485 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

I'm going to link to a few spoiler threads because I want to keep this as non-spoilery as possible. Posters can read at their own discretion.

John Epler wrote...

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.

Well, all I really meant wasn't so much a "Why does this happen instead of this", but rather an interaction consisting of "Y'know, that makes sense why that should've been done." or "Wow, we didn't see how that doesn't make sense in lieu of what was told to the player in previous areas".

Doesn't have to convey a Word of God type aura, but just stuff like acknowledging the poorer aspects of a game. Which you guys do often enough in the non-spoiler areas, but there's a plethora of information in the spoiler sections that really reinforces that point.

Nevertheless, I can take solace in the fact that you guys do read it, even if you don't really participate in those threads.

John Epler wrote...

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

To be honest? Not really. Not at this point in time, which you and the rest of Bioware acknowledge as being all that can be said until there's something to show.

It's just that right now, words don't have much meaning until there's some action to go along with it.

We were told that the core issues of the game would be addressed in DLC. Legacy -- while it drew its fair share of people that didn't like the Larius ending -- was good enough for me to be fairly optimistic for the future.

Then came MotA, with its anti-Qunari ending. That ending left a very sour taste in my mouth, even if I've never willingly played an anti-Qunari Hawke.

So it really made me question just what core issues were being addressed. Waves and recycled maps, while bad, were not priorities IMO. And it made me feel that story was focused on last.

I actually went over why I dislike the MotA anti-Qunari ending in various other threads before, most recently this one, where I talked about how the apparent course of action for an anti-Qunari Hawke should be self-evident.

But additionally, I talked about how it kills some of the incentive to play such a Hawke in the future. So MotA's ending didn't just damage MotA, but the main game itself.

 

John Epler wrote...
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.'

The key to a but thou must though is giving a perfectly valid reason why something must done. You guys are certainly well aware of this, I'm sure. Petrice actually had sufficient grounds for a reason why Hawke must not only do the quest, but why killing her isn't an option.

Short answer being blackmail. Long answer involves far too many spoilers, so here's a thread where I gave a basic gist of what I would've accepted.

Even if someone doesn't want to be a Warden, the lore provides a perfectly good reason why they must be one: The Right of Conscription.

While a player may be upset that they must be a Warden -- though you can't buy the game that tells you you're going to be a Warden and expect not to be one -- they are given a valid reason why they must be one.

I think the fault of DAO was that the player can't say "**** this, I'm heading for Orlais", travel for a bit on his own, then see the devastation the Blight causes in a village and say "...fine. I don't see much point but I'll do it."

But that's a question of zots, which as you said cannot be applied everywhere. So it's a question of where, when, and how many.

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.'

I think that you should've done the quest for Best Served Cold differently. Hell, I think the entire Mage-Templar storyline should've been done differently. Because if you actually examine everything, that quest doesn't make a lick of sense for a pro-mage Hawke.

You can say that you're supporting that Elven Mage, the man trying to get that crazy harpy Templar out of power. Then, the Templars that are a part of the rebellion will say that you're spying for him.

Okay... so why is that a bad thing? The person that's supporting that crazy harpy Templar being removed from power is apparently a threat to the rebellion aimed at removing said harpy and her like-minded cronies from power?

Never mind that the red-haired Templar can state in the Gallows that he knows Hawke supported the Elven Mage, but then says in the Wounded Coast that Hawke is supporting the harpy.

Makes no sense. Even worse is the reliance on insane Mages to tell a story centered around human conflict.

EDIT: Removed names. Hopefully without them what I'm stating still makes sense, because apparently they can't be ignored.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[Wulfram]

I really wouldn't class Diplomatic Hawke as humble.  She basically always assumes she's in charge and never AFAIR shows the slightest bit of doubt.

Though some of my impression is no doubt informed by her having extremely aristocratic voice acting - and maybe that's something which doesn't effect people from Britain quite so much.

The fact that you can't tell what joke Hawke might make is something of an issue, also.  In DA:O, you can just pick the lines which suit your character, but if you want Hawke to be anything but a po-faced stick-in-the-mud then you're going to have to embark on the lottery of the "Sarcastic" option. 

Not to mention that if you pick it a fair bit, then Hawke will start saying sarcastic things with out your input, never mind if the occasion fits with your intended characterisation.

With written dialogue, while the response of the other characters limits the tone your character took in broad terms - a joke remains a joke, a threat remains a threat - it rarely interferes with more subtle characterisation.  A slight stumble of uncertainty, a hint of a question at the end of a statement can add up to a fairly different character, but it wouldn't necessarily change the characters response.

[TEWR]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

It WAS just as bad in some places I think, like in the Deep Roads: four people go into the pit of the earth crawling with Darkspawn.

Grey Warden archives stated that for every one Warden there was, that one could take on 20 Darkspawn on their own. So if you take two Wardens -- Alistair and the Warden -- you could take on 40.

I forget where, but I know that was stated somewhere as definitive fact. But I do know this wasn't the Wynne story. This was a codex I believe that talked about historical records.

The Wardens at Soldier's Peak stood up against thousands of soldiers with only a few hundred Wardens, prior to the demon invasion.

I'm not really saying: "It's okay because they did it in DA:O." I apologize if it sounds like that. But I'm going from the side of seeing people lift up DA:O (and ME1, as an aside) as "gods among games," if you will, when they criticize DA ][ (and the ME games) for things the first game did that were just as unrealistic.

Oh it's just as much a problem in there too -- and don't worry, it didn't come off as bad or anything. -- and it needs just as much correcting.

The key -- I keep thinking Keyblade now... -- is figuring out how to make it somewhat justifiable in-game. DAO did this.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 07:12 .

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm going to link to a few spoiler threads because I want to keep this as non-spoilery as possible.

You might want to make the following edits then. I found your post to have a rather large amount of spoilers in it.

I actually went over why I dislike the MotA ******** ending in various other threads before, most recently this one, where I talked about how the apparent course of action for an ******** Hawke should be self-evident.

I think that you should've done the quest for ************ differently. Hell, I think the entire Mage-Templar storyline should've been done differently. Because if you actually examine everything, that quest doesn't make a lick of sense for a *********** Hawke.

You can say that you're supporting ******, the man trying to get ******* out of power. Then, the ****** that are a part of the ******* will say that you're spying for him.

Okay... so why is that a bad thing? The person that's supporting ******* being removed from power is apparently a threat to the ********* aimed at removing ******* and her like-minded cronies from power?

Never mind that ***** can state in the ******* that he knows ***** supported ****, but then says in the ******* that ***** is supporting *******.

Makes no sense. Even worse is the reliance on insane ****** to tell a story centered around human conflict.

You might want to try to keep proper names out of it at the least.

[TEWR]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm going to link to a few spoiler threads because I want to keep this as non-spoilery as possible.

You might want to make the following edits then. I found your post to have a rather large amount of spoilers in it.

I can't go "Well Person A does something which doesn't make sense when Person B said something to the contrary", because that's just vagueness to the point of being plain unhelpful. You can't understand a point being made if there isn't some inkling of what quest it is or who it's in regards to. Specifics help make a point.

Vagueness for the sake of being non-spoilery isn't going to help much.

I mean, first sentence where I say anti-Qunari. That's hardly a spoiler. MotA was touted as being Qunari centric. Logic dictates that you can be anti-Qunari in the DLC.

Second, giving the name for the quest isn't a spoiler. Not a huge one at any rate.

Third, being pro-mage isn't a spoiler either. The game is touted as being focused on Mages and Templars. Logic dictates that you can be pro-mage as a result.

My only spoiler that shouldn't be there is giving the basic gist of the quest. But I can't say that the quest doesn't make sense without giving the reasons why it doesn't make sense, especially when no thread in the past has said the flaws that exist in the quest IIRC so I can't link to them.

So I'll just get rid of names and describe the characters.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 07:30 .

[the_one_54321]

Wulfram wrote...
I really wouldn't class Diplomatic Hawke as humble.  She basically always assumes she's in charge and never AFAIR shows the slightest bit of doubt.

Thank you. This is what I've always heard. Maybe it is the aristocratic tone of the VA. I don't know. But there was never any humility.

Wulfram wrote...
I really wouldn't class Diplomatic Hawke as humble. She basically always assumes she's in charge and never AFAIR The fact that you can't tell what joke Hawke might make is something of an issue, also. In DA:O, you can just pick the lines which suit your character, but if you want Hawke to be anything but a po-faced stick-in-the-mud then you're going to have to embark on the lottery of the "Sarcastic" option.

Not to mention that if you pick it a fair bit, then Hawke will start saying sarcastic things with out your input, never mind if the occasion fits with your intended characterisation.

This whole system was, imo, like saying we don't want you to actually control Hawke. The fact that Hawke begins to conform to whatever options you choose most often is a direct example of there-are-actually-only-three-Hawkes-now-pick-one.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Warden is the only surviving member of a super order who saves 'the world' from an ancient, mindless evil. You can sacrifice yourself, or you can have sex with a woman, or convince someone else to have sex with her, or sacrifice a companion.

Hawke is a refugee who rose to prominence in a city but was ultimately a pawn of history.

The first is a massive ego stroke on two legs. The second is a regular character.

I 100% agree with this, and it's not as if the Warden is Ms. Humility by default - just like Hawke isn't a jerk by default. It depends on how you play your characters and which dialogue choices you make. Like others in this thread have said, you can just as easily pick the diplomatic options with Hawke and come across as being more humble.

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Why must you keep doing this to me? And I mean specifically me, because I'm not the only one posting spoilers. True, I may be the worst, but I'm far from the only one.

You answered your own question. You're the worst.

[TEWR]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Why must you keep doing this to me? And I mean specifically me, because I'm not the only one posting spoilers. True, I may be the worst, but I'm far from the only one.

You answered your own question. You're the worst.

And instead of participating in the discussion, you're going to moderate me? I mean, seriously... what do you gain from that?

Bah, enough. I'm not getting into some paltry argument over spoilers. It's not important to me. Not enough to really devote to an argument spanning a few pages, if that.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 07:38 .

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Why must you keep doing this to me? And I mean specifically me, because I'm not the only one posting spoilers. True, I may be the worst, but I'm far from the only one.

You answered your own question. You're the worst.

And instead of participating in the discussion, you're going to moderate me? I mean, seriously... what do you gain from that?

I don't have that much of a stake in this thread. I found it silly that the topic starter hadn't actually even played the game, and was gleaning the entire conclusion from youtube let's play videos.

I do, however, care that people who might be *reading* this thread may not have actually played that far in the game, or haven't played MotA, and are thus spoiled by your careless remarks. They deserve a forum that does what it says on the tin - a no spoilers forum. You're very bad about it, too. This is hardly the first time you've done this before, and you admit it yourself. But it keeps happening because you can't seem to help yourself. You take refuge behind other people despite being the self-described worst of the bunch, but you still show little to no remorse for doing so.

Stop being petulant. It's unbecoming of an adult.

[the_one_54321]

I get back from my lunch break and think "wow, 4 pages already!" Then it turns out almost an entire page is people arguing about spoilers.

If it bugs you so much, how about you report it to the mod that's already been posting in the thread? I'm pretty sure he'll know which posts you're talking about and fix it.

[Atakuma]

I don't understand what this thread is about anymore.

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't have that much of a stake in this thread. I found it silly that the topic starter hadn't actually even played the game, and was gleaning the entire conclusion from youtube let's play videos.

*snip*

They deserve a forum that does what it says on the tin - a no spoilers forum.

It also says 'Game Owners' forum but several people who post here don't have a registered copy of DA II and admit to having never played it.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 avril 2012 - 07:54 .

[TEWR]

Humans never go insane? What about humans who have been tortured and oppressed? That's not to say all people who ever start a revolution are therefore insane, but the mages who are insane aren't the really instigators of the conflict. They're the victims who provide context for the conflict. (or if you're anti-mage, proof, etc.)

I just feel that game relied too much on insane characters. Some are obviously bound to happen, but when the main NPCs of a game that aren't companions are insane to drive the story forward, it loses something.

I understand that this is a standard complaint usually given without a second thought now, but I think it's being conflated with the complaint about reliance on the "supernatural" if you're talking about what constitutes a "human" conflict.

In part, it is. To me, a human conflict is one where you can see the good and bad of both sides in equal measure. You can see the merit to both arguments.

Insane characters can help to drive one side's arguments forward more, certainly. But to rely on turning characters insane tends to really detract from both sides' arguments, because you run the risk of losing an interest in the conflict.

I think that if a character's actions can be explained away because of the supernatural, then that tends to make them less like characters and more like caricatures.

The supernatural can help a plot and even add to the moral complexity, but it has to be done well.

That's my take on it, anyway.

EDIT: Now, I'm taking a break from this thread. Being called petulant by someone who doesn't know me well enough to even begin to call me anything really pissed me off, and I have to get ready to pick up my little brother.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 avril 2012 - 07:59 .

[the_one_54321]

Atakuma wrote...
I don't understand what this thread is about anymore.

It's about this; (plus a lot of thread hijacking)

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
I really wouldn't class Diplomatic Hawke as humble.  She basically always assumes she's in charge and never AFAIR shows the slightest bit of doubt.

Thank you. This is what I've always heard. Maybe it is the aristocratic tone of the VA. I don't know. But there was never any humility.

Wulfram wrote...
I really wouldn't class Diplomatic Hawke as humble. She basically always assumes she's in charge and never AFAIR The fact that you can't tell what joke Hawke might make is something of an issue, also. In DA:O, you can just pick the lines which suit your character, but if you want Hawke to be anything but a po-faced stick-in-the-mud then you're going to have to embark on the lottery of the "Sarcastic" option.

Not to mention that if you pick it a fair bit, then Hawke will start saying sarcastic things with out your input, never mind if the occasion fits with your intended characterisation.

This whole system was, imo, like saying we don't want you to actually control Hawke. The fact that Hawke begins to conform to whatever options you choose most often is a direct example of there-are-actually-only-three-Hawkes-now-pick-one.

[Maria Caliban]

Yes, you feel like you had less control over Hawke because you watched a youtube video. I'd feel that way about the Warden if I'd never played the damn game.

Atakuma wrote...

I don't understand what this thread is about anymore.

It's about how Hawke is a God-Among-Mortals. Wait, you say the same could be applied to the Warden? It's about how Hawke is always snarky and sarcastic. Wait, you say that's something the player controls? It's about how the player has no control over Hawke.

Also, let's slip a conversation about how PC voice acting ruins everything immersion in there.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, you feel like you had less control over Hawke because you watched a youtube video. I'd feel that way about the Warden if I'd never played the damn game.

[Atakuma]

I really don't see how Hawke could be considered a "god among mortals", especially not when being compared to the warden, who in my opinion was little more than your own personal Mary Sue.

[the_one_54321]

Filament wrote...
That's, of course, assuming they would agree with the people in the story forum. "Nitpicky" is a nice way of putting it, I would have described it more like an echo chamber where a few people discuss specific topics ad nauseam and turn minor problems (why couldn't Hawke do __ in __ situation) or non-problems (why is Leliana so bigoted?!) into hideous, unforgivable flaws.

For some folks, the general trend of loss of control has never been important. For other folks the general trend of loss of control has always been an unforgivable flaw.

Atakuma wrote...
I really don't see how Hawke could be considered a "god among mortals", especially not when being compared to the warden, who in my opinion was little more than your own personal Mary Sue.

I suppose it's reasonable to assume you missed this in all the other nonsense getting posted, but I'm attributing my reaction to the delivery of the VA. I never heard any humility. You can read more on this in Wulfram's post above.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 30 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[Maria Caliban]

The Kirkwall conflict was deliberately made extreme to emphasize the problem. The Templars indulged in horrible abuses and the mages became violent and possessed in record numbers. People like nice, sensible middle grounds because extreme viewpoints make most people uncomfortable, but BioWare didn't support that with the narrative.

Some people consider that bad storytelling, but I disagree. It's a legitimate way to handle drama; it's just that people hate what they see as a no-win situation.