39 réponses à ce sujet

[Hammington]

i think she meant he's flawed in that he sucks.
Did i read that right?

[Dutchess]

Personally I think Hawke had plenty of room to be a flawed character. But you mostly had to establish them in your mind while determining Hawke's personality and motivations.

[deuce985]

I took his post as meaning more flaws you had no control over...

Like...in Mass Effect Thane has a physical illness that will eventually kill him. A personal flaw like that you have no control over through the game. Like a burden on the PC? Maybe a partial abomination from abusing magic and a Fade demon attaching himself to PC? That would be a flaw on the PC he has no control over...

That's the kind of flaws I was thinking about. Major flaws that create burdens on you and your companions.

Or maybe he just meant he wants to see a PC commit more shades of gray type choices?

Modifié par deuce985, 28 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[5trangeCase]

I'd hate for us to have a flaw we have no control over.

Gray decisions don't define flaws, that's counter-intuitive, if you have to make difficult choices then it in no way secures whether you are "bad" or "good".

My Hawke didn't have to make tough choices for her to be a selfish and power-hungry **** that frequently had no concern for her family, and manipulated Merrill without having any real feelings towards her. That said, because she was a complex character, the death of her mother lead to have greater concern for Bethany and lead Hawke to deeply question her own character and actions, and she did find Merrill charming and grew to care a great deal for her as time went on (despite continually leading her on), she also became attached to Fenris in a sisterly way with genuine concern for his well-being despite her general selfishness.

Despite all this, because she was a complex character, she grew to hate Merrill after she killed the Mahariel Clan and still obsessively sought power, as power was what she and Carver were denied, and that she believed was her birthright. Was her seeking power just to fill a hole she created for herself? Or was it protect the things she believed in? Flaws are not so easy to define.

Modifié par 5trangeCase, 28 avril 2012 - 07:53 .

[Silfren]

Huntress wrote...

Maria you are missing one point, Human noble wasn't a warden when it lost everything in fact he/she was going to have to fight it everyone with her mother and dog at lvl 2, am sure duncan would have left because the blight is way more important, Hawke on the other hand already had a party everyone in it had alot of experience, so as you can see you are comparing tomatos to bananas.

I like hawke don't get me wrong, it just people do not like hero's to fail or to make mistakes, many said: give the player the choice to make this mistakes, but at the end they will say it was the character weakness and not that was their own choices. maybe I don't explain myself well in english if so, I am sorry.

The problem lies in how you are defining flawed.  The OP referred to the character having a flaw as in some sort of negative personality trait, such as extreme impatience or an excessively violent temper.  

You are referring to "flawed" as in "the character is flawed because they failed at a quest."  

They are not the same thing.  Maria pointed out the difference well enough. 

Personally I have to point out that I don't dislike it when heroes fail or make mistakes.  I think it just adds to the emotional depth of a story when things go badly wrong no matter the hero's intentions or actions.  Which isn't to say I was thrilled with DA2, because I also like it when those kind of stories are WELL-WRITTEN.  

I liked the quest of choosing a king for Orzammar: the clear moral choice has lackluster results that end badly, and the immoral choice has postive results that stem from unsavory foundations.  Neither choice is ideal and both have both positive and negative qualities.  I liked two of the three options for saving Connor for the same reason.  Given the setup for that quest, it really doesn't make sense to have one totally happen outcome.  Having EVERY choice come with unpleasant ramifications such that the PC, through the player, has a true dilemma in picking the BEST option out of several choices that each have tragic consequences, would add to the emotional impact of the overall story.  Not to mention adding re-playability.  

It is also appropriate to have the odd occasional quest with one outcome, one that just goes badly for the PC no matter what they choose.  I wouldn't want this to be the nature of ALL the quests, and of course I'd like it to be written well so that it doesn't hinge on the PC being a raging idiot.  But these kind of quests are part of what make DA stories so awesome.  I think it would be even better for a DA game to feature, perhaps, two or three of these kinds of quests, but only one of which is available for any given playthrough.  Have it dependent on previous choices the player has made, leading up to a story that is going to end on a bad note no matter what, but which stems directly from the story the player has created through their PC's actions.  This is how using a "tone" could work well, by having the personality the player defines for their PC direct at least certain branches of the story, and lead to specific storylines utterly dependent on the sort of person the PC has become.

[piloteyre]

[eta- this was in reponse to the op's post. but now I totally cosign the one above ^]

Well, wait. Are you talking about character flaws or outside situations that force the character into tough decisions? Because those are two very different things, and I don't think the latter qualifies as a flaw. Do you want, essentially, more no-win situations? Because I could get behind that, though I think we've all seen how well the rather, er, dour ending of a certain DA2 quest went over... or really, DA2 a whole.

I could also get behind more NPC reaction to the character flaws we RP (through aggressive/snarky/etc. dialogue choice or moral alignment of quest choices). One of my favorite little moments was when Aveline scolded my sarcastic!Hawke for always being so inappropriate. Little things like that help in creating a character that feels less cookie-cutter Fantasy Hero/ine, I think.

Modifié par piloteyre, 28 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[Massakkolia]

Silfren wrote...

I liked two of the three options for saving Connor for the same reason.  Given the setup for that quest, it really doesn't make sense to have one totally happen outcome.  Having EVERY choice come with unpleasant ramifications such that the PC, through the player, has a true dilemma in picking the BEST option out of several choices that each have tragic consequences, would add to the emotional impact of the overall story.  Not to mention adding re-playability.  

I didn't mind the Connor quest. Sure, I chose the "best" option during my first playthrough, but after that I've always settled for tragedy. I, as a player, know what's going to happen but my PC doesn't. She just does what's logical to her and all my wardens have different personalities and motives. The Redcliffe tragedy is worth it simply for Alistair's fabulously irrational and unfair tantrum. The outcome also adds a flaw of regret and doubt to my character. Just because the "best" choice is present doesn't mean other choices cease to exist.

DAO allows me to play protagonists with deep character flaws ranging from arrogance and greed to power to helplessness. My canon warden was pretty much a broken person at the end of the game and not just because she "failed" some quests. It was because of the choices she made and relationships she built. Of course a lot of that role playing happened in my head but through quests like Redcliffe the game gave me enough cues to create those flaws.

I hate playing "perfect". That's why I rarely ever concentrate solely on paragon or renegade points in Mass Effect. That way I cannot always solve a situation in an ideal way. Mass Effect and DA2 show that a voiced protagonist does somewhat limit the range of flaws that can be roleplayed but they are still there. My PC may not be terminally ill (well, grey wardens are, in a way) or have ghastly body odor but she's flawed alright. I don't want Bioware to predefine my PC's flaws but I do want a wide range of choices that open up the possibility for that sort of character development.

[PsychoBlonde]

Wulfram wrote...

I think flaws are up to the player to supply.

Indeed.  A "flawed" PC would be one who did things you didn't want them to, and were pretty stupid.  Granted, you could say this applies when the only options both sound incredibly stupid to you, so why not role-play this as your PC having a "flaw" that makes them think these are the only options?

Me, I'd like the PC to have FEWER flaws of this kind so I can actually get a chance to choose options that are clever and interesting and actually accomplish something.

[In Exile]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Give us some defining flaw, make us have to do horrible things to please an LI and give us more hard choices that our PC will angst about later. Too many games have flat characters as protagonists. I'd rather see a protagonist who's way more flawed.

Hawke was pretty passive and all-around didn't care - that sounds like a flaw to me. You can certainly attribute a lot of the evil in Kirkwall to that, really.

[LolaLei]

I think Hawke had flaws by the end of DA2, but (s)he never really reacted to them so the character seemed like (s)he was flawless despite the fact that (s)he'd done/experienced some really ****ty things.

In DA3 I'd like to see our protagonist show some signs of remorse/inner turmoil for their short comings/failures... Not to an irritating extend, but enough to help us bond with our character whilst still in keeping with the way in which we role play him/her.

[deuce985]

LolaLei wrote...

I think Hawke had flaws by the end of DA2, but (s)he never really reacted to them so the character seemed like (s)he was flawless despite the fact that (s)he'd done/experienced some really ****ty things.

In DA3 I'd like to see our protagonist show some signs of remorse/inner turmoil for their short comings/failures... Not to an irritating extend, but enough to help us bond with our character whilst still in keeping with the way in which we role play him/her.

This is how I want to see DA3. All the horrible things you've seen and they never really touched up on it emotionally in DA2. Hawke is human, why is everything so emotionless? It's especially apparent in ALL family situations. ESPECIALLY when they die. Bethany coming out of the circle for the first time in years was the most awkward interaction. You wouldn't even think they knew each other...

Mass Effect 3 sorta did this. You notice Shepard taking a psychological toll through ME3. Through three games, he seen a lot. It would come to him in his dreams. It reminded you no matter how hard he was, he still remained human. He wasn't unbreakable. That's a emotional flaw for a leader. Shepard never really showed it in front of his companions because they needed him to be strong, he was the leader. This is the type of stuff I want to see in DA3. It makes you more attached to your PC. All I wanted to do through ME3 was help Shepard carry his burden and complete his mission.

Modifié par deuce985, 29 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Direwolf0294]

It's an RPG, the protagonist is as flawed as you want them to be and not everyone considers the same things to be flaws. If I wanted to play a flawed Hawke I'd play an aggresive Hawke and consider them to have many flaws. Others on the other hand might consider aggresive Hawke to be flawless and it's sarcastic Hawke who's got all the issues. It's all just a matter of perception.

[Leon481]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think flaws are up to the player to supply.

Indeed.  A "flawed" PC would be one who did things you didn't want them to, and were pretty stupid.  Granted, you could say this applies when the only options both sound incredibly stupid to you, so why not role-play this as your PC having a "flaw" that makes them think these are the only options?

Me, I'd like the PC to have FEWER flaws of this kind so I can actually get a chance to choose options that are clever and interesting and actually accomplish something.

That pretty much refers to Hawke and his/her reactivity. Everyone HATED it despite the fact that it was part of Hawke's personality.

Flaws are all well and good, but better on a more defined character. A PC should be flawed by player choices. Give us a choice to react like our character was damaged by events, or let us act like it didn't effect them. It should be our choice. Don't just add flaws that we didn't agree to and make us live with it. It does a disservice to the player.

Modifié par Leon481, 29 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[septembervirgin]

As of DA2, Bioware has only permitted three social flaws: being too nice, being too mean, or being too self-amusing. Add to this a few potentially stupid choices that seem unavoidable and we have Hawke.

In DAO, Bioware permitted numerous flaws but this seemed the result of not knowing the world. Letting a demon of desire possess a templar into being an abomination would be foolish. Her sales tactics wasn't so persuasive as one would hope for, at least not so persuasive as Morrigan's sale tactics visa vis The Dark Ritual. And we have at the bottom of it all the Ferelden tendency towards passion, ignoring information staring at ones own face from books and experience, and their lack of vigilance in preferring to rule hamfisted rather than watch quietly and carefully.act with subtle precision.

[Ponendus]

I agree, but I think character flaws should be somewhat of a choice of the player. A past that was thrust upon them... well... that I could go with.