic outcome based on the killer's predilections. It's easy to set completely arbitray "goals" by which to measure a character's actions.

Does Hawke catch the serial killer? Yes - Hawke certainly succeeeded in THAT "goal." Does he succeed at the "goal" of saving Leandra? No, but it sure as heck wasn't due to incompetence/ineptitude as implied by you and the OP, which is the very thing that I was refuting earlier. i never stated that Hawke succeeds at every single thing he/she wants in life. I was refuting the idea that Hawke's supposed "failures" result from him/her beng incompetent.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:59 .

[HAM Hawke]

ThePasserby wrote...

HAM Hawke wrote...

b09boy wrote...

I find it amusing the number of things the DA2 storyline was about.

"The game is about how you can't always change how things are going to turn out."
"The game is about how the mage/templar war began."
"The game is about Hawke's rise to power."
"The game is about family."
"The game is about being in the center of events as they're happening."
"The game has a very personal story."
"The game has a very epic story."

All of this is correct. The game tries to be about all of this. Problem being these sort of themes conflict without very exacting attention. If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice? Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail? There's no follow-through so the theme falls flat. If it's about the mage/templar war, what's the point of any of the story aside from the third act? If it's about Hawke's rise to power, where is s/he at the end and why do we skip so many important story points in which Hawke is raised to power? if the game is about family, why are they all gone by the mid point of the game? If it's about being a bystander, why isn't Hawke being the one interviewed? Or why not make Varric the protagonist - he was along for the ride just as much. Why would an onlooker tell the story about an onlooker? If it's a personal story why don't we get the opportunity to develop the motivations of Hawke and the other central characters in the story? If it's an epic story, why is Hawke so ineffectual?

That's what DLC is for silly!

Right ... you must be referring to the one where Tallis makes off with the names of Qunari spies while Hawke stands there grasping his new shiny.

No Pass you by.  Hopefully all those questions b09boy asked will be answered in more DLC......But since you hate the game and wanna beat it to death, I don't suppose we will have to hear your remarks about future content...

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

 As it is, she's just a dip.

If you'd modify that to "sometimes" I probably wouldn't dispute it.

Addai67 wrote...

The story reads more like this to me:  Everyone thinks this person is world-changing, but she's really just clueless or doesn't give a damn.

Then that's your fault.  Just like if I said my Warden was a bland emotionless errand boy you'd be well within your rights to say I didn't exercise my imagination enough, or play the game the right way.

DA2 gives you a ton of opportunities to establish Hawke's motivation, and "didn't give a damn" is a possible one, but not one we all have to share.

Addai67 wrote...

If you can find reasons to care about Hawke in the first place, I can see how you might be able to work out a satisfying story.

Same could be said about any story about anyone in any medium.  As In Exile loves to point out, if you play DAO and don't care about the Wardens or Ferelden the entire story falls apart.

If you don't care about who Hawke is, or can only identify with a single personality - something BioWare themselves have said they didn't intend people to follow religiously - then of course you're going to view the whole thing as a waste of time, especially if there aren't big plot flags to toggle along the way.

Xewaka wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sometimes he can, other times he can't and they write in a good but-thou-must, other times he can't and the but-thou-must is so clumsy I want to punch my keyboard. 

"Escort this Qunari for me!"
"No."
*Quests updates with escort Qunari objective*
"What the ..?"

Yeeeeup. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:55 .

[TEWR]

TheCreeper wrote...

How is someone who killed the Arishok and either sucessfully put down a Mage Revolt or helped that mage revolt and was (mostly) successful freaking ineffectual? Was The Grey Warden ineffectual for not stopping the Fifth Blight at Ostagar? Was Commander Shepard ineffectual for getting killed by the collectors or not killing all of the Reapers in ME1? There are certain things that are always going to be beyond control of the PC, Hawke had no way of knowning that Meredith had that idol (do you think there was a paper trail to follow? it could have been sold outside free marches for all hawke knew) and by the time Act 3 started so much was set into motion that even if Meredith had died before attempting to enact the right things might have still gone horribly wrong.

I don't think Hawke killing the Arishok makes him ineffectual. It's the fact that he does it with his SUPER BADASSERY and kills so many Qunari that makes it a bit unbelievable. A rise to power is about building connections you can rely on. A rise to power is about politics. Most of the people Hawke interacts with could in fact help him save the city. The smugglers or mercenaries, Vanard's forces (if he has any) or the elves of the alienage, etc.

That's what DAII should've been. story changing. How did Hawke rise to power? Who did he ally with that helped him? Who were his allies outside of the companions that he could call on when he needed them?

Also, the Arishok should've done a bit more stuff if he wanted to win. Use the saar-qamek on the stairs to keep any intruders away while he secures the Keep and line some Saarebas and Ashaads at the stairwell to kill them. Since Kossith are immune to the effects of the gas (something the Arishok makes clear) it would be a very sound strategy.

[ThePasserby]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I made the argument to Wulfram and we're having a discussion like adults about it.  He didn't take offense and seemed to get where I was going, you're just flailing because no-one is taking you seriously anymore. 

You assume that I want to be taken seriously. In a game forum.

And it doesn't matter whether Wulfram is offended or not. It doesn't change the fact that you were trying to tell him how to play his game.

[TEWR]

ipgd wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


No, you do have to be a diplomatic Hawke. My snarky Hawkes and my aggressive Hawkes never had that option.

No, you don't. I stopped him on all of my Hawkes.

The option is determined by how much friendship/rivalry you have with him. It's a star option; all of the personality-linked options have the corresponding tone icons.

Really? Then I don't know why I couldn't stop him when he was maxed on a few playthroughs. Maybe this was something that needed to be patched? I dunno

[Wulfram]

ipgd wrote...

The narrative is constantly prompting the player about Hawke's personality and feelings. It's a stark contrast to DAO and the ME series where the protagonists' personal elements are barely explored within the dialogue itself.

I don't think there are more occasions than in Origins. 

And when they do come up, they're ignored and utterly irrelevant to the plot.  Whether or not Hawke wants power, they have no opportunity to act upon it, they are simply given it by the caprice of circumstance.

The Warden's personality matters far more, because it's allowed to have an effect.  If the Warden is an ambitious politician, then she can have herself made Queen.  If she is pious and heroic, she can die in a heroic sacrifice.  If Alistair loves her, he will die in her place.  Their attitude to magic can save or damn the inhabitants of the tower, whether they value or honour or ruthlessness determines who rules.  If they're willing to forgive, then Loghain can earn his redemption.

[ThePasserby]

Upsettingshorts wrote...



Then that's your fault.  Just like if I said my Warden was a bland emotionless errand boy you'd be well within your rights to say I didn't exercise my imagination enough, or play the game the right way.

Why? Why do you keep giving me examples of your pontifications?

Why do you assume others even want to poke their nose into how you play, to justify your poking into theirs?

[TheCreeper]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

How is someone who killed the Arishok and either sucessfully put down a Mage Revolt or helped that mage revolt and was (mostly) successful freaking ineffectual? Was The Grey Warden ineffectual for not stopping the Fifth Blight at Ostagar? Was Commander Shepard ineffectual for getting killed by the collectors or not killing all of the Reapers in ME1? There are certain things that are always going to be beyond control of the PC, Hawke had no way of knowning that Meredith had that idol (do you think there was a paper trail to follow? it could have been sold outside free marches for all hawke knew) and by the time Act 3 started so much was set into motion that even if Meredith had died before attempting to enact the right things might have still gone horribly wrong.

I don't think Hawke killing the Arishok makes him ineffectual. It's the fact that he does it with his SUPER BADASSERY and kills so many Qunari that makes it a bit unbelievable. A rise to power is about building connections you can rely on. A rise to power is about politics. Most of the people Hawke interacts with could in fact help him save the city. The smugglers or mercenaries, Vanard's forces (if he has any) or the elves of the alienage, etc.

That's what DAII should've been. story changing. How did Hawke rise to power? Who did he ally with that helped him? Who were his allies outside of the companions that he could call on when he needed them?

Also, the Arishok should've done a bit more stuff if he wanted to win. Use the saar-qamek on the stairs to keep any intruders away while he secures the Keep and line some Saarebas and Ashaads at the stairwell to kill them. Since Kossith are immune to the effects of the gas (something the Arishok makes clear) it would be a very sound strategy.

The Arishok didn't expect or really want to win, he was just sick of all the BS he had to put up with and wanted a way out of his duty to get that book back, if hawke gives him the book and isabella he immediately leaves. If he respects hawke he makes it very clear that he pretty much expects them to kill him, which would allow all the other Qunari to leave. 

[ThePasserby]

HAM Hawke wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...

HAM Hawke wrote...

b09boy wrote...

I find it amusing the number of things the DA2 storyline was about.

"The game is about how you can't always change how things are going to turn out."
"The game is about how the mage/templar war began."
"The game is about Hawke's rise to power."
"The game is about family."
"The game is about being in the center of events as they're happening."
"The game has a very personal story."
"The game has a very epic story."

All of this is correct. The game tries to be about all of this. Problem being these sort of themes conflict without very exacting attention. If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice? Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail? There's no follow-through so the theme falls flat. If it's about the mage/templar war, what's the point of any of the story aside from the third act? If it's about Hawke's rise to power, where is s/he at the end and why do we skip so many important story points in which Hawke is raised to power? if the game is about family, why are they all gone by the mid point of the game? If it's about being a bystander, why isn't Hawke being the one interviewed? Or why not make Varric the protagonist - he was along for the ride just as much. Why would an onlooker tell the story about an onlooker? If it's a personal story why don't we get the opportunity to develop the motivations of Hawke and the other central characters in the story? If it's an epic story, why is Hawke so ineffectual?

That's what DLC is for silly!

Right ... you must be referring to the one where Tallis makes off with the names of Qunari spies while Hawke stands there grasping his new shiny.

No Pass you by.  Hopefully all those questions b09boy asked will be answered in more DLC......But since you hate the game and wanna beat it to death, I don't suppose we will have to hear your remarks about future content...

More attempts at witticism!

But yes, I won't be giving reviews of future DLCs or games since I won't be buying them. But I'll be sure not to read yours, seeing as you seem to have a rather low bar for such things.