1306 réponses à ce sujet

[dukem73]

I am fine with not saving the world. a fine little story where I just save a town is fine for me. But I feel totally exploited when I compare the nicely crafted areas of DA:O to DA2's total over the top copy and paste design.

next thing I cannot tolerate is the total lack of riddles in the game. I think riddles absolutely belong into RPG's like these (I can excuse the lack of riddles in action rpg's like mass effect although me1 at least featured the tower of hanoi).

However, there might be people who agree with this and maybe there's even more money to be made if the direction continues like this...... but it will have to continue without me.

[Adanu]

RVallant wrote...

Adanu wrote...

batlin wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Translation: "I like putting words in peoples mouth because i don't want t othink for myself"

I can do that too, ****.

You expect me to come to a different conclusion when you're unwilling to answer a simple question and then calling me a troll?

You're being obtuse to the point of absurdity pretty much. Either you get it or you don.t.

As I like to butt in, I think his points are clear and valid, not trolling.

I'm not equipped to rebut his points though, but the other guy posting is and I can see both sides of the story. So in the interests of discussion I'll butt back out again now, but I do hope you counteract properly

His 'points' are all subjective bias that refuses to use in game knowledge about Hawkes deeds and the perception people have of him/her.

Anyone who actually understands what Bioware did with Hawke would be able to see how important Hawke is in the grand scheme of the story.

I'm not saying he is jesus christ... but he is sort of like a hybrid of Jack churchills combat prowess and Erwin Rommels influence and legend in the Dragon Age universe.

[batlin]

Adanu wrote...

Anyone who actually understands what Bioware did with Hawke would be able to see how important Hawke is in the grand scheme of the story.

Prove it then. Explain to me how Hawke is the only one who can end the war between the mages and templars.

All you've done so far is say "If you don't know then that's your problem." Ok then, it's my problem. So why don't you go ahead and enlighten me?

[staindgrey]

This argument of "direction" versus "execution" is one that cannot possibly end. It's all subjective.

DAII failed commercially. Whether it met EA/Bioware's objectives finanically, I don't know, because I don't work at EA/Bioware. But for a game with a "2" in it, it failed commercially. We cannot deny that. Whether or not it failed subjectively is where all these arguments start-- then never end.

Take me, personally. I enjoyed DAII more than DAO. Therefore, I liked the direction it took-- I would argue that the reason DAII failed wasn't due to creative choices, but rather, due to a lack of execution on account of the rushed development schedule. I'd argue that there were some great ideas and a large amount of potential that were wasted in the end because the game was rushed out the door.

Someone else-- like the OP-- would argue instead that regardless of how long they spent making DAII, it would have still failed because the direction was wrong. They could have taken 5 years to make it and they still would've hated it.

Who's right? We can't tell. We can't interview everyone who's played the game and ask specifically why they didn't like it (and even then, they may not know why themselves; people tend to form specific opinions on things even if they're ignorant of said things).

In other words, we're all free to have our personal opinions on what DAII was. But trying to turn those opinions into accepted facts is what causes all this useless debating that inevitably devolves into name-calling, pretentious tones and locked threads. None of us knows absolutes. We didn't work on the game. How could we possibly know?

Can we please just... you know... stop it?

Modifié par staindgrey, 28 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Adanu]

batlin wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Anyone who actually understands what Bioware did with Hawke would be able to see how important Hawke is in the grand scheme of the story.

Prove it then. Explain to me how Hawke is the only one who can end the war between the mages and templars.

All you've done so far is say "If you don't know then that's your problem." Ok then, it's my problem. So why don't you go ahead and enlighten me?

I just did. YOu didn't accept the reason.

If you can't accept it, there is nothing I can do for you.

[DeadPoolX]

staindgrey wrote...

This argument of "direction" versus "execution" is one that cannot possibly end. It's all subjective.

DAII failed commercially. Whether it met EA/Bioware's objectives finanically, I don't know, because I don't work at EA/Bioware. But for a game with a "2" in it, it failed commercially. We cannot deny that. Whether or not it failed subjectively is where all these arguments start-- then never end.

Take me, personally. I enjoyed DAII more than DAO. Therefore, I liked the direction it took-- I would argue that the reason DAII failed wasn't due to creative choices, but rather, due to a lack of execution on account of the rushed development schedule. I'd argue that there were some great ideas and a large amount of potential that were wasted in the end because the game was rushed out the door.

Someone else-- like the OP-- would argue instead that regardless of how long they spent making DAII, it would have still failed because the direction was wrong. They could have taken 5 years to make it and they still would've hated it.

Who's right? We can't tell. We can't interview everyone who's played the game and ask specifically why they didn't like it (and even then, they may not know why themselves; people tend to form specific opinions on things even if they're ignorant of said things).

In other words, we're all free to have our personal opinions on what DAII was. But trying to turn those opinions into accepted facts is what causes all this useless debating that inevitably devolves into name-calling, pretentious tones and locked threads. None of us knows absolutes. We didn't work on the game. How could we possibly know?

Can we please just... you know... stop it?

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the best posts I've ever seen on here. :happy:

[Zodann]

I really hope that they see that DA:O was what brought the sales for DA2.

Here is me hoping for silent protagonist and better skill&stat system that actually also can change the story itself.

[batlin]

staindgrey wrote...

This argument of "direction" versus "execution" is one that cannot possibly end. It's all subjective.

DAII failed commercially. Whether it met EA/Bioware's objectives finanically, I don't know, because I don't work at EA/Bioware. But for a game with a "2" in it, it failed commercially. We cannot deny that. Whether or not it failed subjectively is where all these arguments start-- then never end.

Take me, personally. I enjoyed DAII more than DAO. Therefore, I liked the direction it took-- I would argue that the reason DAII failed wasn't due to creative choices, but rather, due to a lack of execution on account of the rushed development schedule. I'd argue that there were some great ideas and a large amount of potential that were wasted in the end because the game was rushed out the door.

Someone else-- like the OP-- would argue instead that regardless of how long they spent making
DAII, it would have still failed because the direction was wrong. They
could have taken 5 years to make it and they still would've hated it.

Who's right? We can't tell. We can't interview everyone who's played the game and ask specifically why they didn't like it (and even then, they may not know why themselves; people tend to form specific opinions on things even if they're ignorant of said things).

In other words, we're all free to have our personal opinions on what DAII was. But trying to turn those opinions into accepted facts is what causes all this useless debating that inevitably devolves into name-calling, pretentious tones and locked threads. None of us knows absolutes. We didn't work on the game. How could we possibly know?

Can we please just... you know... stop it?

More time would not have changed the plot. It would not have changed the characters. It would not have changed the plot holes. Time would have added more environments, more polygons, less bugs, more quests, etc, but the plot; the disjointed story is not a matter of how much time they had to develop.

Dragon Age 2 failed commerically because the general public did not like it. It had more marketing behind it than DA:O, so exposure was clearly not an issue. DA:O almost completely flew under the radar marketing-wise and was still hugely successful; at least twice as successful as 2. This is not a question of whether people who like DA2 more exist. It's a matter of the general public not liking DA2 as much as DA:O. That's why I contend that DA2 went the wrong direction.

Adanu wrote...

I just did. YOu didn't accept the reason.

If you can't accept it, there is nothing I can do for you.

What, you mean when you repsonded with this?

"EVen the Chantry plays politics, and a figurehead like Hawke would be an awesome political tool."

One: They brought Varric in because they were searching for a criminal. Not a political tool.

Two: Once the Seeker found out that the actual criminal was Anders, not hawke,  she then shows no interest in apprehending Anders. Rather, she continues her search for Hawke.

Three: She believes Hawke can inspire the mages to stop their war even though it was Anders who was a leader of the mage underground in Kirkwall and instigated the conflict.

Four: Her conversation with Leliana implies that their goal was always to find Hawke to stop the mage/templar war. Why? How?

Five: Alistair is another legendary figure who could have united the mages because he helped them, same as Hawke could have as a possible choice. Why choose a guy who is missing over him?

Six: If indeed they needed Hawke as a figurehead, they could just as easily get a stand-in. No, very few people would know the difference because very few people dealt with Hawke, and they were all sequestered in Kirkwall.

None of these things are issues you've addressed. All you've done is say "You just don't get it!" Well, it takes one to know one.

Modifié par batlin, 28 mars 2012 - 10:05 .

[Faerloch]

I like this thread and it inspired me to replay Origins and DA2 again. Unfortuantely, I've played both so many times I can't bare another playthrough, no matter how much I like them. I think Hawke is an important character, but I don't see how he could solve the conflict. If perhaps every single one of his companions had become high-ranking generals on both sides of the war and he could persuade them to stop.

But the game clearly does not explain this. Hawke's greatest achievement then is probably keeping Flemeth alive.

Modifié par Faerloch, 28 mars 2012 - 09:54 .

[Adanu]

batlin wrote...

One: They brought Varric in because they were searching for a criminal. Not a political tool.

Two: Once the Seeker found out that the actual criminal was Anders, not hawke,  she then shows no interest in apprehending Anders. Rather, she continues her search for Hawke.

Three: She believes Hawke can inspire the mages to stop their war even though it was Anders who was a leader of the mage underground in Kirkwall and instigated the conflict.

Four: Alistair is another legendary figure who could have united the mages because he helped them, same as Hawke could have as a possible choice. Why choose a guy who is missing over him?

Five: If indeed they needed Hawke as a figurehead, they could just as easily get a stand-in. No, very few people would know the difference because very few people dealt with Hawke, and they were all sequestered in Kirkwall.

None of these things are issues you've addressed. All you've done is say "You just don't get it!" Well, it takes one to know one.

One: They brought Varric in because they were searching for a criminal. Not a political tool.

YOu're making the assumption that Hawke is considered a criminal. Cassandra is trying to find the champion and the truth about him/her.

Two: Once the Seeker found out that the actual criminal was Anders, not
hawke,  she then shows no interest in apprehending Anders. Rather, she
continues her search for Hawke.

Hawke is the one who enabled it all. Anders would never have gotten to where he was without Hawke, and Hawke is the one who everyone looked to. Like it or not, Hawke was the one who had the influence, Anders was simply a catalyst

Three: She believes Hawke can inspire the mages to stop their war even though it was Anders who was a leader of the mage underground in Kirkwall and instigated the conflict.

Where does it say that ANders was the leader of the mage underground?  I don't recall this. He was part of it, and he had a vision of being a revolutionary that only came to fruition when he decided to bomb the chantry. Hawke could have been considered a good leader as a Mage as well.

Four: Alistair
is another legendary figure who could have united the mages because he
helped them, same as Hawke could have as a possible choice. Why choose a
guy who is missing over him?

Because Alistair was not there when the war started. Hawke was there, and Hawke had a legend based in Kirkwall. He was directed involved with the start of the war, and considering that people as far away as in TEVINTER know of Hawke...

Five: If indeed they needed Hawke
as a figurehead, they could just as easily get a stand-in. No, very few
people would know the difference because very few people dealt with
Hawke, and they were all sequestered in Kirkwall.

YOu're grasping at straws thinking that no one knows what Hawke looks like even though people as far away as ORLAIS have seen him since Kirkwall is a major trade hub in the region

YOu just don't get it, and with your attitude you never will.

It makes perfect sense within the game world why Hawke is important to find. YOu just don't want to see it.

[batlin]

Adanu wrote...

YOu're making the assumption that Hawke is considered a criminal. Cassandra is trying to find the champion and the truth about him/her.

Nope. Looks like you need to replay this part of the game:



She's looking for Hawke because she believes he/she's a criminal who started the war. This really isn't up for debate. Therefore her persistence in finding hawke after hearing Varric's story makes absolutely no sense.

Hawke is the one who enabled it all. Anders would never have gotten to where he was without Hawke, and Hawke is the one who everyone looked to. Like it or not, Hawke was the one who had the influence, Anders was simply a catalyst

Again, nope. Even if you decline to help Anders get into the chantry, Anders manages on his own. Besides, Hawke did no more to enable Anders to do what he did than any other member fo the group.

Where does it say that ANders was the leader of the mage underground?  I don't recall this. He was part of it, and he had a vision of being a revolutionary that only came to fruition when he decided to bomb the chantry. Hawke could have been considered a good leader as a Mage as well.

I didn't say he was the leader. i said he was a leader. He certainly had more influence of the mages than Hawke did seeing as how he was the one who for 7 years helped all the mages throughout the city.

Because Alistair was not there when the war started. Hawke was there, and Hawke had a legend based in Kirkwall. He was directed involved with the start of the war, and considering that people as far away as in TEVINTER know of Hawke...

You know who else was there when the war started? Anders. Varric. Isabela. Fenris. Etc. They're all famous enough to be in that book the Seeker has, same as Hawke, so why is Hawke's presence in Kirkwall any more relevant than theirs?

And again, Hawke was not directly involved with starting the war. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, because that's objectively false.

YOu're grasping at straws thinking that no one knows what Hawke looks like even though people as far away as ORLAIS have seen him since Kirkwall is a major trade hub in the region

YOu just don't get it, and with your attitude you never will.

It makes perfect sense within the game world why Hawke is important to find. YOu just don't want to see it.

Having a stand-in is just one more option that makes more sense then devoting legions of templars to finding one guy. There's still a plethora of other reasons why their plan makes no sense.

[Adanu]

Bah, you're just not getting it.

I remember that part, and I get from that that she has the impression of Hawke being a rebel. That being said, I could see how you would get criminal from that.

Hawke was directly involved with starting the war. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's a fact. People looked to Hawke for help and guidance throughout the game. I'm not just talking about the chantry bomb, I'm talking about the WHOLE THING.

It isn't as simple as face value here. Hawkes story is as much about perception as it is prowess, hence his influence.

You can deny it all you want, but Hawke is an important figure in the setting.


if you're just going to keep grasping at straws looking for reasons to not give Hawke credit where it's due at this point, I see no point in debating this further. Tired of people just not bothering to read the codex and listen in game...

Modifié par Adanu, 28 mars 2012 - 10:57 .

[batlin]

Adanu wrote...

Bah, you're just not getting it.

I remember that part, and I get from that that she has the impression of Hawke being a rebel. That being said, I could see how you would get criminal from that.

And how, you know, the Seeker admonished Varric for claiming Hawke is innocent.

Hawke was directly involved with starting the war. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's a fact.

So if you knew a guy who commits a crime, you were directly involved in the crime regardless of whether or not you helped?

People looked to Hawke for help and guidance throughout the game. I'm not just talking about the chantry bomb, I'm talking about the WHOLE THING.

Who's "people"? Your companions? The Viscount who treats Hawke like every other nobleman? And by "throughout the game" do you mean the last third of the game when Hawke isn't just another rich person?

It isn't as simple as face value here. Hawkes story is as much about perception as it is prowess, hence his influence.

You can deny it all you want, but Hawke is an important figure in the setting.

I'm going to write this part in bold because it's probably the fourth time I've written it because you've neglected to register it yet:

I know Hawke is important in Kirkwall. What's in question here is why hawke is important to the Chantry.

Got it?

if you're just going to keep grasping at straws looking for reasons to not give Hawke credit where it's due at this point, I see no point in debating this further. Tired of people just not bothering to read the codex and listen in game...

Oh the irony.

[batlin]

Repost

Modifié par batlin, 28 mars 2012 - 11:39 .

[batlin]

Faerloch wrote...

I like this thread and it inspired me to replay Origins and DA2 again. Unfortuantely, I've played both so many times I can't bare another playthrough, no matter how much I like them. I think Hawke is an important character, but I don't see how he could solve the conflict. If perhaps every single one of his companions had become high-ranking generals on both sides of the war and he could persuade them to stop.

But the game clearly does not explain this. Hawke's greatest achievement then is probably keeping Flemeth alive.

Good on you, man. Strangely enough this topic inspired me to get the DA:O Ultimate Edition on Steam last week.

I started Awakenings a few days ago and got that bug that destroys all my f*cking equipment.

[batlin]

Well now that the issue of Hawke's utter irrelevance to the templar vs. mage war has been thoroughly debated and confirmed, I've given a lot of thought about Hawke's character itself. I truly feel that the main character in Dragon Age 2 was handled miserably and a woeful departure from the blank slate of the Warden that one could project themselves onto. This is not just a matter of voiced vs. silent. It is made very clear from the very beginning that you are not Hawke.

Let's compare between the the Hawke and Commander Shepard.

Like Hawke, you are also not Shepard. Shepard is an identity all his/her own. However there are some profound differences between how the two characters are handled that makes Shepard work while Hawke does not. First, and possibly most important, Shepard's character is consistent. Regardless of whether you make him save colony or shooting an enemy who already surrendered, you aren't confused because the voice actor keeps Shepard's personality consistent. In the case of Hawke, it's like they wanted to keep him/her the same blank slate the Warden was, but since they knew they were making Hawke voiced, they asked the voice actor to convey different personalities for each possible choice. There's a couple problems with this: There's no way a voice actor can conceive of every possible personality a player wants to convey so we only get three (nice, "funny", and d*ckish) and because each dialogue option is conveying vastly different personality types, unless you always stick to the top, middle, or bottom dialogue options Hawke invariably sounds like he/she has multiple personality disorder.

The he/she thing is getting annoying to type so from how on I'm just goint to use the masculine. Because everyone else does.

With the Warden, a difference in tonality was never really an issue because all you get is words, and the tone in which they are conveyed is up to the player's imagination. There's no disconnect to be had because there's simply no clashing information about him/her. Even though you're limited by the content of what you say, the possible tonality the Warden had was practically limitless. The Warden worked because his personality was up to you. Shepard worked beause his personality was consistent. Hawke did not work because not only was his personality not yours to decide, his character is also inconsistent and therefore disconnecting.

There's one last thing the Warden and Shepard do right that Hawke does not. Even though you aren't Shepard, you get to live vicariously through him throughout the course of the games and after spending a lot of time with Shepard, you further develop the character he already has. By contrast, it's very clear that Hawke has his own life when you aren't dictating his actions. After every act, years skip by and people who you never met before would walk up to Hakwe and reat him like he's their best buddy. because they are. You just weren't there at the time when they met and hit off their friendship. You know, like how as Shepard you may have become friends with Aria. If that were in Dragon Age 2, Shepard would have walked up to Aria in Afterlife and she'd have been like "Hey Shepard! Good to see you, let me buy you a drink." Further driving home the point that YOU are not the hero, and WE decide how the character develops and what friends he makes. Hell, there are some parts where Hawke would speak without you choosing a dialogue option.

So to sum up, a good player character does not need to be a blank slate. They do, however, need to be consistent and allow you to develop their character over time.

Modifié par batlin, 31 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Adanu]

batlin wrote...

Well now that the issue of Hawke's utter irrelevance to the templar vs. mage war has been thoroughly debated and confirmed

Speak for yourself, not for everyone in your 'debate'.

If you were actually interested in debating, you would listen, and not just throw around 'facts'.

As it is, your bias doesn't make your opinion fact.

[batlin]

Adanu wrote...

Speak for yourself, not for everyone in your 'debate'.

If you were actually interested in debating, you would listen, and not just throw around 'facts'.

As it is, your bias doesn't make your opinion fact.

Well it's been three days since I responded to you and you hadn't posted since, so.....

Modifié par batlin, 03 avril 2012 - 08:40 .

[Rachey187]

The problem with DA2, for me, is that it isn't a Dragon Age game, per say! When someone releases a game and calls it 'Dragon Age II', you expect it to be a natural continuation of the game you've just played, a sequel, which is what it was described as. Now, i bought the game under the pretence that it would be the same as the first, that the story would carry on and everything would come to a nice end. It didn't. I was pissed. I played through it once, hated it, traded it in and have no intention of ever playing it again. In fact, i'm trying really hard to forget the game ever existed.

I'm a massive fan of Origins, for a huge number of reasons. The storyline, whilst clichéd, is still great enough to keep people immersed, the characters have real depth and emotion, the quests are long and not boring, even the side quests are interesting. Everything about the game is enough to have allowed me to play it through about 15 times.

DA2 seems to have been aimed at teenagers. The companions are whiny brats, Hawke is an annoying, sarcastic idiot, the story is simplified, the quests short and boring. Nothing about the game is the Dragon Age that i came to know and love. I mean, they even dictated when you spoke to your 'friends', like some sort of strict parent who doesn't want their child speaking to bad people unless otherwise stated. I missed being able to walk up to my companions and speak to them when i liked.

I don't believe the failure of DA2 is down to Origins being a bad game... in my opinion the failure of DA2 is down to the fact that fans expected it to be like the game they had come to love, and it was just a rip off of a popular franchise marketing itself as a sequel.

There was nothing enjoyable about DA2. Ok, there were some things that were easier. The combat style, whilst a little arcadey, was simpler. I played as a mage, something i would never do in DAO and found it quite easy and far simpler than Origins. The conversation wheel's heart was in the right place with the icons making it easier, but i preferred the setup of conversation in Origins. I didn't like any of the companions, they were all useless and annoying.

I know people like the game (i don't understand why) but it obviously was a move in the wrong direction for Bioware. The sales of the game indicate that. I'm proud to say i managed to convince 10 or so of my friends, who were massive fans of the Origins game, not to buy the second. They all have the same opinion as me. It's rubbish.

I don't even think it would have been good as a stand alone game or if it had been released before Origins. There is just nothing enjoyable about it. The story lacks depth, which may be because of the quick release, but still, i expected more from a Dragon Age game.

I can honestly say that, despite having a huge passion for Origins and the team that write the games, i will not buy DA3 if it goes in the direction of DA2. I know it won't make any impact on the sales, but i'm disappointed Bioware couldn't go back to their origins and make games that people have come to love and expect from them. DA2 is not one of those games!

[eroeru]

^^ I'm on the exact same boat.

(with the exception of me enjoying complex stuff more, like playing the mage in Origins - which was my fave, while DA2 was utter crap... and btw, CrustyBot's responses in the start of this thread were witty sarcasm )

Modifié par eroeru, 03 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[Rachey187]

^^ Haha, that's ok then, i thought he was being serious. I was like o.O really? I've never played through mage properly in Origins... i may give it a bash. I've just ordered the ultimate edition (i'm shocked i don't have it yet) So may start a mage on that one and stick with it

[Adanu]

batlin wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Speak for yourself, not for everyone in your 'debate'.

If you were actually interested in debating, you would listen, and not just throw around 'facts'.

As it is, your bias doesn't make your opinion fact.

Well it's been three days since I responded to you and you hadn't posted since, so.....

Don't take me leaving your talking to a brick wall debate as me conceding anything. I debate happily with people who are open to others points of view. You, are not.

You constantly seek strawmen and have your own twisted variants of definitions and only look at things at face value in regards to this subject. YOu and Sylvius both have that in common, which makes it impossible to have a decent debate with you.

If you are willing to listen and not just hear, I'm happy to talk about it. SO far, you haven't shown yourself capable of that.

[Adanu]

Ok... I'll just point this bit out for you, and *maybe* you'll get it.

Without Hawke, Varric would never have gotten the deep roads journey going, and the idol down there would never have left the Thaig.

Regardless of anything else, if you actually think that through, you'll see how Hawke was directly involved in starting the war.

[batlin]

Adanu wrote...

Don't take me leaving your talking to a brick wall debate as me conceding anything. I debate happily with people who are open to others points of view. You, are not.

You constantly seek strawmen and have your own twisted variants of definitions and only look at things at face value in regards to this subject. YOu and Sylvius both have that in common, which makes it impossible to have a decent debate with you.

If you are willing to listen and not just hear, I'm happy to talk about it. SO far, you haven't shown yourself capable of that.

Oh the animosity. Everything I've responded to you with has been a direct response to what you post. I haven't been reiterating things unless you post the same thing over and over. Who's the brick wall here? Who keeps saying "Hawke is important and if you can't see that I can't help you" over and over?

Adanu wrote...

Ok... I'll just point this bit out for you, and *maybe* you'll get it.

Without Hawke, Varric would never have gotten the deep roads journey going, and the idol down there would never have left the Thaig.

Regardless of anything else, if you actually think that through, you'll see how Hawke was directly involved in starting the war.

Well by that logic, isn't Bartrand far more important than Hawke since he is the one who organized and funded the majority of the expedition, AND is the one who took the idol from the thaig? And even if Hawke were key to locating the idol, so what? does Hawke have unique knowledge of the idol? Is knowledge of the idol relevant to ending the war? doubtful on both accounts.

At best, Hawke is very, very indirectly responsible for starting the war. Directly? Not at all. Meredeth and Anders directly instigated the war since they were actively seeking it and took actions specifically to make it happen. Hawke unwittingly assisted in getting an artifact that drove Meredeth over the edge sooner. That's hardly direct involvement.

Modifié par batlin, 05 avril 2012 - 02:10 .

[lx_theo]

Hawke's large, symbolic, and reputation of being involved in the beginning of the Mage Revolution gives him the POTENTIAL to be very important in it during the coming parts. His competency in battle and general ability to get things done give him the ability to get things done with that potential.

I'd like to emphasize the point that his importance going forward isn't so much because of his influence in causing it, but because of how people see and perceive his involvement. It garners the respect and reputation to create the potential to get stuff done.

Now whether he has any real relevancy to any part of the Revolution but the beginning is not up for debate. Why? We haven't seen if he even has any involvement in it to come. We haven't seen the story for DA3 yet. We can only see he has the potential to make a difference in it, not that he will.