485 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But I thought you saw the entire game on YouTube.  

[Pasquale1234]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

I'll buy your position on that, but the only things voiced in DAO were battle cries and an occasional bark.  How each line of dialog is delivered, and the overall personality of the Warden was still left to the player.

John Epler wrote...
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.

What actually happened is that the NPC and game world react to the line you select, regardless of what the protag actually said or how they said it. IOW, selecting a dialog line was the player's way of choosing how the game would react to them. If you think about the implications, there is no comparison in the amount of role-playing latitude you have with such a system versus voiced.

Even if you stick to the exact verbiage and implied tone, there are other aspects of overall personality - like shyness, vulnerability, modesty or brashness or characteristics brought to a specific conversation - like uncertainty, different speech rhythm patterns, indifference, fascination - that you really can't capture with a single recorded line.

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

It -is- important to the citizens, and likely to the minor nobles, because Hawke liberated the city. And, while the major movers and shakers might take issue with someone being catapulted to a position with some political clout, they can't really speak out against it without it causing a lot of ill feelings among the citizenry. I always saw it as putting Hawke in a position where he can't be ignored, and where he has enough influence (due to his actions in Act Two) that having him support one side over the other could be seen as beneficial insofar as popular opinion is concerned.

It's like in any democracy that has multiple parties - sure, that party that holds six seats may be tiny, but if they have the ability to sway the vote then the bigger parties are going to be treating them with a reverence and a respect far in excess of the importance that their size would suggest.

[DahliaLynn]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

I'll buy your position on that, but the only things voiced in DAO were battle cries and an occasional bark.  How each line of dialog is delivered, and the overall personality of the Warden was still left to the player.

John Epler wrote...
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.

What actually happened is that the NPC and game world react to the line you select, regardless of what the protag actually said or how they said it. IOW, selecting a dialog line was the player's way of choosing how the game would react to them. If you think about the implications, there is no comparison in the amount of role-playing latitude you have with such a system versus voiced.

Even if you stick to the exact verbiage and implied tone, there are other aspects of overall personality - like shyness, vulnerability, modesty or brashness or characteristics brought to a specific conversation - like uncertainty, different speech rhythm patterns, indifference, fascination - that you really can't capture with a single recorded line.

Well said. And pretty much sums up a lot.

My preference lies in the Silent protagonist, not because I have been a die hard RPGer all my life..because I wasn't. Being a player of almost every possible genre out there, when coming across DA:O, I can seriously say, I had never experienced being so immersed in a game as I have with the Warden. It felt like all reactions were directed at me, as opposed to "him/her" i.e. Hawke/Shepard. I don't mind guiding other heroes through their adventures. But I would certainly take a game where I feel it's me doing the adventuring over guiding the hero any day.

[King Cousland]

I want to start off feeling like a grunt, someone who hasn't got two coins to rub together and is pretty much an amateur, untested in combat.

At the end of the game however, I want to feel like I've earned the reputation of a God-amongst mortals.

I feel this was done pretty well with the Warden, especially when you came from humble roots such as the City Elf. I think it could have been done with Hawke, if only they had been more important and more proactive.

[Leonia]

The OP's version of Hawke is not what I experienced. Also: Maria wins the thread.

[5trangeCase]

Everyone has their own experience. The OP has played too many games where the protagonist is completely pre-defined. That's my only explanation.

His/her description of what the Warden was like was definitely not mine, and that's because our choices in dialogue differs, the Warden is not an easily defined character.

His/her description of the Hawke was sort of similar to mine, but I carefully identified the lines that "my Hawke" would say and ignored the ones that would make her a completely different character. It definitely isn't the VA, because although my Hawke became overconfident in the final act (you've been named Champion of Kirkwall, who wouldn't get big-headed?) in Act I she was quiet and diplomatic. Both in the lines and the voice-acting.

You cannot say that Hawke or the Warden's personality was "x" because they are characters whose personalities are malleable and defined by the players.

[TEWR]

John Epler wrote...

It -is- important to the citizens, and likely to the minor nobles, because Hawke liberated the city. And, while the major movers and shakers might take issue with someone being catapulted to a position with some political clout, they can't really speak out against it without it causing a lot of ill feelings among the citizenry. I always saw it as putting Hawke in a position where he can't be ignored, and where he has enough influence (due to his actions in Act Two) that having him support one side over the other could be seen as beneficial insofar as popular opinion is concerned.

But what actions did Hawke take in Act Two? All he's done is act as an intermediary. There's nothing really remarkable about that.

I'm not saying he should've been proactive about the plot of Act Two where he knew what was going to happen and worked to prevent it (using his own methods and not other peoples'), but I don't see any actions that he took that can be truly called remarkable.

At the end, he's launched into a war with those guys where he can effectively be Superman.

He can't say... "Hey, let me rally a militia to bolster my forces instead of going in guns blazing with only 3 people to assist me, at most."

I mean, hell that would've shown that Hawke is deserving of the title, even if it's the bare minimum that was present. Because then he has enough state of mind to acknowledge that going up against dozens of those guys and their converts with only four people is pretty.... suicidal.

Instead, he just says "Okay, let me take Aveline and two other people. That should do. The military general of the those guys isn't going to kick our asses because we're plot-protected!".

He can't rally the Elves of Kirkwall's Alienage to fight with him if he's shown he's a decent human that cares for their rights, he can't have political allies assist him (and for that matter, he doesn't actually make any in Act 1 or Act 2), he can't even have the people he worked for in the prologue help him.

The Champion role is little more then a figurehead title in my eyes because of where the game fell short with choices, in previous acts.

Hawke is a glorified errand boy. He's a common brigand paid for his services that consist of killing anything in his path that can't display any measure of intelligence.

A rise to power involves building political alliances, displaying wit and savvy, charm and strength, intimidation, undermining the authority of your foes (if you want to play dirty), and many other things.

Killing everyone in your path until you rise to a position of importance doesn't make for a compelling rise to power. All it does is.... well, make the "protagonist" seem like a brute.

John Epler wrote...

It's like in any democracy that has multiple parties - sure, that party that holds six seats may be tiny, but if they have the ability to sway the vote then the bigger parties are going to be treating them with a reverence and a respect far in excess of the importance that their size would suggest.

This would be a valid comparison if Hawke actually took an interest in politics before he was forcefully involved or if he actually forged political connections with Kirkwall's elite -- or even the not-so-elite.

You can't sway the vote if you don't take a vested interest in the city's politics.

My Hawke wanted to side with the Mage Underground in Act II and help them undermine Meredith's authority. A companion's excuse why I couldn't be involved was easily dismissable.

There was so much potential with Dragon Age II, but it all fell short. It felt like the cliff notes version. You can sense how great a story was going to be told, but without the full depth then you can't really bask in its magnificence.

Pasquale194 wrote...

I'll buy your position on that, but the only things voiced in DAO were battle cries and an occasional bark.  How each line of dialog is delivered, and the overall personality of the Warden was still left to the player.

My counterargument is what John Epler said on page 2 .

Filament wrote...

Inasmuch as you think he should be more important still, I don't know, that's debatable. Especially in a city like Kirkwall where even the viscount is a "figurehead." It's not as if having a title implies there must be inherent power to it, figurehead titles are things that exist.

So then why can't I undermine the authority of the people who are the real power in Kirkwall, thereby increasing my importance while diminishing their importance?

I can't.

Act II would've been the perfect opportunity for such a thing.

I haven't done much in the way of the political spectrum to really make myself a person to be feared other then "Kill.... Kill.... KILL EVERYONE!!!".

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Dessalines]

leonia42 wrote...

The OP's version of Hawke is not what I experienced. Also: Maria wins the thread.

I agree with Maria. I love both games, but the Warden is more God-Among-Mortals than Hawke. 

I would go into more detail, but again someone puts a thread that can only be disproving by listing examples in the non spoiler section.

I think this problem arises from the fact that when the Warden talked it was their voice that they heard, and when Hawke talked they heard his or her voice.

[TEWR]

You know what I'd like to see? Better reasons why the PC can't take an action. DAII had many horrific cases of this: Petrice, Bethany, and Tallis most notably come to mind.

Especially when the persona of Kirkwall's Templars is contradicted by what we're presented with in-game.

Dessalines wrote...


I would go into more detail, but again someone puts a thread that can only be disproving by listing examples in the non spoiler section.

You know what I've noticed? Much of where the places the devs interact are in the non-spoiler forum. I don't know if they actively read the spoiler section where much of the flaws in-game can be listed without fear or worry, but they generally interact in the non-spoiler sections more then the others.

It's interesting. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing. I appreciate the interaction in the non-spoiler forums. For all I know they lurk in those threads reading the posts but don't post themselves, but generally the story flaws are pointed out in those sections in sufficient detail that something can be learned.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[TEWR]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I mean, hell that would've shown that Hawke is deserving of the title, even if it's the bare minimum that was present. Because then he has enough state of mind to acknowledge that going up against dozens of Qunari and their converts with only four people is pretty.... suicidal.

You DO realize this covers many occurences in DA:O, too? This isn't something restricted to Hawke.

Never claimed it was. But it wasn't as bad in DAO, because some of the lore about the Grey Wardens can justify it. Plus, you're not facing an entire horde with only four people. You're building an army.

I'm now beginning to understand how some people feel when people say "This happened in DAO too". I'm well aware that it did, but I don't feel the need to constantly say "DAO did this as well."

Not that I'm getting mad or anything. I'm not, but I do understand how people feel when they make a point and it's have it somewhat disregarded -- if not completely so -- because someone says "DAO did this too."

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[Sutekh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

Seriously? Watching vids and actually experiencing the game is the same thing? Would you say you know the taste of a dish because you've seen people eating it? 

Anyway, Hawke is what you make it to be, and so is the Warden. You can have meek Hawkes and arrogant, badass-ish, Chuk-Norrisesque Wardens. The way the world consider them is kinda the same: Your Friendly Problem Solver. I'd say the Warden gets more of this treatment than Hawke, since he's rarely criticized personally, while Hawke is called a highway man, mercenary and other niceties more than once.

Voiced and silent here is kind of a false debate (but it had to worms its way in yet another thread, yeah?), if only because the tone is never chosen for you except for the rare auto-dialogue occurences, which themselves are based on your previous choices (not that I'm really fond of auto-dialog, but still).

[Sacred_Fantasy]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The warden is a character created to be a hero of the people, kind of 'god like' if you will I think. Hawke on the other hand is a character of flesh and blood with all its flaws who does something for him/her self by rising in the ranks of a city.

Too flaws it's impossible to view through his perspective or be in his shoe. The only possible way the view the story is through either Varric's perspective or Cassandra's perspective analyzing him/her as a character like the rest of NPC. A third person character that has no relation to me as the player.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The heroic aspect is more present in DAO then in DA2. The way I see it in the first the warden was the one calling the shots and in DA2 the team in total decided the outcome. Companions in DA2 had a lot of influence in the way the story took its course.

Provided you max their friendship/rivalry by agreeing all the way or disagreeing all the way eventhough it doesn't fit your character. Neutral diplomatic PC doesn't benefit from this.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

That's kind of exactly what you do in Act II.

No it isn't. Not in the capacity I would've liked, and not in a way that would've strengthened the plot IMO.

A meanie face plastered on Meredith's face doesn't really say all that much to how much authority was undermined, especially when she seems to give off an air of constantly pissed off.
 

Hence your gaining the title "Champion." The power you have in that capacity is not purely figurehead as you say, and does undermine Meredith to an extent. Which does help inform the paranoia she has leading her to attack Hawke regardless, much as that has been maligned as pure nonsensical craziness.

I have to question why Bioware decided to do that thing with her in the endgame in such a way that it destroyed much of what she did prior to that moment.

That thing certainly could've added to the moral complexity, if done right.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 08:59 .

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You know what I'd like to see? Better reasons why the PC can't take an action. DAII had many horrific cases of this: Petrice, Bethany, and Tallis most notably come to mind.

Especially when the persona of Kirkwall's Templars decrees that they should've overreacted to Bethany being found out.

Dessalines wrote...


I would go into more detail, but again someone puts a thread that can only be disproving by listing examples in the non spoiler section.

You know what I've noticed? Much of where the places the devs interact are in the non-spoiler forum. I don't know if they actively read the spoiler section where much of the flaws in-game can be listed without fear or worry, but they generally interact in the non-spoiler sections more then the others.

It's interesting. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing. I appreciate the interaction in the non-spoiler forums. For all I know they lurk in those threads reading the posts but don't post themselves, but generally the story flaws are pointed out in those sections in sufficient detail that something can be learned.

Well, the spoiler sections are, generally speaking, a lot more nitpicky - not in a bad way, but in a 'if we say anything, it tends to get cited as the Word of God and used as a blunt instrument in any further debates'. Plus, a lot of the discussion is quite interesting without us participating. That's not to say we don't read it, of course, but even if we -had- answers, some of those answers might rely on spoilering Things Yet to Come.

As for Hawke, would it suffice if I said we're aware of the problem regarding Hawke being proactive? There's really nothing else I can say beyond that - and, yes, sometimes there is going to be a certain amount of 'But Thou Must'. Sure, I never wanted to be a Warden, but aside from cutting to the end of the game with an epilogue slide of 'And then everyone died because you, sir, are a jerk', there weren't a lot of places that could've gone without an absolutely obscene amount of additional zots, which would've then been cut from elsewhere.

And I suppose you could say 'then write a story that doesn't require that!', but that's the story we wanted to tell. One thing we're focusing on going forward, though, is always providing a good, clear motivation as to the player's actions, and then avoiding putting them in situations where simply being active would solve a whole lot of problems down the road - if I could go back and redo it, I would've done the entire Grace scene differently to explain why you don't just shoot her in the face with a bow. The 'captured' scene in Mark of the Assassin was a direct response to this - 'why don't you just fight your way out?' 'Well, there are a lot of guards.' 'Okay, but I can kill a lot of guards.' 'Okay, it's a -lot- a lot of guards.'

[Dessalines]

Spoiler Alert for Dragon Age: Origins:
My Warden wanted to kill Alistair after founding out the truth about the Warden's having to die in the end.
A Dalish Warden shouldn't care what happens to Fereden, so he or she should be allowed to go to Orlais to seek help.
My warden wanted to enlist more people to make up his party, but was never giving the option.
If Loghain captures you before the Landmeet, he does not execute you on the spot. Your plot protected.
Dragon Age: Origins, pretty much you gain alliances in the game by killing someone for someone. You kill this person, and you will have my army. You fight this person, and you have unity in the country.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

John Epler wrote...
As for Hawke, would it suffice if I said we're aware of the problem regarding Hawke being proactive?

 

John Epler wrote... 
 One thing we're focusing on going forward, though, is always providing a good, clear motivation as to the player's actions, and then avoiding putting them in situations where simply being active would solve a whole lot of problems down the road - if I could go back and redo it, I would've done the entire Grace scene differently to explain why you don't just shoot her in the face with a bow. The 'captured' scene in Mark of the Assassin was a direct response to this - 'why don't you just fight your way out?' 'Well, there are a lot of guards.' 'Okay, but I can kill a lot of guards.' 'Okay, it's a -lot- a lot of guards.'

Thank you John. Now I think I can smile already. 

[John Epler]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

John Epler wrote...
As for Hawke, would it suffice if I said we're aware of the problem regarding Hawke being proactive?

 

John Epler wrote... 
 One thing we're focusing on going forward, though, is always providing a good, clear motivation as to the player's actions, and then avoiding putting them in situations where simply being active would solve a whole lot of problems down the road - if I could go back and redo it, I would've done the entire Grace scene differently to explain why you don't just shoot her in the face with a bow. The 'captured' scene in Mark of the Assassin was a direct response to this - 'why don't you just fight your way out?' 'Well, there are a lot of guards.' 'Okay, but I can kill a lot of guards.' 'Okay, it's a -lot- a lot of guards.'

Thank you John. Now I think I can smile already. 

Sci-fi/contemporary have it a lot easier.

'Why don't you just kill them?'

'They're talking with you over a loudspeaker, and the room you're in is bulletproof/rapidly filling with gas.'

'Well played.'