485 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...
So then your assessment of Hawke's demeanor is based on a selection of videos and not on your own gameplay?

You say that as though the entire game isn't available for viewing on YouTube.

I've always found that watching someone else playing a game is quite different from experiencing it yourself.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
As others have pointed out, Hawke is a character set in odd circumstances - just trying to make the best or the most of the overall situation and the chain of events

More like an idiot. The best of the overall situation is to leave Kirkwall when the opportunity arise. Really, I still don't get it ( even until now) what so special about Kirkwall that make Hawke so stuborn to refuse to leave that pile of garbage. People keep arguing nobility and mansion as the reason to stay. But what good of such property when Hawke or Bethany was surrounding by insane templars and mages.  Isn't that what concern them in the first place at Loitering? Isn't that the reason why Malcom Hawke choose to live in Loitering?

whykikyouwhy wrote...

in Kirkwall. Plenty of heroic decisions are made, especially with respect to the companions. Not everything may turn out for the best, but that's not something that diminishes the intent. That's just the cruel twist of fate that can occur when a character isn't omnipotent.

Not everything turn out for the best? It's everything turn out worst. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[John Epler]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke, male or female, is humble and utterly lacking snark of any kind.

Which is really the point - the player has the option to play Hawke as they choose, and if you choose to go all sarcastic snark - well, it seems a little odd to then complain 'but my Hawke always had a sarcastic response to everything!'. Yes, that's true - but that's because you chose to play your Hawke that way. Diplomatic Hawke was unassuming and humble.

I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

[TEWR]

The concept of Hawke as a protagonist was great.

The implementation of Hawke as a "protagonist" was horrific.

For me anyway.

[Dakota Strider]

I would say Hawke did have incentive to do much of what he did. 1) Family. 2) Friends 3) Community.

Hawke's journey started out with the goal to save his/her family, and to then make their life better. Later Hawke gained friends, and just as they helped Hawke, the Champion felt a commitment to help them with their troubles.

Later, as Hawke's stature in Kirkwall grew, with the wealth gained from the Deep Roads expedition, and from reinstatement of the Hawke family into the upper class of Kirkwall, he/she acted as a responsible citizen to do what was needed when his/her home city was threatened by internal strife.

Unless you played your own personal Hawke as an evil or chaotic self-serving sponge, it was not difficult to find motivation for Hawke to rise to the occassion when the situation called for it.

[AkiKishi]

I've only played the demo so far but I'm quite enjoying the Walking Dead. Just some normal guy in the middle of a zombie epidemic.
When one of the characters asks you "Who are you " ? You can reply "Just some guy"
Later the character will comment as you escape "For just some guy you sure saved a lot of lives today".

Interestingly it gives you an indicator when a choice is remembered like "Max will remember what you said".

Generally though,being "just some guy" in a fantasy RPG does not work too well. You have the likes of Dungeon Siege and Farmer, but it's a very different design, not really character based.

[Pasquale1234]

John Epler wrote...

I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

I think that's a lot of it, at least for me.  Unvoiced lines gives the player greater control of personality and delivery.  Voicing means you are limited to the personality and delivery provided by the VA.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Dakota Strider wrote... 
Unless you played your own personal Hawke as an evil or chaotic self-serving sponge, it was not difficult to find motivation for Hawke to rise to the occassion when the situation called for it.

So you are saying, it has to be BioWare's Hawke to find motivation?

Good point. That just what I thought.

[Dakota Strider]

John Epler wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke, male or female, is humble and utterly lacking snark of any kind.

Which is really the point - the player has the option to play Hawke as they choose, and if you choose to go all sarcastic snark - well, it seems a little odd to then complain 'but my Hawke always had a sarcastic response to everything!'. Yes, that's true - but that's because you chose to play your Hawke that way. Diplomatic Hawke was unassuming and humble.

I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

Exactly the reason why I do not like having a voiced protagonist for the player to "manage".  It no longer feels like my character, just someone that I am borrowing, but am restrained to make choices exactly in the way the owner wants me to.  I want to "play" my own character, and with no preset voice, at the very least, it helps maintain the illusion that I am the one in control, since I can imagine the tone of response in the way I would do it.

[the_one_54321]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

I think that's a lot of it, at least for me.  Unvoiced lines gives the player greater control of personality and delivery.  Voicing means you are limited to the personality and delivery provided by the VA.

Nailed it. I'm calling this the smoking gun. All I ever hear in Hawke's voice is over-confidence. I never heard the Warden's voice, and I was well aware of the personality of the Warden, since I created it, and was never presented with any example to the contrary.

[AkiKishi]

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

With an unvoiced line the nature in which it is delivered is left to you. With a voiced line, that is determined by the VA and direction they get.

[TEWR]

I still maintain that the various voices you could pick for your Warden in CC meant that the player was picking how his/her Warden sounded.

Partially because I want Fred Tatasciore to reprise his role as the Wise Dwarven Male, but also because I don't see what the point is of having those options be available in CC if they have no purpose.

You're able to determine what your Warden looks like. That, by default, becomes the canon appearance of your individual Warden.

So why is the voice option any different?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 05:41 .

[the_one_54321]

Here's another question then; what does Hawke sacrifice? I know that Hawke does experience losses, but those are almost entirely circumstantial. What does Hawke lose, by choice, in order to protect someone or something?

[TEWR]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...
So then your assessment of Hawke's demeanor is based on a selection of videos and not on your own gameplay?

You say that as though the entire game isn't available for viewing on YouTube.

I've always found that watching someone else playing a game is quite different from experiencing it yourself.

Personally speaking, when I was playing DAII it didn't feel like I was playing the game. It felt more like I was watching Bioware play my game, in every aspect.

[John Epler]

BobSmith101 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

With an unvoiced line the nature in which it is delivered is left to you. With a voiced line, that is determined by the VA and direction they get.

To a degree, sure. The way you -think- it's delivered is up to you, certainly. But in the end, the other characters are reacting to the delivery that the writer intended. Sure, you can say 'well maybe they just misunderstood me', and that's probably fine for some people, but eventually you either have to mentally fall in line with what the writer intended or create a world where everyone is completely incapable of understanding each other.

And that's fine - some people really don't like the voiced protagonist, and that's an entirely valid opinion. I won't suggest otherwise - however, let's be up front that it's all about perception and presentation. The reality of the game is, in the end, people will still react to a very specific delivery of the line - you're just not seeing it in action.

Modifié par John Epler, 30 avril 2012 - 05:41 .

[TEWR]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Here's another question then; what does Hawke sacrifice? I know that Hawke does experience losses, but those are almost entirely circumstantial. What does Hawke lose, by choice, in order to protect someone or something?

His sanity.

[Cutlass Jack]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Nailed it. I'm calling this the smoking gun. All I ever hear in Hawke's voice is over-confidence. I never heard the Warden's voice, and I was well aware of the personality of the Warden, since I created it, and was never presented with any example to the contrary.

Except you're missing the very important point that Hawke's entire tone is based on the choices you make while playing it. If you largely go for snarky overconfident lines, everything starts to sound that way even when making diplomatic choices. A more diplmatic Hawke sounds more unassuming even when cracking the occasional joke.

What the game does not allow is for you to change your entire personality on a per-line basis like you can in Origins. It forces you to play the personality your choices make you.

[the_one_54321]

John Epler wrote...
But in the end, the other characters are reacting to the delivery that the writer intended. Sure, you can say 'well maybe they just misunderstood me', and that's probably fine for some people,

I can see this happening only for particularly unorthodox characters. I've never had a problem with it. Typically, for me the Warden deals very harshly with people that make themselves an obstical, but is otherwise polite, humble, and dedicated to his service as a Gray Warden. And I've never had that presentation contradicted by an NPC.

[whykikyouwhy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

I think that's a lot of it, at least for me.  Unvoiced lines gives the player greater control of personality and delivery.  Voicing means you are limited to the personality and delivery provided by the VA.

Nailed it. I'm calling this the smoking gun. All I ever hear in Hawke's voice is over-confidence. I never heard the Warden's voice, and I was well aware of the personality of the Warden, since I created it, and was never presented with any example to the contrary.

I was well aware of the tone and intent of anything Hawke said, because as the player, I guided the character through those dialogue options. And, were this not a non-spoiler forum, I could point out specific instances in-game where the VA's tone, even on a sarcastic playthrough, was not overconfident. But I suppose that's something that each individual player has to hear and assess for themselves. Running through the full game, seeing the events unfold and then moving your character through various decisions probably has just as much to do with how someone might interpret character motivation and intent than hearing the lines audibly delivered.

[the_one_54321]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
And, were this not a non-spoiler forum, I could point out specific instances in-game where the VA's tone, even on a sarcastic playthrough, was not overconfident. But I suppose that's something that each individual player has to hear and assess for themselves.

You could link to a vid and mark it a spoiler. Then I could see it.

[John Epler]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

I think that's a lot of it, at least for me.  Unvoiced lines gives the player greater control of personality and delivery.  Voicing means you are limited to the personality and delivery provided by the VA.

Nailed it. I'm calling this the smoking gun. All I ever hear in Hawke's voice is over-confidence. I never heard the Warden's voice, and I was well aware of the personality of the Warden, since I created it, and was never presented with any example to the contrary.

I was well aware of the tone and intent of anything Hawke said, because as the player, I guided the character through those dialogue options. And, were this not a non-spoiler forum, I could point out specific instances in-game where the VA's tone, even on a sarcastic playthrough, was not overconfident. But I suppose that's something that each individual player has to hear and assess for themselves. Running through the full game, seeing the events unfold and then moving your character through various decisions probably has just as much to do with how someone might interpret character motivation and intent than hearing the lines audibly delivered.

Which is really what it comes down to - it's a personal thing. For some people, the VA is going to be a problem. Either they don't like the specific VA, or they don't think the advantages of a voiced protagonist outweighs the disadvantages, or they don't like our specific implementation of a voiced protagonist. And that's fine - I sympathize with these people, and I can understand where they're coming from. For others, it won't be a problem. Either they just don't see it as an issue, or they believe the advantages of a voiced protagonist outweigh the disadvantages, or they just really liked Boulton or Wyatt.

I think part of it depends on how you see your role as the player in these games. For someone who believes they're shaping a character from a sort of state of tabula rasa, anything that takes away control (whether implicit or explicit) will be a problem, and undoubtedly voice acting will fall into that category. Whereas someone who sees their role as shaping a character who, in turns, shapes the world through choices they made - the voice acting may be a minor obstacle, or it may be a good thing, but either way they're still fully able to realize their goals.

I don't know. I've never really seen Hawke as particularly smug or 'over-the-top' - and as for a 'humorous' line that's delivered without a trace of smugness, well, 'You always were a heartbreaker, Bethany' is right there at the top of the list for me.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

Your impression of the game is still incredibly skewed, apparently, if you think Hawke "conquers" the city. The champion title does not mean much at all.

When it should, considering the "Champion" is invited to parties and his/her opinion is apparently influential in conflicts.

What's the point of giving it the air of importance if the game is going to fall short on delivering how it is important? I can't build political connections or undermine the authority of the person I see as the true threat to Kirkwall.

I can't do much of anything with a role that's chalked up to being important by citizens but is displayed in-game as being nothing more then a figurehead title.

Not saying he should be able to conquer the city prior to the endgame, but I am saying the Champion role is very... contradictory based on how Bioware handled it. I'm important, yet I'm simultaneously just some schmuck.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 05:57 .