703 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

Let's cut the sarcasm and the thinly veiled insults, please. We can (and should) disagree with each other without being petulant about it.

[TEWR]

Vicious wrote...

Because Hawke as a protagonist is a many times more interesting than the newbie hero who, surprise surprise, ultimately saves the day.

Sounds like some people don't like dark fantasy. Stick to high. Everyone gets saved over there, and the protagonists are always flawless. And somehow, everything always works out.


I for one am happy Hawke isn't a mary sue.

No one is asking for Hawke to be flawless or to be the hero that saves the day all the time. What Bioware did was spring so much wanton death and destruction on the player that it ceased to be dark fantasy and instead just became....






What we wanted was a game where we had a protagonist who anticipates a problem, tries to prevent it from happening before it actually involves him forcefully, and still inevitably fails.

What we wanted were believable reasons why we can't do something.

No one wanted Hawke to always save the day. All we wanted was a game where the conflict was actually grey and not so poorly contrived. All we wanted was for Hawke to be a proactive person who still failed at accomplishing what he wanted to prevent.

There's a difference between inaction and taking action only to fail. Same end result, but different ways of how it happened.

[Wilyfox]

I held off buying DA2 after hearing reviews in the non-spoilers section. The more I heard, the more I longer I waited. finally DA2 dropped into the Discount bins (after a much shorter time than most games).
After 1 playthru I found a game on rails, where no choice made any difference, lost Bethany no matter what I choose, had a dead mother because the writers had decided it, ended up in 2x Boss fights no matter who I supported.
So disappointed with DA2 that I have not bought any DLC for it, (hearing the results for them here has confirmed my decision).
I won't be buying a full price Bioware game again until they have proven they can up their game to their previous high levels (though I never could finish IWD2... just seemed such a repeat of IWD... oddly, it also relied on narrative flashback)
And from sales figures, a large amount of the gaming public agree with me...

[AlexXIV]

Yep. Problem isn't that Hawke does not always save the day, problem is that people disagree with the way he failed and the explanation provided by the game/story. I guess most people disagree with things that don't make sense for them. So if something strange happens they need a proper reason for it. For example take all the madness. Everyone around Hawke seems to go crazy. Reason is simply that people/characters Hawke knows suddenly behave strange without real explaination why. Why Orsino turns into a Harverster. Why Meredith suddenly pulls her magic sword and shouts 'By the might of Greyskull!' Because both of them were rather eloquent and reasonable up to this point, and both of them turn suddenly crazy when they actually have won. Orsino after Hawke repelled the templars, and Meredith after the Annullment is done. There is no logic behind their behavior. And that's happening too often in DA2. Not just Act 3. Only thing you need to do is question the story. If people of course prefer to accept everything without ever questioning anything, then they probably have no problem there.

[Cobra's_back]

AlexXIV wrote...

Yep. Problem isn't that Hawke does not always save the day, problem is that people disagree with the way he failed and the explanation provided by the game/story. I guess most people disagree with things that don't make sense for them. So if something strange happens they need a proper reason for it. For example take all the madness. Everyone around Hawke seems to go crazy. Reason is simply that people/characters Hawke knows suddenly behave strange without real explaination why. Why Orsino turns into a Harverster. Why Meredith suddenly pulls her magic sword and shouts 'By the might of Greyskull!' Because both of them were rather eloquent and reasonable up to this point, and both of them turn suddenly crazy when they actually have won. Orsino after Hawke repelled the templars, and Meredith after the Annullment is done. There is no logic behind their behavior. And that's happening too often in DA2. Not just Act 3. Only thing you need to do is question the story. If people of course prefer to accept everything without ever questioning anything, then they probably have no problem there.

Totally agree. It didn't make sense.

[Heimdall]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yep. Problem isn't that Hawke does not always save the day, problem is that people disagree with the way he failed and the explanation provided by the game/story. I guess most people disagree with things that don't make sense for them. So if something strange happens they need a proper reason for it. For example take all the madness. Everyone around Hawke seems to go crazy. Reason is simply that people/characters Hawke knows suddenly behave strange without real explaination why. Why Orsino turns into a Harverster. Why Meredith suddenly pulls her magic sword and shouts 'By the might of Greyskull!' Because both of them were rather eloquent and reasonable up to this point, and both of them turn suddenly crazy when they actually have won. Orsino after Hawke repelled the templars, and Meredith after the Annullment is done. There is no logic behind their behavior. And that's happening too often in DA2. Not just Act 3. Only thing you need to do is question the story. If people of course prefer to accept everything without ever questioning anything, then they probably have no problem there.

Totally agree. It didn't make sense.

Well, one could sort of see Meredith heading in that direction.

[Cobra's_back]

Lord Aesir wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yep. Problem isn't that Hawke does not always save the day, problem is that people disagree with the way he failed and the explanation provided by the game/story. I guess most people disagree with things that don't make sense for them. So if something strange happens they need a proper reason for it. For example take all the madness. Everyone around Hawke seems to go crazy. Reason is simply that people/characters Hawke knows suddenly behave strange without real explaination why. Why Orsino turns into a Harverster. Why Meredith suddenly pulls her magic sword and shouts 'By the might of Greyskull!' Because both of them were rather eloquent and reasonable up to this point, and both of them turn suddenly crazy when they actually have won. Orsino after Hawke repelled the templars, and Meredith after the Annullment is done. There is no logic behind their behavior. And that's happening too often in DA2. Not just Act 3. Only thing you need to do is question the story. If people of course prefer to accept everything without ever questioning anything, then they probably have no problem there.

Totally agree. It didn't make sense.

Well, one could sort of see Meredith heading in that direction.

You are correct she is cracked.
 

[DPSSOC]

Vicious wrote...

Because Hawke as a protagonist is a many times more interesting than the newbie hero who, surprise surprise, ultimately saves the day.

Sounds like some people don't like dark fantasy. Stick to high. Everyone gets saved over there, and the protagonists are always flawless. And somehow, everything always works out.


I for one am happy Hawke isn't a mary sue.

There is a chasm of difference between a protagonist who fails to save the day and what Hawke is.  A protagonist who fails to save the day, if done well, should fail in spite of all efforts to do so.  They try their hardest, do their best, and it's unfortunately not enough.  Hawke is a protagonist who could save the day but doesn't just because.  Hawke could kill Petrice, crippling the movement to antagonize the Qunari, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could pursue the case of the Lilly Killer, we're even given the option to declare such a motive, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could look deeper into what Anders needed to do in the Chantry, but doesn't just because.

There's a protagonist who doesn't always win and there's a protagonist who doesn't even try.  We don't need to succeed in stopping the Qunari from going berzerk but surely we can make an attempt.  We don't need to succeed in finding Quentin before he kills Leandra, but can't we at least be given the impression (through dialogue) that we tried?

In fact let's look at that example.  If Hawke declared he'd find the killer in Act 1 we don't get the quest from Aveline in Act 2, we get a letter from Emeric.  Something that illustrates that, in the 3 year gap, Hawke has tried to find the killer but simply didn't succeed, and Emeric claims that he's got a new lead.  That's all it takes and you have a protagonist who is both proactive and fallible.

[maxernst]

DPSSOC wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Because Hawke as a protagonist is a many times more interesting than the newbie hero who, surprise surprise, ultimately saves the day.

Sounds like some people don't like dark fantasy. Stick to high. Everyone gets saved over there, and the protagonists are always flawless. And somehow, everything always works out.


I for one am happy Hawke isn't a mary sue.

There is a chasm of difference between a protagonist who fails to save the day and what Hawke is.  A protagonist who fails to save the day, if done well, should fail in spite of all efforts to do so.  They try their hardest, do their best, and it's unfortunately not enough.  Hawke is a protagonist who could save the day but doesn't just because.  Hawke could kill Petrice, crippling the movement to antagonize the Qunari, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could pursue the case of the Lilly Killer, we're even given the option to declare such a motive, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could look deeper into what Anders needed to do in the Chantry, but doesn't just because.

There's a protagonist who doesn't always win and there's a protagonist who doesn't even try.  We don't need to succeed in stopping the Qunari from going berzerk but surely we can make an attempt.  We don't need to succeed in finding Quentin before he kills Leandra, but can't we at least be given the impression (through dialogue) that we tried?

In fact let's look at that example.  If Hawke declared he'd find the killer in Act 1 we don't get the quest from Aveline in Act 2, we get a letter from Emeric.  Something that illustrates that, in the 3 year gap, Hawke has tried to find the killer but simply didn't succeed, and Emeric claims that he's got a new lead.  That's all it takes and you have a protagonist who is both proactive and fallible.

Hawke's inability to do anything breaks the story, as well.  It makes absolutely no sense for Cassandra to think he might be able to stop the mage/templar war.  He's just a thug.  He hasn't demonstrated that he's good for  anything except killing stuff.

Modifié par maxernst, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:34 .

[TEWR]

maxernst wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Because Hawke as a protagonist is a many times more interesting than the newbie hero who, surprise surprise, ultimately saves the day.

Sounds like some people don't like dark fantasy. Stick to high. Everyone gets saved over there, and the protagonists are always flawless. And somehow, everything always works out.


I for one am happy Hawke isn't a mary sue.

There is a chasm of difference between a protagonist who fails to save the day and what Hawke is.  A protagonist who fails to save the day, if done well, should fail in spite of all efforts to do so.  They try their hardest, do their best, and it's unfortunately not enough.  Hawke is a protagonist who could save the day but doesn't just because.  Hawke could kill Petrice, crippling the movement to antagonize the Qunari, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could pursue the case of the Lilly Killer, we're even given the option to declare such a motive, but doesn't just because.  Hawke could look deeper into what Anders needed to do in the Chantry, but doesn't just because.

There's a protagonist who doesn't always win and there's a protagonist who doesn't even try.  We don't need to succeed in stopping the Qunari from going berzerk but surely we can make an attempt.  We don't need to succeed in finding Quentin before he kills Leandra, but can't we at least be given the impression (through dialogue) that we tried?

In fact let's look at that example.  If Hawke declared he'd find the killer in Act 1 we don't get the quest from Aveline in Act 2, we get a letter from Emeric.  Something that illustrates that, in the 3 year gap, Hawke has tried to find the killer but simply didn't succeed, and Emeric claims that he's got a new lead.  That's all it takes and you have a protagonist who is both proactive and fallible.

Hawke's inability to do anything breaks the story, as well.  It makes absolutely no sense for Cassandra to think he might be able to stop the mage/templar war.  He's just a thug.  He hasn't demonstrated that he's good for  anything except killing stuff.

Tallis: What do you call it when you kill people and take their stuff?

Aggressive Hawke: Tuesday.

[megski]

I can see all of these arguments, but the thing that gets me, before failing or not achieving the right goals, Hawke to me always seems to make things worse. Uncovering the red lyrium, kicking the Qunari out (who no matter what vow to return), the possibility of an exalted march, Act 3 eek! Not to mention the DLC's, releasing maker knows wha into the warden ranks and killing one of the Emporess of Orlais' BFFs. It seems like these things whether or not a complete fail or an accomplished goal would be brought up again. Maybe a 'hmmm, that mangy blighted mongoose was acting weird, maybe I should follow up on that" or "Oh crap an exalted march?!"

Maybe these are details of the story that we as players aren't supposed to notice or maybe we're supposed to think that Hawke as a hero would try his best to act if any of these consequences presented themselves. It just seems to me like Hawke is kind of weird anti-hero who unknowingly is bringing the world down on himself. This really got to me at the end of MotA with the line, "Who's going to tell her, you?" No Hawke, you dummy, maybe his son or servants or the million other people that saw you there. It's like he's completely oblivious to any kind of consequences. Maybe it's just me or the way it really is I'm not sure.

[DreGregoire]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Tallis: What do you call it when you kill people and take their stuff?

Aggressive Hawke: Tuesday.

Sarcastic Hawke: Adventuring!

[TEWR]

DreGregoire wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Tallis: What do you call it when you kill people and take their stuff?

Aggressive Hawke: Tuesday.

Sarcastic Hawke: Adventuring!

Adventurous Tuesdays!

I love both answers. Sarcastic Hawke is the best Hawke for MotA, and that's the only time aggressive Hawke made me laugh in MotA. I wonder what diplomatic Hawke says?

[megski]

I think Hawke says something along the lines of 'murder?' if he's diplomatic.

[Chouchoo1956]

I confess I haven't read all the comments, and perhaps I'm duplicating here, but this is how I experienced the problem mentioned in this topic. In short, this story is so good that you really do become involved with the story and personalize the goals of the protagonist. On the other hand, the outcome options are limited enough that you don't really have the freedom to accomplish those goals.

My goals this third time through was to avoid the holocast outcome. It seems to me it's not possible. I don't think you can save Kirkwall. And because the story is so good and the characters are so rich, I really want to.

I understand that not all my followers can stay loyal to me. But I should be able to avoid war. For example, I would like to kill Sister Patrice and/or Meredith much sooner in the story or just take over as Viscount by building a coalition with the merchants, nobles, enlightened templars, city guard and circle mages. It seems like those are very realistic options Hawke et al would consider. I understand there would be obstacles and consequences for these actions, but I'm disappointed they're not available to me as the protagonist. I am the Champion of Kirkwall, dammit, that should give me more juice and flexibility. I also liked the Arashok very much and was disappointed I couldn't become buds with him (although killing him is fun, too).

[Chouchoo1956]

I would have also kidnapped Elthina and taken her to safety against her will.

[Plaintiff]

Chouchoo1956 wrote...

I would have also kidnapped Elthina and taken her to safety against her will.

I would've set her on fire.

On-topic: I think DA2 is a prety fantastic game, story wise, and that Hawke works very well as a protagonist. No, he is not a "hero" in the sense that is generally meant when discussing videogames. I think a lot of the backlash is due to that.

People wanted more of the same; an epic quest with a visible end goal. Instead they got something else; a man trying to live his life who repeatedly gets swept up into events that are much bigger than he is, and well beyond his scope of control. I found it refreshing and extremely compelling, but others are going to be frustrated, because, from their perspective, there is no way to "win".

[DPSSOC]

Plaintiff wrote...

Chouchoo1956 wrote...

I would have also kidnapped Elthina and taken her to safety against her will.

I would've set her on fire.

On-topic: I think DA2 is a prety fantastic game, story wise, and that Hawke works very well as a protagonist. No, he is not a "hero" in the sense that is generally meant when discussing videogames. I think a lot of the backlash is due to that.

People wanted more of the same; an epic quest with a visible end goal. Instead they got something else; a man trying to live his life who repeatedly gets swept up into events that are much bigger than he is, and well beyond his scope of control. I found it refreshing and extremely compelling, but others are going to be frustrated, because, from their perspective, there is no way to "win".

I actually really liked the style of protagonist in DA2 just not how it was implemented.  Rather than create the image that Hawke is in over his head and couldn't change things even if he wanted to, they present someone who simply lacks the faculties to try.  It's been pointed out numerous times how the player was denied really obvious options for dealing with problems with no reason given as to why.  Petrice is a good example; before she becomes a real problem the player is given two scenes where there is no good reason for why Hawke can't kill her the player is simply denied the option.  I'm bothered less by the fact I can't eliminate Petrice than I am by the fact there's never any reason why I can't, and this happens a number of times throughout the game.

So yeah; good idea, shakey execution.

[HolyAvenger]

^ Agreed. I love the concept of a character trying to react in a gameworld where events are spiralling out of his/her control, but not in the stupid rail-roady way it was actually implemented especially in Act 3. Act 2 with the Qunari I didn't mind so much.

[MissOuJ]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think DA2 is a prety fantastic game, story wise, and that Hawke works very well as a protagonist. No, he is not a "hero" in the sense that is generally meant when discussing videogames. I think a lot of the backlash is due to that.

People wanted more of the same; an epic quest with a visible end goal. Instead they got something else; a man trying to live his life who repeatedly gets swept up into events that are much bigger than he is, and well beyond his scope of control. I found it refreshing and extremely compelling, but others are going to be frustrated, because, from their perspective, there is no way to "win".

I wholeheartedly agree. This game deconstructs the traditional hero-trope in a way that's very rare for games, and I love that. For me, one of the best aspects of the game is how you fight your way through chaos, and loss of family memebers/companions, reacting to events which are out of your control - and some of which you've caused/abetted without realizing it. This game, in the end is not a power fantasy; it's about survival, and I found playing through it incredibly cathartic.

I also love the way it uses the old juxtaposition of chaos and order in new context - mages vs. templars - and uses it to comment on social issues, such as power dynamics of institutional oppression. I have no idea whether this was intentional or not, but for me it makes this game truly awesome.

This is very different game from Origins, that is true, but I (personally) welcomed that change. True, DA2 has its issues, but honestly, I don't think the characterisation of Hawke is one of them. Also, it's pretty sure the developers needed to take the franchise to a new direction, and that means some railroading has to be involved. I didn't mind, but I'm sad to see many others do.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 février 2012 - 08:11 .

[alex90c]

Plaintiff wrote...

Chouchoo1956 wrote...

I would have also kidnapped Elthina and taken her to safety against her will.

I would've set her on fire.

On-topic: I think DA2 is a prety fantastic game, story wise, and that Hawke works very well as a protagonist. No, he is not a "hero" in the sense that is generally meant when discussing videogames. I think a lot of the backlash is due to that.

People wanted more of the same; an epic quest with a visible end goal. Instead they got something else; a man trying to live his life who repeatedly gets swept up into events that are much bigger than he is, and well beyond his scope of control. I found it refreshing and extremely compelling, but others are going to be frustrated, because, from their perspective, there is no way to "win".

But the problem is, he can get things under control, but he chooses not to. He doesn't use his status as the Champion to do anything whatsoever, when he sees a bag of limbs in Act 1, he doesn't investigate it any further, he just leaves it three years and then only when Leandra goes missing does he even bother to do anything even though there's some sicko lurking around Kirkwall.

As well as this, Hawke just doesn't get involved in anything whatsoever. Remember those conversations you can have with Fenris and Varric about Ferelden and/or what you want to do in Kirkwall? Sure , you can say you miss it, or you want to start a business in Kirkwall but it's just dialogue, you can't follow up on it at all. Considering the city is full of all these different factions, you can't get involved in any of them besides the City Guard who for some reason are scarce and incompetent even when Aveline is in charge. Bethseda would have had a field day with Kirkwall, having this giant city with all these different factions who the protagonist could join and do quests for, advance up their ranks, end up leading them, etc., blah, but Bioware didn't do any of that.

Even if everything still went to absolute sh*t in the end, at least if Hawke done something you would think "well at least I tried". But with Hawke, and MotA is notoriously bad for this, he just hardly tries and then when something goes bad he just goes "oh, okay" and walks off. 

[MissOuJ]

alex90c wrote...

Even if everything still went to absolute sh*t in the end, at least if Hawke done something you would think "well at least I tried". But with Hawke, and MotA is notoriously bad for this, he just hardly tries and then when something goes bad he just goes "oh, okay" and walks off. 

I have to say I never felt like that. I think me/my Hawke always did what s/he could. Small things, maybe, in the bigger scale of things, but important, nonetheless. Like saving Faynriel, Merril's clan, helping Harrowmond to escape. I don't feel like Hawke at any point dropped the ball.

And on saving Mother: I really feel like that had to be in the game, just like Bethany's/Carver's plots as well. It's about loosing people who mean a lot to Hawke. Somehow I feel if it was possible to save Mother/your other sibling, it would cheapen that somewhat. Hawke cannot save everyone (Mother, Seamus...), and s/he cannot please everyone (Grace ect.), and that's part of the narrative. I remember playing through DAO and maxing up on Persuation and Cunning pretty much from the get-go, and the way I could talk people out of their goals/deeply-held morals/opinnions was just... uncanny. I know we're talking about video games, and talking about realism in a game with mages anf dragons is pretty much redundant, but still. I felt a lot more connected to Hawke, since s/he wasn't a magical superhero and people-pleaser, but a flesh-and-bone, flawed human being.

What I'm trying to say here is, I feel it contributedf to drama and character growth for Hawke, and while I think stuff like your sibling's death(s) could have been handled a bit better, I feel like it had to be done. I think it contributes to the story and to Hawke's character (although, if you're playing male mage Hawke, [allmost, if  you have a female LI] all of Hawke's close female characters get stuffed into the fridge, which has really unfortunate implications).

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 février 2012 - 09:28 .

[TEWR]

I don't feel that Bethany or Carver needed to die in the opening sequence. I felt that was a poorly contrived way of Bioware trying to get us to care about a person we didn't know.

I feel that DAII's story would've been strengthened had the siblings lived, to which their death could be determined by the player later on.

Imagine losing Carver to the taint in the Deep Roads expedition, only to come back and find Bethany being hauled off to the Circle?

How would your Hawke feel?

Imagine Bethany being inducted into the Wardens, while Carver joins the Templars out of spite to Hawke? How would your Hawke feel?

Imagine Bethany and Carver joining the Circle/Templars when you return? The whole entire narrative would be strengthened by this conflict between family members. Imagine at the end of the game, you're have to decide whether you want to kill one or the other (though were I making the game you wouldn't be forced into doing so, but you could choose to if you wanted).

Their deaths in the beginning were not necessary. Their fate should've been left to the player to decide.

DAII was made out to be this intense personal story about Hawke and his family. But who is the Hawke family to me when I don't get to know the sibling that dies? When I barely get to know Leandra?

Forcing the player to metagame just to care a little bit about the sibling that dies is ****** poor game design.

And even had I gotten to know the sibling that died prior to the opening death, I would still see the need for the sibling to have been killed as unnecessary. It'd be more justifiable, but it would be unnecessary in my eyes.

Regarding Leandra, I do agree her death was necessary. But I take issue with the lack of Hawke investigating the serial killer, the lack of really getting to know Leandra since you barely interact with her, and her flopping around in the battle with Quentin.