31 réponses à ce sujet

[Discus]

Getting a little off topic now aren't we?

The conflict happened for several reasons obviously.. The interesting thing is what will happen now? This is what excites me! This is what makes Dragon Age as a total story interesting, the interconnectedness of all the stories within Thedas and how our role as players affect that or are a result of those events.

[LobselVith8]

thats1evildude wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Asunder gives the impression that Anders and Hawke don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. The events at Kirkwall may as well have never happened.

DG already indicated that conclusion is a bit silly. (Not that it'll stop you from repeating it.)

How is it silly when that's the impression that I get from the book, exactly?

I know that won't stop you from incessantly responding to my posts to make some snide remark, but that's precisely how I feel after reading Asunder - nothing Hawke and Anders did seemed to matter. And the game doesn't give me the impression that Hawke accomplished much of anything, either.

[BellaStrega]

kyles3 wrote...

Intellectually I can recognize that DA2 tells an epic story, but spending hour after hour romping through the same handful of dungeons does not feel epic. 

I just played DA2, so it's fresh in my mind:

I didn't really find the map reusage to be all that terrible. It was suboptimal, and I would have preferred more variety, but it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the game.

[Sir JK]

The problem with that line of reasoning Lobsel, is perhaps that it sets up a really unfair expectation. What exactly qualifies as "matters"? Because if what is required is that the character is mentioned, then I fear that neither did the warden. What is mentioned is this mythological construct known as the "Hero of Ferelden", but who this is and what this person did beyond killing the archdemon is very vague. To the point that most people probably wouldn't be able to recognice the HoF if they met him/her.

The reason is of course that our characters and what they did are made by us and unknown to the writers. So anything that mentiones them cannot touch upon the characters themselves. Hawke cannot be discussed in the book or lore without further discussing what he/she did, which side he/she took and why people thinks Hawke did that. Anything else is setting up a canon Hawke -which risks alienating anyone that didn't take those choices-

As an example. Would you have prefered the book detailing just how important the pro-templar Hawke was for the establishment of the more harsh policy for the circles? That without him/her we would not have the situation that the book describes.
Does Hawke matter then? Absolutely. Does our Hawkes matter? No, not really.

So I'd say it's a bit of an unfair expectation to expect more than at best superficial mention. Just like the warden is only ever truly refered by the one thing we absolutely couldn't avoid doing. Hawke, or our future character(s), will only be defined in later lore by what is constant. Not anything we had a choice about.

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Asunder gives the impression that Anders and Hawke don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. The events at Kirkwall may as well have never happened.

DG already indicated that conclusion is a bit silly. (Not that it'll stop you from repeating it.)

And really one doesn't even need David Gaider's explanation to realise that Asunder portrayed the relationship between mages and the chantry on a knife's edge because of what happened in Kirkwall.

Which is what, precisely? The mages and templars fighting ineptly against one another? Orsino becoming a Harvester for no apparent reason, while the Knight-Commander became possessed by a magical sword for no apparent reason, either? What's the significance? That Hawke either opposes or supports the Right of Annulment, with mages living or dying as a result? If the idea (based on Varric's dialogue at the conclusion of Dragon Age II) is that Hawke became a rallying cry, or a symbol of oppression, to the mages because the events at Kirkwall were so important, then Asunder doesn't really convey that at all.

[Morroian]

LobselVith8 wrote...

How is it silly when that's the impression that I get from the book, exactly?.

Its silly because if thats the impression you got from the book its because of your biases against DA2.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And really one doesn't even need David Gaider's explanation to realise that Asunder portrayed the relationship between mages and the chantry on a knife's edge because of what happened in Kirkwall.

Which is what, precisely?

You're being disingenuous the OTT treatment of mages at Kirkwall and the resulting annullment or rebellion was clearly stated in the book as a reason why the relationship between mages and the chantry was deteriorating.

Modifié par Morroian, 18 janvier 2012 - 10:38 .

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

How is it silly when that's the impression that I get from the book, exactly?.

Its silly because if thats the impression you got from the book its because of your biases against DA2.

I find it silly that the pro-Dragon Age 2 fans are trying to dictate to me what kind of impression a book should leave on me.

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And really one doesn't even need David Gaider's explanation to realise that Asunder portrayed the relationship between mages and the chantry on a knife's edge because of what happened in Kirkwall.

Which is what, precisely?

You're being disingenuous the OTT treatment of mages at Kirkwall and the resulting annullment or rebellion was clearly stated in the book as a reason why the relationship between mages and the chantry was deteriorating.

No, I'm being honest, especially when an allegedly important event seems to be a virtual nonissue when compared to how important Hawke was made out to be for inspiring the mages to rebel (for one reason or another). The problem you seem to have is that I simply don't share the enthusiasm for Dragon Age II that you do.