Questa discussione ha avuto 703 risposte

[TEWR]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There are open windows all over the place, they're fairly obvious. And IIRC, the guard did sweep the foundry, and also raided Gascard's mansion on a tip from Emeric. The investigation just kept going nowhere.

Gascard's mansion had evidence lying around all over the place, Clue-style.

"It was the blood mage, in the parlor, with the knife"

The guards, had they looked, would have found out pretty quickly. They're likely just idiotic.

Indeed. Notes were scattered around that pointed to Gascard acting suspicious. A mysterious shipment of hard to control creatures and inquiries into missing mages?

Yea... I think that's a bit suspicious and worthy of solid investigation. They really are a bunch of idiots.

[Xilizhra]

I think Gascard cleaned everything up before the guard showed up. He's a nobleman, he probably has contacts in it.

[TEWR]

You guys really don't know how much Aveline and the guard investigated or didn't investigate. But Hawke can blame her for it afterward and she basically says she did what she could, as I recall. You also don't know that Hawke didn't "tell his mother." And maybe she already knew about the serial killer.

Actually, we do. Her dialogue makes it clear that she never took Emeric seriously and she only investigated Gascard as a courtesy, to which she became afraid of further investigating because she got chewed out by Meredith.

And Meredith has no authority over the City Guard, so Aveline shouldn't be afraid of her. I mean my god, if Meredith wants the City Guard not to investigate Templar matters then have the Templars actually do the investigating! Have them do their jobs!

You also don't know that Hawke didn't "tell his mother." And maybe she already knew about the serial killer.

As for this... Hawke is supposed to be my character. I should be given the option to warn Leandra during Act II. It shouldn't be something that is left to headcanon because DAII's problem is that it relies too much on headcanon and sometimes headcanon is contradicted.

Actually, I think if Hawke had warned his mother, he probably would've mentioned the part about how his victims receive white lilies and preys on single women, sometimes from noble families.

But since Hawke neglected to mention this to Leandra -- and by extension Bodahn who answers the door -- it can be inferred that no warning was ever given. Since Bodahn was clueless, Leandra was also clueless.

Tobias Hawke -- my Hawke -- would've told Leandra about the killer and told Bodahn as well. He would've told Bodahn to find him if white lilies were ever delivered to the house.

Tobias Hawke would've been part of a thorough investigation into the matter from the moment he became a noble. It wouldn't have led to Quentin until Leandra was kidnapped, but he would've been making the effort those 3 years.

And I'm tired of the whole mage templar debate but I'll just say that the reasons for siding with the templars are not pretentious (covering up for our true predilection for gleeful genocide, no doubt).

Actually, I have occasionally seen a poster or two say they are siding with the Templars to kill the mages because they're "out of control" and to "keep order".

I just find it funny that people will side with the Templars under the reasoning of keeping order when the Templars couldn't even do their jobs in the first place.

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 febbraio 2012 - 06:54 .

[TEWR]

I'm not sure I can blame someone who's recently had their head cut off skipping to the goodbye part as quickly as possible...

Eh, fair point. That is pretty unfair of me.

Still, I would've liked the option to warn her myself. I don't think that's something that should be left to the imagination. It would give us more of a connection to her if we could actually warn her instead of hearing her remark constantly about an elven slave.

Especially when Orana has an actual job.

She makes that clear while talkin to Emeric, prior to Emeric being murdered by demons, doesn't she? So how do you know how seriously she took it after that? I don't recall the exact exchange after Leandra dies, but I thought she was defensive enough about her own efforts in that exchange.

We were discussing primarily how seriously she took it before Emeric's death. During Act 1 and the ensuing years. I said she was partially to blame because of her failure to perform an actual investigation prior to Emeric's death. And then when she did begin the investigation, Hawke doesn't get involved at all.

When she did start an investigation after Emeric's death, she begins to do her job. But I was discussing how prior to that point she wasn't doing her job right.

So your Tobias Hawke had all of this planned out in time on your first playthrough? There's no perfect hindsight vision in play here? Maybe Hawke was concerned about the issue but never suspected in his darkest nightmares that it would involve his mother.

Well, Tobias didn't have it planned obviously. After finding Ninette's remains along with the whole area itself being suspicious, he knew there was a killer on the loose. So he made it a point to vow to work with the City Guard to find the killer when he became a noble, as he was focused on the expedition at this point.

Now, ideally Aveline should've launched an investigation. Hawke would then just assist once returning.

He wanted to catch this psycho and was going to work with the Guard to find out who he was, and he wouldn't find out that information until it was too late.

So it wouldn't be planned out. He was just going to act accordingly to what he witnessed. This is what I would have done were I Hawke. This isn't hindsight taking over.

That's just foolish given that he can find out that Quentin -- who at this point was nameless to Hawke -- is preying on single women, sometimes from a noble family.

If Hawke is a female, this puts her at risk. If Bethany is alive, this puts her at risk as well.

So you have 3 women from a noble family, all possibly single. And they want to ignore it and hope it doesn't affect them? That's just idiotic. Serial killers don't ignore you because you want them to.

If anything, Hawke's inaction increased the chances of Leandra being targeted.

Hawke is in a position of power to rid the city of Quentin and has influence with Aveline, yet doesn't pursue it. Tobias Hawke would've been working to catch Quentin as a means to protect his family, gain more influence, and additionally weaken Templar authority.

Maybe he did and mentioned it to her but the part about the white lillies just slipped his mind. Maybe he did mention the white lillies (or she just knew about it anyway) but it was she who never suspected the killer would target her, or that the nice suitor she was meeting would be that very killer. Maybe the thought did tickle the back of her mind but she just didn't want to believe it.

Relying on headcanon almost all the time is just bad imo. DAII relies on the player using headcanon so much for the game to make some semblance of sense, and then it goes to hell when the game contradicts said headcanon.

Now I don't disagree in general that
explicitly showing things is better than headcanon, but I don't see
where this one is explicitly contradicted. Too many assumptions about how people definitely would have acted, if only X had been done differently...

Well, Hawke's comment about white lilies when he hears about Leandra being given them implies that he forgot about the whole thing and didn't bother to remember that crucial detail.

And if he coudln't remember that, how are we supposed to believe he warned his mother? how are we supposed to believe he aided Aveline after Emeric's death?

"White lilies? I remember that. I know something about that"

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 febbraio 2012 - 07:05 .

[HTTP 404]

I like the theory that Kirkwall would be better off if hawke never existed

[MissOuJ]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

MissOuJ wrote...


Bethany/Carver was killed off to balance the gameplay & companions available to you. Playing mage Hawke with Beth, Anders, and Merril would've been a bit too much. Also, mage Hawke has a much wider range of abilities than Beth/any other cmopanion, so one more extra mage would be pointless, really. Same with warrior Hawke vs. Carver. Plus, they both get specialisations identical to Hawke if they live - Templar for Carver and Force Mage for Beth. Two force mages in particular would pretty much break any balance the game has and make it easier still - one of the most common complaints I've heard.

Game balance means nothing in a single player game.

Except... that it does? Balance isn't just for MMO's. Since party makeup affects the talents/skills you have in your disposal, and those skills/cool-downs ect. affect difficulty, which affects the balance of the game. The enemies are already a bit behind in DA2, particularly midway through act 2, and seeing the ridiculous damage mages in particular can do with crowd control + the damage they deal, I think letting Carver/Bethany die was the right choise.

In MMO's, it's about giving everybody a fair chance; here, it's about making sure the game stays challenging, but since so many people think this game is a cake walk already (which I personally can't agree with), then maybe that failed. I'm doing a Nightmare run ATM and am having a blast. I don't think it's too easy at all, and I don't consider myself as a particularly crappy player. On the other hand, I'm playing on PS3 which has its own limitations (when compared to PC).

[alex90c]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I like the theory that Kirkwall would be better off if hawke never existed

well it would definitely have more people in it

[TEWR]

I didn't exactly take that implication. Just because it's not fresh on his mind three years after he learned about it doesn't mean he forgot about it or never acted on it.

He's pretty much given a guarantee by Gascard in Act 2 that the killer uses lilies. In Act 1 it was simply Ghyslain's suspicion that the lilies originated from Jethann. But nowhere in Act 1 was it stated that the lilies had anything to do with the killer's MO.

Ghyslain simply thought Jethann was appealing to Ninette and trying to seduce her into running away with him by using her favorite flowers as a means to get to her.

Wait... I'm thinking Emeric may have said something. But anyway, it doesn't matter because Hawke is told by Gascard in Act 2 that the killer uses lilies as part of his MO.

And I think if Hawke can remember Petrice 3 years later, he can remember this vital detail. I think if Hawke can remember that Feynriel's greatest fear is Tranquility 3 years later when going in to save him from demons, he can remember this.

I'll address the rest of your post in a bit. I just woke up and wanted to check the forums for a minute before getting more sleep.

As far as Hawke and Bethany, if Hawke is a female, I daresay they're
big girls and rather desensitized to serial killing, seeing as it's
something of a part-time job for them...

They're not serial killers. They've always been defending themselves and they don't kill people out of a sense of psychological gratification.

They haven't been murdering anyone except whenever Hawke chooses teh "We fight!" option.

So only then could Hawke be a serial killer, but not all Hawkes are that way.

And you know, I wouldn't mind playing as a Hawke that didn't think it could happen to them if that was the Hawke I wanted to play. But it wasn't.

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 febbraio 2012 - 11:43 .

[TEWR]

For that matter, he did remember it. I left out that vital detail myself. He said so right there. Saying "I know something about that" doesn't imply he forgot. Again you're assuming too much.

The way the dialogue is said implies that he forgot it and was just now remembering all of that information when he sees the lilies. At least for Male Hawke. I've only played one female Hawke, so her dialogue and tone of voice isn't ingrained in my memory.

And again, if Leandra was warned I would expect Bodahn to also be told of the lilies and the killer, since he handles who is let into the house.

If Bodahn didn't know then I can't believe that Leandra ever knew. No amount of headcanon will justify that.

Removing player agency and making it so they can't act on their motivations in a game of this scale and that was touted as you gaining influence and rising through the ranks is not good game design.

Not for an RPG anyway.

Leaving everything up to headcanon just to justify that it happened is bad imo and I do see the dialogue and how it's conveyed as a direct contradiction of "Hawke did warn her".

Now.... sleep time!

My comment about the Hawkes being serial killers was obviously tongue-in-cheek, that's all I felt necessary to respond to the extra dramatization of bringing them into it to begin with...

How is it extra dramatization? The man preys on single women. Hawke and Bethany are single women. The man is a mage. Bethany is possibly in the Circle. The man could infiltrate the Circle for certain books and go after Bethany once he sees her.

It makes sense. Even female officers get targeted by rapists and serial killers sometimes sadly and are overpowered.

And considering the man was a blood mage, he could manipulate his women into doing what he wanted until he could kill them.

And that's not meta-gaming for the record. Since the foundry is empty until Hawke and company pursue the man and demons arise once they do, one knows that for the place to be like that a mage has to be involved with binding demons and making them do his/her bidding. And blood magic happens to be the only thing to do that.

One knows that for the man to have not been affected by the demons, he must be controlling them.

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 febbraio 2012 - 12:06 .

[HTTP 404]

alex90c wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

I like the theory that Kirkwall would be better off if hawke never existed

well it would definitely have more people in it

people who like skydiving without parachutes

[The_Real_Lee]

One of the things I liked about DA2 is that it didn't do the text epilogue like DAO. We know some of the long term consequences of Hawkes actions with NPCs and his Companions, but we don't know the long term.

It left the ending feeling less complete, but it makes me look forward to the next DA to see what the consequences to Hawkes actions are,

[Darkrider296]

Wulfram wrote...

I do think it's getting a bit silly, particularly since they fail on a small scale rather a lot too. Act 1 isn't too bad, but in the other 2 acts a pro-mage Hawke basically fails at every main quest.

Not true look at Fenryiel or that girl u saved from Anders. Ella I think her name was. Their both examples of helping mages with positive results

[Setz]

And this is why bioware dug themselves their own graves by allowing people so many choices in both DAO and ME1/ME2. You can't write a story with a proper ending with these many choices. And because people have gotten their choices, now they want more. They want the story written EXACTLY as they'd like it to be. They want every option in every situation. I Should be able to kill anders when I think he's up to something, I should be able to save leandra by keeping her indoors all the time, I should be able to kill Lassarus or attack the Qunari leader before he revolted.

Hawke isn't you, he's a character that's written and played by you. The choices he has are the ones he's thought about. If he missed a choice you think he could have taken it's because he didn't think of it. And taking an actual rpg look at it, he isn't sitting there while you decide a course of action, the games "paused" and he has to think on the go.

[TEWR]

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".

Not really. I don't want the quest to be handed to me like the Blight was, where that was always my goal. I wanted my goals to change over time. I wanted them to be my own to determine. I wanted Hawke to act on my goals, not for me to act on his/Bioware's.

I wanted the ability to freely determine who the threat to Kirkwall is and act in such a way that would help keep that threat from becoming too much.

I wanted the game's story to progress in such a way that I could re-evaluate what I was doing.

"Is helping Faction A the right choice? Maybe I should help Faction B instead now..."

The goal being determined by the player rather then being forced on the player is a good concept. DAII didn't do this. If anything, it still forces you to have a goal. A goal consisting of doing nothing until your hand is forced.

[DPSSOC]

Setz wrote...

And this is why bioware dug themselves their own graves by allowing people so many choices in both DAO and ME1/ME2. You can't write a story with a proper ending with these many choices. And because people have gotten their choices, now they want more. They want the story written EXACTLY as they'd like it to be. They want every option in every situation. I Should be able to kill anders when I think he's up to something, I should be able to save leandra by keeping her indoors all the time, I should be able to kill Lassarus or attack the Qunari leader before he revolted.

Hawke isn't you, he's a character that's written and played by you. The choices he has are the ones he's thought about. If he missed a choice you think he could have taken it's because he didn't think of it. And taking an actual rpg look at it, he isn't sitting there while you decide a course of action, the games "paused" and he has to think on the go.

People don't mind being denied options (at least I don't) but those denials have to make sense within the story/game.  For example in Acts 1 & 2 we can't kill Petrice, and a solid reason is never given as to why.  In Act 1 the only reason we're given that we can't kill her is that she won't let us; which is odd because I don't recall having to ask permission when I killed everyone else.  Act 2 is because she runs away cause it's not like you or any of your companions can shoot or chase down the elderly woman in a dress.

If you aren't going to let the player be proactive either hide your threats better (subtlety remember that), and give reasons the characters can't be.

For the record you never want to compare computer or console RPGs to tabletop.  Were DA2 a tabletop RPG Petrice would have been skewered and the minute I thought Anders was up to something he'd be tied to a chair and interrogated.

[Realmzmaster]

DPSSOC wrote...

[For the record you never want to compare computer or console RPGs to tabletop.  Were DA2 a tabletop RPG Petrice would have been skewered and the minute I thought Anders was up to something he'd be tied to a chair and interrogated.

But then the DM would have to roll to see if you are able to restrain Anders. If you attack is unsuccessful you get hit by cone of cold with deep freeze upgrade and Anders shatters you with a blow from his staff.  Or you are successful and Anders spills his plans. You have to decide whether to turn him over to the templars, kill him or join the plot.

Your party is about to roll its attack on Petrice but Varnell  has the inititative and defends her with holy smite stunning the party allowing her time to escape. She runs to the templars alerting them of your attempt on Varnell's life. Or you recover from Varnell's attempt and cut both down in that hovel.

No, cRPGs have a way to go to approach tabletop, but when you cannot get a group together in person or online it will have to do.

I simply would have allowed an attack on Petrice and made it tough for the party to kill them. (not impossible, but a very small chance of success.

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...
People don't mind being denied options (at least I don't) but those denials have to make sense within the story/game.  For example in Acts 1 & 2 we can't kill Petrice, and a solid reason is never given as to why.  In Act 1 the only reason we're given that we can't kill her is that she won't let us; which is odd because I don't recall having to ask permission when I killed everyone else.  Act 2 is because she runs away cause it's not like you or any of your companions can shoot or chase down the elderly woman in a dress.

If you aren't going to let the player be proactive either hide your threats better (subtlety remember that), and give reasons the characters can't be.

This exactly.  If we can't kill Petrice for main story plot reasons, fine.  But how about she just not be there when we return from the setup?  Or we get konked on the head by hidden Templars hiding in the next room.  Or we do get to kill her but then we find out she was just one of a group of conspirators and the main dissension plots continues.  There were so many ways to handle that scene without making Hawke feel like an idiot or changing the plot.

I like the battle in DA:O with Ser Cauthrien when you're rescuing Anora.  You can surrender or fight.  If you surrender or lose the fight, you have to break out of prison.  If you win the fight, you waltz out of the Howe estate feeling great.  You could role play that escape sequence so well...  timid Warden, bold Warden, tactical or brute force...  and enemies didn't drop out of the sky to ruin your battle plans either.

[DPSSOC]

Realmzmaster wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

[For the record you never want to compare computer or console RPGs to tabletop.  Were DA2 a tabletop RPG Petrice would have been skewered and the minute I thought Anders was up to something he'd be tied to a chair and interrogated.

But then the DM would have to roll to see if you are able to restrain Anders. If you attack is unsuccessful you get hit by cone of cold with deep freeze upgrade and Anders shatters you with a blow from his staff.  Or you are successful and Anders spills his plans. You have to decide whether to turn him over to the templars, kill him or join the plot.

Your party is about to roll its attack on Petrice but Varnell  has the inititative and defends her with holy smite stunning the party allowing her time to escape. She runs to the templars alerting them of your attempt on Varnell's life. Or you recover from Varnell's attempt and cut both down in that hovel.

No, cRPGs have a way to go to approach tabletop, but when you cannot get a group together in person or online it will have to do.

Agreed my point was more you can't enforce RPG thinking in a CRPG.  RPG's are dynamic, the interaction of players and DMs flows with the DM adapting in response to player actions and vice versa.  CRPG's are static, there's what the DM (devs) decided to include and nothing else.

Realmzmaster wrote...
I simply would have allowed an attack on Petrice and made it tough for the party to kill them. (not impossible, but a very small chance of success.

I simply would have had Petrice give a better reason not to kill her than, "I won't allow it."  Every time I come across that I feel the urge to scream at my screen, "I wasn't asking for your permission!"

Really there's plenty, "Others know I'm here and they'll find you,"  "Do you think I would come to your filthy little quarter with only a single Templar for protection?  There are a dozen who saw you enter and will dispense with you quickly if they don't see me leave."  Anything other than, "Yes you probably could kill me and my one bodyguard, but I will not allow it."

I want to know who's idea it was to throw in a line that only serves to highlight why that plot thread should have ended there.

[Askia32]

Setz wrote...

And this is why bioware dug themselves their own graves by allowing people so many choices in both DAO and ME1/ME2. You can't write a story with a proper ending with these many choices. And because people have gotten their choices, now they want more. They want the story written EXACTLY as they'd like it to be. They want every option in every situation. I Should be able to kill anders when I think he's up to something, I should be able to save leandra by keeping her indoors all the time, I should be able to kill Lassarus or attack the Qunari leader before he revolted.

Hawke isn't you, he's a character that's written and played by you. The choices he has are the ones he's thought about. If he missed a choice you think he could have taken it's because he didn't think of it. And taking an actual rpg look at it, he isn't sitting there while you decide a course of action, the games "paused" and he has to think on the go.

I agree completely.  

Although I didn't always like it, I agree with Hawke having a more directed path.  I think it allows the writers to make the story more dynamic.  Hearing some of the complaints in this thread, if they had their way, the final one on one battle with the Arishok would of never happened, and that story arc was my favorite out of anything DA.  

That being said, I thought it was bad that Hawke didn't warn his mother.  That part could of been written better so it didn't make Hawke seem so dumb.

[DPSSOC]

Askia32 wrote...

Setz wrote...

And this is why bioware dug themselves their own graves by allowing people so many choices in both DAO and ME1/ME2. You can't write a story with a proper ending with these many choices. And because people have gotten their choices, now they want more. They want the story written EXACTLY as they'd like it to be. They want every option in every situation. I Should be able to kill anders when I think he's up to something, I should be able to save leandra by keeping her indoors all the time, I should be able to kill Lassarus or attack the Qunari leader before he revolted.

Hawke isn't you, he's a character that's written and played by you. The choices he has are the ones he's thought about. If he missed a choice you think he could have taken it's because he didn't think of it. And taking an actual rpg look at it, he isn't sitting there while you decide a course of action, the games "paused" and he has to think on the go.

I agree completely.  

Although I didn't always like it, I agree with Hawke having a more directed path.  I think it allows the writers to make the story more dynamic.  Hearing some of the complaints in this thread, if they had their way, the final one on one battle with the Arishok would of never happened, and that story arc was my favorite out of anything DA.  

That being said, I thought it was bad that Hawke didn't warn his mother.  That part could of been written better so it didn't make Hawke seem so dumb.

All of them could have been written better.  I liked the fight with the Arishok too, I'm not looking to skip it; I don't think anyone is, but the whole thing could have been written better.  Constantly in the game we run into situations where we have obvious problem A, obvious sources B; C; and so on, obvious solution D, and zero obstacles to such a solution, but we can't do it because we aren't given the option.  The problem with the Arishok was written in such a way that it could have been easily resolved, should have been easily resolved, if not for Hawke's reality altering stupidity.  If the only reason you can give to keep the Big Bad around is that your protagonist is a moron, especially in an RPG, you're doing it wrong.

Let's look at DA:O, from the start of the game we can easily walk into Denerim and nobody bothers us, so what's stopping us from just killing Loghain, solving the Civil War problem, and allowing us to focus on the Blight?  Well he's in a fortress surrounded by guards, fair enough we can't get to him, yet.  Once we get to the point where we could get to him (reviving Arl Eamon) it's pointed out that it wouldn't actually solve anything.

That's how you keep a Big Bad round, you give the player reasons their character can't deal with them swiftly, or why such action wouldn't be productive.  What DA2 did is have the character unable to take action, because the player wasn't allowed.  That's the only barrier between Hawke and being a proactive hero, we're not given the option.  I've mentioned it before in this thread (in the long, long ago) it's a matter of agency.  If you need the player to go down a certain path and you need certain things to happen you restrain the character, not the player.  Why can't I (the player) do something should always be answered by, because your character isn't able rather than, because I (the GM) won't let you.

Again these aren't hard fixes, give us a real reason we can't just deal with Petrice, we're given a reason (though never explicitly) why we can't deal with the Arishok (fortress surrounded by guards again).  If Hawke declares that he'll find the Lilly Killer in Act 1 give us a reason he/she didn't or couldn't in Act 2.