703 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Legacy I was fine with, but MotA really made me scream WTF.

for all the claims of "we're listening to you guys" they sure have failed to listen to the biggest complaint so far: Hawke being a totally reactive protagonist who doesn't even try to do something and fail. He just goes "Meh not for me" and fails because he's a failure.

[TheCreeper]

It's hard to make a proactive protagonist in a game like this, it doesn't have some great looming threat like an archdemon or reapers to deal with. Hawke is actually pretty proactive in part one because they are trying to gain enough money and power to be safe from the templars.

[megski]

After MotA, I sat there and thought to myself, "Who is Hawke going to ****** off next?" I don't think it's so much as condemning Hawke as most people aruging with the OP think, it's merely an observation. Hawke doesn't seem to be helping much. Like the Qunari, that whole situation made me feel like a bandaid was just slapped over it.

[Foolsfolly]

TheCreeper wrote...

It's hard to make a proactive protagonist in a game like this, it doesn't have some great looming threat like an archdemon or reapers to deal with. Hawke is actually pretty proactive in part one because they are trying to gain enough money and power to be safe from the templars.

The Qunari are a threat to all free thinking people in Thedas.

Meredith is a threat to all mages because of her paranoia and her routine abuses of power.

The mages are a threat to all innocent people in Kirkwall as they can't keep from going insane and murdering people.

There are problems that Hawke needs to tackle. And Hawke only gets sucked into these threats, which more often than not will unfold exactly as they did if Hawke hadn't acted at all.

[TheCreeper]

The Qunari weren't really hurting anyone until the Arishok just got too feed up with all BS that was being directed at him and how horrible a place Kirkwall was in general (Seriously, the qunari weren't even really trying to convert people until the Arishok goes on the attack, they where just stuck in Kirkwall because of the book. I disagree strongely with Qunari Fanboys but the Arishok really had to deal with an absurd amount of stuff.)

Meredith couldn't be dealt with force until she went insane because that would lead to an exalted march on kirkwall, and Hawke doesn't have exactly any real legal options to deal with her besides trying to drum support for making him/her Vicount/ess.

Hawke dealt with the blood mages as best they could and in story hawke had no way of knowning that Anders was planning something that big ( I legimately OOC believed he was serious about trying to seperate himself from justice until he started ranting at Meredith)

[WhiteKnyght]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

b09boy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

People are unfairly critical of the game and it's story.

Not really.  The story tries to be so many things without proper setup that it falls flat on its face.  People complain about the ending all they want, but the story was pretty screwed up from the opening narrative.

The failures of DA2's storytelling is almost artistically done.  It's incredible.

Plus the biggest thing of all, people seem to want too much from the devs and act like spoiled little kids because it wasn't enough for them.

Being a Troll doesn't get you anywhere or change anything. So just relax and don’t get your blood pressure up. These are consumers with money and you don’t have to like what they say.
 

Well that's the pot calling the kettle black. Considering how badly the Bioware devs are treated and how the consumers troll this forum.

A bunch of ungrateful fools is what they are. Dragon Age Origins' story was pretty conclusive and they could have easily not made a DAII. And now people are ranting because the devs decided to take the game in a new direction instead of rehash it like Square does with Final Fantasy.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Legacy I was fine with, but MotA really made me scream WTF.

for all the claims of "we're listening to you guys" they sure have failed to listen to the biggest complaint so far: Hawke being a totally reactive protagonist who doesn't even try to do something and fail. He just goes "Meh not for me" and fails because he's a failure.

What has Hawke actually failed at? Pretty much all of his big goals were success.

He escaped Lothering and got his family to Kirkwall, albeit with a casualty.

He got into the Deep Roads expedition and became a rich man for it.

He protected Kirkwall from the qunari when they decided to conquer.

He took a side and defeated Meredith.

The only thing he didn't succeed at was saving Leandra. And what good reason was there to do anything more in Mark of the Assassin? He went for the gem and got it in the end. There was no harm in letting Tallis live and keep the scroll.

I don't know where you got it in your head that Hawke was a failure because he accomplished what he wanted to do. And I don't know where you got it that Hawke is supposed to be a 'proactive' character and that the only way he can change the world is by being some revolutionary like you think the warden was.

Hawke is a survivor, thats what he's always been portrayed as. He does what he can to get by and thats his main concern. Nobody ever said he changes the world because he wants to.

Contrary to what you believe, a person can make a huge difference without meaning to. Look at the Courier from Fallout New Vegas. He caused the disaster in The Divide, which was one of the largest event seen in decades, and which turned a man into an obsessive nutjob bent on mass destruction, entirely on accident.

You're just sounding off because Hawke is his own person instead of a Warden clone. If anything he's more like the Courier. A man trying to get by and ends up involved in large events and makes a name for himself without meaning to.

You're not being fair to the develpers. You're acting like they don't have the right to make their characters and storys their way. And that they should completely sell out just to please you.

[Agnol117]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
What has Hawke actually failed at?

The issue here is becoming a bit muddled. It's not so much that Hawke fails as it is that she fails to act in situations where action would be reasonable.

For instance, take Anders' personal quest in Act III. Everyone notices that Anders is acting different, and while I'm not going to assume that Thedas has the same type knowledge of psychology as we do, a change that drastic (keeping in mind that as a result of his personal quest in Act II, he actually gave up the cause for a few years) requires some sort of trigger. Similarly, people (Cullen, Meredith) know that Anders is both an apostate and a radical separatist. The idea that Hawke cannot do anything to warn them is ridiculous. On top of that, such an event wouldn't even have to change the plot: Anders could simply set off the bomb when the Templars came for him, and the results would be the same. The only difference would be that Hawke would have actually done something.

I don't know where you got it in your head that Hawke was a failure because he accomplished what he wanted to do. And I don't know where you got it that Hawke is supposed to be a 'proactive' character and that the only way he can change the world is by being some revolutionary like you think the warden was.

Hawke is a survivor, thats what he's always been portrayed as. He does what he can to get by and thats his main concern. Nobody ever said he changes the world because he wants to.

Hawke doesn't have to be a world changing revolutionary to be a proactive protagonist, nor does the "normal person trying to cope with things way beyond their control and getting overwhelmed" theme require a reactive protagonist. They could have kept that theme and made Hawke proactive. In fact, that would have better supported the theme, because then Hawke being overwhelmed by everything would actually mean something.

[Cutlasskiwi]

motomotogirl wrote...

I think Hawke is incredibly human. He makes mistakes, and he doesn't always see the reality of a situation, even when it's sitting right in front of him. As for the OP ... Hawke is hardly responsible for Bartrand's betrayal or Anders' act of terrorism.

I really and truly love DA2, and that is partly because of Hawke and what an amazing character he is. He has a personality; he has his good points, and he has his flaws, depending on how you play him.
 

I agree. I found Hawke to be a very refreshing protagonist.

Modifié par Yellow Words, 17 octobre 2011 - 08:56 .

[Morroian]

Agnol117 wrote...

For instance, take Anders' personal quest in Act III. Everyone notices that Anders is acting different, and while I'm not going to assume that Thedas has the same type knowledge of psychology as we do, a change that drastic (keeping in mind that as a result of his personal quest in Act II, he actually gave up the cause for a few years) requires some sort of trigger. Similarly, people (Cullen, Meredith) know that Anders is both an apostate and a radical separatist. The idea that Hawke cannot do anything to warn them is ridiculous.

Hawke can warn them, they do nothing though but thats hardly Hawke's fault.

IMHO Hawke isn't any less pro-active than the Warden its just that the context is different and emphasises Hawke's reactivety.

Modifié par Morroian, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:03 .

[AlexXIV]

Morroian wrote...

Agnol117 wrote...

For instance, take Anders' personal quest in Act III. Everyone notices that Anders is acting different, and while I'm not going to assume that Thedas has the same type knowledge of psychology as we do, a change that drastic (keeping in mind that as a result of his personal quest in Act II, he actually gave up the cause for a few years) requires some sort of trigger. Similarly, people (Cullen, Meredith) know that Anders is both an apostate and a radical separatist. The idea that Hawke cannot do anything to warn them is ridiculous.

Hawke can warn them, they do nothing though but thats hardly Hawke's fault.

IMHO Hawke isn't any less pro-active than the Warden its just that the context is different and emphasises Hawke's reactivety.

It's that the Warden changes things (the world) and Hawke doesn't. And Hawke was at one time advertised to be the most important person of Thedas. When was he ever? When he discovered the lyrim idol in the Deep Roads? Because that's the only time he did something that maybe changed the course of things, even though I could argue that the mage-templar conflict would have come even without idol and the war as well.

What disturbs me most is that the devs just made it very easy for themselves. If you have a character that can't change the course of the story you don't have to think much about what consequences player choices have. There is only one road and you can basically only choose to try to leave it, but leaving it is impossible. In DA:O you had at least the illusion that you could handle things differently. You couldn't change the path that leads to the Archdemon, but the Warden at least had the choice to meddle in dwarven politics, save a whole elven tribe, or doom it, save Redcliffe, etc.

Honestly I never play the bad guy so actually I don't use the 'evil' choices. But not having them at all would limit my experience because I like to know that I made a decision. It's not so much about winning or losing the day. It is about the player making choices and the game reacting to it. As in opposite to the player making choices and the game railroading them. If Hawke would at least have been successful people wouldn't have been so upset, but if you get railroaded to failure it's a tough thing to swallow.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .

[Sidney]

AlexXIV wrote...

It's that the Warden changes things (the world) and Hawke doesn't. And Hawke was at one time advertised to be the most important person of Thedas. When was he ever? When he discovered the lyrim idol in the Deep Roads? Because that's the only time he did something that maybe changed the course of things, even though I could argue that the mage-templar conflict would have come even without idol and the war as well.

Can we all stop worrying about the marketing spin? There is zero doubt that the intent of the devs/writers was not that Hawke was an ubermensch who bent the world to his whims like the Warden and almost every other hero in video games. It felt like any cutscene with Varric is some variation of this:
Cassandra "The Warden intended this...."
Varric "No, no, no you've got it wrong...."

Using this "proactive" logic you can take almost any Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners and claim they did nothing. Henry Elrod was awarded the MoH at Wake Island during the failed effort to repell a Japanese landing. He didn't stop a war, he didn't even stop the invasion, he got himself killed. He was by the measures of those involved in this discussion a 100% failure because what was happening was bigger than what one man could control, alter or stop.

[TEWR]

[quote]What has Hawke actually failed at? Pretty much all of his big goals were success.
[/quote]

It's more of a failure to act and not being a failure himself, so I misspoke up above when I called him a failure.

[quote]
He escaped Lothering and got his family to Kirkwall, albeit with a casualty.[/quote]

He could've actually acted to save the sibling. IMO that sibling casualty was not needed at all for the game. If Bioware wanted to introduce players to the devastating effects a Blight can inflict, Wesley and Ostagar would've been fine.

[quote]
He got into the Deep Roads expedition and became a rich man for it.[/quote]

The last proactive thing he did.

[quote]
He protected Kirkwall from the qunari when they decided to conquer.[/quote]

[/quote]

That's being reactive.

And the game developers made him seem like a superhero. He and his companions can slaughter almost all of the Qunari by themselves when in a crisis like that you'd think there would be many people using their forces to defend themselves.

A much better believable version of Hawke rising to the status of Champion would've had him use various alliances with people (Athenril or Meeran, Vanard or the Elves of the Alienage who didn't convert, etc.) and defend Kirkwall using those forces.

Meeran could supply the elves with armor and weapons from his headquarters in Kirkwall, while Athenril could use her smugglers to either help safely get people out of Kirkwall or raid an armory to supply the elves.

[quote]
He took a side and defeated Meredith.[/quote]

He only took a side when he was forced into the conflict instead of making it a point to do things against her during the 3 years she illegally took the throne of the Viscount and held power as a dictator. That's being reactive.

Not to mention he can't make it clear to Sister Nightingale that Meredith is the primary problem (not the only one, but she is indeed the primary one). Whether Leliana knew this or not is irrelevant because Hawke should've explained the situation to her anyway.

A proactive Hawke would've been working to undermine her authority long before Act III rolled around.


[quote]
The only thing he didn't succeed at was saving Leandra. And what good reason was there to do anything more in Mark of the Assassin? He went for the gem and got it in the end. There was no harm in letting Tallis live and keep the scroll.[/quote]

The problem with MotA is if I want to play an anti-Qunari Hawke the DLC doesn't even make an attempt to get the scroll in a believable fashion and still have Tallis have the scroll. The game just lets her waltz off with it like she would if Hawke said "Go ahead".

A believable scenario would be an anti-Qunari Hawke fighting Tallis 1-on-1 for the scroll only to have her either:

1) incapacitate Hawke at some point and run off with it
2) have a group of Qunari come find Tallis after she went on an unsanctioned Qunari mission.


[quote]
I don't know where you got it in your head that Hawke was a failure because he accomplished what he wanted to do. And I don't know where you got it that Hawke is supposed to be a 'proactive' character and that the only way he can change the world is by being some revolutionary like you think the warden was.[/quote]

because it's a video game and I'd rather play a proactive Hawke that inevitably fails because things are too far out of his control than play a lazy Hawke who can't take action when he should.

[quote]
Hawke is a survivor, thats what he's always been portrayed as. He does what he can to get by and thats his main concern. Nobody ever said he changes the world because he wants to.[/quote]

No. He was portrayed as a person who changed the world by marketing and they said that we would rise to Power in different ways.

If Bioware's intent wasn't for Hawke to be a proactive person who fails but still changes the world, then they shouldn't have advertised their game that way.

[quote]
Contrary to what you believe, a person can make a huge difference without meaning to. Look at the Courier from Fallout New Vegas. He caused the disaster in The Divide, which was one of the largest event seen in decades, and which turned a man into an obsessive nutjob bent on mass destruction, entirely on accident.[/quote]

Sure they can. But a video game is about escaping from the life of "I can't do jack ****". Hawke is just a reminder that I can't do jack **** to try to change the world

[quote]
You're just sounding off because Hawke is his own person instead of a Warden clone. If anything he's more like the Courier. A man trying to get by and ends up involved in large events and makes a name for himself without meaning to.[/quote]

Ah the classic "You wanted Origins 2.0" argument.

Hardly. I didn't want a Warden clone. I didn't want Origins 2.0. I had been psyched about DAII from the get-go and was happy with it not being another Origins.

However, I expected DAII to improve on things. The Warden was reactive with bits of proactivity. DAII should've had a far more proactive protagonist because the game was encompassing a decade.


[quote]
You're not being fair to the develpers. You're acting like they don't have the right to make their characters and storys their way. And that they should completely sell out just to please you.
[/quote]

You do realize I'm not the only one who hated Hawke's lack of action or the shoddy story that was told?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 octobre 2011 - 12:53 .

[Wulfram]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

What has Hawke actually failed at? Pretty much all of his big goals were success.

He escaped Lothering and got his family to Kirkwall, albeit with a casualty.

He got into the Deep Roads expedition and became a rich man for it.

If the objective was to gain the wealth and power to protect Bethany, the expedition is a miserable failure.

He protected Kirkwall from the qunari when they decided to conquer.

After failing miserably to stop them from attacking.

He took a side and defeated Meredith.

He failed to prevent the annullment or save the circle.

[TEWR]

Sidney wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It's that the Warden changes things (the world) and Hawke doesn't. And Hawke was at one time advertised to be the most important person of Thedas. When was he ever? When he discovered the lyrim idol in the Deep Roads? Because that's the only time he did something that maybe changed the course of things, even though I could argue that the mage-templar conflict would have come even without idol and the war as well.

Can we all stop worrying about the marketing spin? There is zero doubt that the intent of the devs/writers was not that Hawke was an ubermensch who bent the world to his whims like the Warden and almost every other hero in video games. It felt like any cutscene with Varric is some variation of this:
Cassandra "The Warden intended this...."
Varric "No, no, no you've got it wrong...."

Using this "proactive" logic you can take almost any Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners and claim they did nothing. Henry Elrod was awarded the MoH at Wake Island during the failed effort to repell a Japanese landing. He didn't stop a war, he didn't even stop the invasion, he got himself killed. He was by the measures of those involved in this discussion a 100% failure because what was happening was bigger than what one man could control, alter or stop.

You're associating being proactive with being able to stop all the bad things in the world. That's a falsehood. Being proactive means you just want to stop it from happening, but if it still happens then what can you do?

Being proactive by its definition means anticipating a problem and working to make sure it doesn't happen. Nowhere is it given in that definition that one must be successful at stopping that problem from happening.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

To be fair failing to save the Circle is a function largely of the last minute gameplay decision to make the first enchanter into a boss battle regardless of your choice. IMHO many of the failures on the story side of the game go back to gameplay decisions taking precedence over story.

[AlexXIV]

Sidney wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It's that the Warden changes things (the world) and Hawke doesn't. And Hawke was at one time advertised to be the most important person of Thedas. When was he ever? When he discovered the lyrim idol in the Deep Roads? Because that's the only time he did something that maybe changed the course of things, even though I could argue that the mage-templar conflict would have come even without idol and the war as well.

Can we all stop worrying about the marketing spin? There is zero doubt that the intent of the devs/writers was not that Hawke was an ubermensch who bent the world to his whims like the Warden and almost every other hero in video games. It felt like any cutscene with Varric is some variation of this:
Cassandra "The Warden intended this...."
Varric "No, no, no you've got it wrong...."

Using this "proactive" logic you can take almost any Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners and claim they did nothing. Henry Elrod was awarded the MoH at Wake Island during the failed effort to repell a Japanese landing. He didn't stop a war, he didn't even stop the invasion, he got himself killed. He was by the measures of those involved in this discussion a 100% failure because what was happening was bigger than what one man could control, alter or stop.

I'm pretty sure some people deserve a medal and don't get one, and some don't deserve a medal and get one. Sucks, but that's life. Do we need that in a game? I don't think so. I'm not going to mix real life and video game here. If Hawke had been a real person in the real world he may or may not deserve a medal depending on his choices. But he is a friggin video game protagonist. It's not enough to run into a burning building and die at the attempt to save someone. Or in Hawke's case, come running back because he noticed he couldn't do it. I wish Hawke at least died in the attempt to help the mages in the end. That would at least have made him a hero in my eyes. Video game heroes tend to have everyone around them dying while they stay alive. That's pretty unlikely but the fact that they save the day makes up for that.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:14 .

[TheCreeper]

Wulfram wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

What has Hawke actually failed at? Pretty much all of his big goals were success.

He escaped Lothering and got his family to Kirkwall, albeit with a casualty.

He got into the Deep Roads expedition and became a rich man for it.

If the objective was to gain the wealth and power to protect Bethany, the expedition is a miserable failure.

He protected Kirkwall from the qunari when they decided to conquer.

After failing miserably to stop them from attacking.

He took a side and defeated Meredith.

He failed to prevent the annullment or save the circle.

Yes Protecting Bethany failed but Hawke didn't exactly have anyway of knowning the Templars would come while they were gone or that Bethany would get corrupted on the expedition and stopping either of those from happening would pretty much be impossible for anyone in that situation (Kill cullen or try to stop him from taking, yeah that wouldn't go well at all.) And Bethany if she went to the deep Roads, only got corrupt because of that idol (which Hawke had no way of knowning was there or would do anything like that ) causing Bartrand to betray Hawke and the others. If bethany had come along and that Idol wasn't there she would have come out just fine

As for the Qunari, Hawke (depending on the playthrough)did everything in their power to try to stop the attack and it's not like they could have taken down the Arishok while they were being ambushed (A bunch of guys high above you throwing spears that can punch through guard armor like it was nothing isn't exactly something you can stand and fight through.)


Mage ending hawke was a sucess  in part, it's implied that a lot of mages escaped off screen as a result of Hawke siding with them (Templar ending Hawke probably had a lot less circles mages surviving) More importantly (as far as Cassandra is concerned) That made Hawke a massive hero among the revolting mages and would be one of the few people that almost all of them would actually listen to, which makes hawke really important in the mage-templar war.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:27 .

[LobselVith8]

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...

To be fair failing to save the Circle is a function largely of the last minute gameplay decision to make the first enchanter into a boss battle regardless of your choice. IMHO many of the failures on the story side of the game go back to gameplay decisions taking precedence over story.

I think that perfectly sums up the source of the problems in Dragon Age 2: from Hawke doing nothing about dangerous people like Sister Petrice and standing idly by while Grace murders Ser Thrask, to spending three years doing nothing during Meredith's dictatorship despite being Champion of Kirkwall. It's an issue of story and character taking a sideline to gameplay, which makes Hawke look reactive and foolish as a consequence.

[TheCreeper]

How was Hawke suppose to anything about Petrice and Meredith before hand? You can't kill members of the Chantry and the leader of the Templars willy nilly without it causing things to go horrible horrible wrong for you, it's why you didn't have the option to brutally stab Loghain when you first encounter him in Denerim before the landsmeet. Hell with Meredith you can't even work that strongely against her because she rules the city with an iron fist and would either put you or your mage friends in the circle if you get too upity, killing her would probably get an exalted march declared on kirkwall. And Stuff like Grace murdering Ser Thrask happened in DA:O, and even mass effect, the only way to really stop things like that is if you had some sort of interrupt button that worked all the time.

[TEWR]

The problem with Petrice is that the player isn't given a solid enough reason for being unable to kill her. I posted on one of the last few pages that she should've blackmailed Hawke by saying that her death would cause the Faithful to reveal to the Templars that he is mage/Bethany is a mage.

As for Meredith, if someone takes over a city illegally, I'd sure as hell be working to undermine her authority.

[maxernst]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The problem with Petrice is that the player isn't given a solid enough reason for being unable to kill her. I posted on one of the last few pages that she should've blackmailed Hawke by saying that her death would cause the Faithful to reveal to the Templars that he is mage/Bethany is a mage.

As for Meredith, if someone takes over a city illegally, I'd sure as hell be working to undermine her authority.

That would deal with not being able to kill her adquately, but my problem with Petrice was that I couldn't see any reason for my Hawke to do her quests at all.  I had enough gold already for the Deep Roads expedition in Act 1, and in Act 2, I wanted to talk to Elthina damn it, not walk into an ambush.

I really think they would have been better writing Hawke's story as a novel to set up the mage/templar war. 

[AlexXIV]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The problem with Petrice is that the player isn't given a solid enough reason for being unable to kill her. I posted on one of the last few pages that she should've blackmailed Hawke by saying that her death would cause the Faithful to reveal to the Templars that he is mage/Bethany is a mage.

As for Meredith, if someone takes over a city illegally, I'd sure as hell be working to undermine her authority.

What is even worse is that Hawke gets a dialogue option to threaten to kill her. I mean why do that? If they want Petrice to be unkillable, why give Hawke the option to make empty threats? Looks stupid. Same with the mage templar battle choice you get to pick a neutral answer just to be slapped in the railroad again. It's almost like the writers want to ****** off the player on purpose.

[TheCreeper]

Petrice is a freaking sister in the chantry, until the end (shortly before she gets killed by that qunari) there isn't exactly enough evidence to get her disbarred and however extreme she maybe the results of killing a Revered Mother would be massive and horrible. She doesn't have to black mail hawke because as a member of the chantry she is pretty much untouchable. Hawke isn't like commander shepard or The Grey Warden, they don't have an sort of job title that allows them to get away with just about anything.

I'm sorry but most of the "Hawke should be able to murder these people before things get out of hand" Complaints really don't seem to think through what the consquences would be and how much they just wouldn't work in the game. It's kinda hard to become champion of a city after murdering a Priest.

The threaten to kill and the "Screw you guys I am going home" Options are for RPing purposes I think. Hawke may be tempted to kill Petrice or maybe thinks a threat will work but won't actually go through with it because again, She is a FREAKING PRIEST. The Screw you guys option is for hawke to show just how sick of both sides s/he is, but Hawke has to side with one side because Hawke is the Champion of kirkwall, which means They have to protect Kirkwall (but that's subject to hawke's interupation because hawke could argue that siding with the mages is protecting Kirkwall's freedom or something)  Quiting and going home means Hawke is not doing their damn job and Cassandra would have NO REASON AT ALL to want to find hawke.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:58 .

[AlexXIV]

TheCreeper wrote...

Petrice is a freaking sister in the chantry, until the end (shortly before she gets killed by that qunari) there isn't exactly enough evidence to get her disbarred and however extreme she maybe the results of killing a Revered Mother would be massive and horrible. She doesn't have to black mail hawke because as a member of the chantry she is pretty much untouchable. Hawke isn't like commander shepard or The Grey Warden, they don't have an sort of job title that allows them to get away with just about anything.

I'm sorry but most of the "Hawke should be able to murder these people before things get out of hand" Complaints really don't seem to think through what the consquences would be and how much they just wouldn't work in the game. It's kinda hard to become champion of a city after murdering a Priest.

How would anyone know that Hawke did it? There is only Petrice and her bodyguard. I am not for killing everyone or being able to, but in situations the person basically asks for a beating it makes sense to be able to use violence.

[TEWR]

I don't want to kill Petrice. She's important to the Qunari attack on Kirkwall in Act II. I just want the game to give me a believable reason for not being able to kill her.

Giving Hawke the option to threaten to kill her and not giving Hawke a believable reason why he can't or not having him follow through with it not only makes him look stupid, but it also makes him look like he's a coward who's afraid to kill a Chantry sister. IMO.

Again, a believable reason for why I can't kill her is what needs to be given.