63 réponses à ce sujet

[hero 2]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The "two" endings for Dragon Age II, Legacy, and Mark of the Assassin come across as identical because they are. Whether Hawke sides with Meredith or Orsino, he disappears in three years regardless of his role, mages rebel, templars rebel, and the differences between the two endings feel relatively small in comparison (for some of us). In Legacy, a possessed Warden leaves, no matter what. In Mark of the Assassin, Tallis leaves with the list, no matter what.

Derp derp derpetty derp. Whatever it means, there's a lot of it here.

Does anybody remember completing DA:O without visiting the Dwarves, Dalish Elves, Humans and City Elvis (uhuhu)? Without Riordan and the Archdemon dying? Aww the game was so stifling, I want my in-game liberty, wah wah!  




...whut's a plot point? 

Modifié par hero 2, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[TonberryFeye]

Plaintiff wrote...
Origins and its additions differ from this how? The player only gets the shallow illusion of more varied endings via epilogue slides giving them a rundown of every single choice they made throughout the game. This isn't necessary in DA2; it shows you the consequences in-game, through the continued quest chains, or through conversations in the world, or letters received, or for the bigger ones, Varric and Cassandra discuss them between acts. What's the difference?

The difference is that all those 'differences' you mention about DA2? I didn't spot any of them. I honestly did not see any difference in the endings.

With Origins, I do. Obviously, the most drastic is whether or not you die, but the epilogue system makes it feel as though you made a difference; will Orzammar prosper under Bhelen, or rot under Harrowmont? Will the Dalish live in peace with Humans, or be torn apart by the Werewolves? Will the Circle gain new freedoms, or become a place of fear and oppression (and, according to DA2, a place where every single mage is a Blood Mage:pinched:)?

DA2 did a terrible job of distinguishing the endings. It all happened so fast, with no time to take stock of what the hell just happened, that I was left with no satisfaction whatsoever.

With Origins, the ending goes on for some time; the Archdemon dies, we get a voiceover, we get the funeral / royal proclamation, and then we get the epilogue. Because it plays out over a much longer timespan, and it does so slowly without feeling the need to shove a "the next game will be so much better!" message in our faces, Origins leaves us with a clear end and a satisfying conclusion.

I know exactly what my Warden accomplished when I reach the end of Origins. I haven't got a damn clue why I even bothered with Hawke, since it seems the same thing happens no matter what I do during the game itself.

[LobselVith8]

hero 2 wrote...

Derp derp derpetty derp.

I recall the entire premise of Origins being that The Warden needed to gather allies to fight the darkspawn and defeat the Blight. The narrative explained why these actions needed to be done. Is there any reason Hawke is continually forced to complete certain tasks, even if he doesn't need to, i.e. aiding Petrice even if you explicitly tell her no? Is there any reason an apostate Hawke would even remain in Kirkwall if he is hearing stories about Ferelden having a mage as its national hero? Perhaps you can formulate an argument as to why Hawke is passive for three entire years when a dictatorship transpires, especially if he is pro-mage, or why Hawke stands idly by when a murder transpires right in front of him?

[TonberryFeye]

hero 2 wrote...
Derp derp derpetty derp. Whatever it means, there's a lot of it here.

Does anybody remember completing DA:O without visiting the Dwarves, Dalish Elves, Humans and City Elvis (uhuhu)? Without Riordan and the Archdemon dying? Aww the game was so stifling, I want my in-game liberty, wah wah! 

The difference, my mentally challenged friend, is that Origins set up these things as goals right from the off. As soon as we're done with the opening act (Ostagar, and arguably Lothering) we know what our mission is - go to the Dalish, to Orzammar, to the Circle and to Redcliffe and raise an army. This is the goal of the game; the long-term, plot-spanning objective that we must work to accomplish. These goals don't exist in isolation either - they are part of the even greater goal of ending the Blight.

The issue is not that you cannot skip these goals. The issue is whether or not how you accomplished your goals are recognised. To prove the point, let's go through both games and study how they reward our efforts:

Origin Story:
Origins: Your history is acknowledged by way of a custom reward at the end - a Human Noble gets his family lands back, a Circle Mage can improve the lot of Mages, a Dwarf can be a Paragon, etc.
DA2: No origin story exists.

Prologue:
Origins: The prologue establishes the ultimate goal of the game - to defeat the Blight. When the army fails at Ostagar, it falls to you to carry on. The game ends when you complete this goal.
The prologue also establishes five 'milestones' that must be completed to stop the Blight: recruit the Dalish, recruit the Mages, recruit Arl Eamon and the army of Redcliffe, recruit the Dwarves of Orzammar, defeat Loghain.
DA2: The prologue establishes nothing, and has no relation to the overall plot.

Act 1:
Origins: You begin your task of recruiting four forces for the Blight. This is a very long process, essentially split into four smaller campaign arcs. How you resolve each faction's arc will impact not only the epilogue (and potentially what party members remain with you) but also what forces you have at your disposal for Act 3. Your goal is directly linked to the overall plot of the game.
DA2: The plot of Act 1 is to become rich so you can go into the Deep Roads and become even richer. This has no relation to the overall plot of the game (which we will assume to be Act 3's plot) save to deliver a Chenkhov's Gun. Your actions in this Act are not mentioned in the ending, and do not shape it in any way.

Act 2:
Origins: Having raised an army, you now face Loghain. The game emphasises that the Blight is almost upon you, hence why Loghain must be defeated quickly so you can focus on the ultimate goal of the game. Here, some of the biggest choices of the game are made, including whether you perform Morrigan's ritual and the fates of Alistair, Loghain and Anora are all decided here. Your choices will shape the ending and the epilogues.
DA2: You are called upon to stop a Qunari uprising. This has no relation to the main plot, save perhaps to allow Meredith to assume command of the city in Act 3. Your choices here do not matter and will not be recognised later, save that you may lose certain party members. No reference to your choices will be made in the ending, and your actions do not shape it in any way.

Act 3:
Origins: A brutally straightforward affair; you slaughter your way through the Darkspawn, face the Archdemon and kill it. Either both Wardens survive as heroes (if you perform the Ritual) or one of them dies. You can choose to sacrifice yourself, which will have a dramatic change to the end of the game (since you'll be dead).
Come the ending, your fate is still yours to choose based on past actions. You can become king or queen alongside Anora / Alistair if you chose to do so in Act 2. You can choose to support various groups or receive unique boons based on your Origin, and so forth.
In the Epilogue, the choices you made in Act 1 are mentioned, and their consequences described to paint a picture of what became of Ferelden in the months and years that followed your victory. Some plot points are left unresolved, but the main story wraps itself up nicely; the Archdemon is dead, Ferelden is saved, you are the Hero (dead or alive). The end.
DA2: At long last, we finally learn what the plot of the game is. We spend this act picking a side (Templar or Mage) and fighting the enemies of the other. Anders will blow up the Chantry no matter what we do (even if you don't help him to do it) and you then pick a side for the final fight - a choice that is independent of all previous choices of allegiance made thus far in the game, let alone the Act.
In the end, both Orsino and Meredith turn out to be evil and you kill them no matter which side you fight for. A rebellion happens, and we are told Hawke and his friends all vanish to the four corners of the world.
The game ends with a cutscene informing us that the 'Seekers', an organisation we had never seen or heard of before, are chasing down both Hawke and the Warden, and the game stops. There is no resolution, no epilogue, no acknowledgement of any actions taken thus far. It just stops.


This is what people are talking about when they say there is no choice in DA2. Or player agency. Or plot.

[hero 2]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hero 2 wrote...

Derp derp derpetty derp.

Is there any reason Hawke is continually forced to complete certain tasks, even if he doesn't need to, i.e. aiding Petrice even if you explicitly tell her no? 
Is there any reason an apostate Hawke would even remain in Kirkwall if he is hearing stories about Ferelden having a mage as its national hero?  

Yes. You have to do it because that is the story. It's Hawke's story, not a different story you want to happen in your head.  This section of narrative is essential to the main plot. You know that all of the main story quests are essential (that's why they are under the heading Main Story), and that all the others are optional. Why are you surprised?

Even in interactive computer-game land, the writer is the author, not the player. Not yet. Otherwise, I could be asking why I can't visit Lothering or Orlais? Why can't I go and meet the Grey Warden or Queen Anora? They aren't part of this story - that's why.

LobselVith8 wrote... 
Perhaps you can formulate an argument as to why Hawke is passive for three entire years when a dictatorship transpires, especially if he is pro-mage, or why Hawke stands idly by when a murder transpires right in front of him?

No dictatorship transpires. I don't know which game you're playing. And I don't know which murder you're typing about but DA's is a tough world. Maybe you aren't RPing this RPG well enough.

Modifié par hero 2, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:28 .

[Fauxnormal]

hero 2 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hero 2 wrote...

Derp derp derpetty derp.

Is there any reason Hawke is continually forced to complete certain tasks, even if he doesn't need to, i.e. aiding Petrice even if you explicitly tell her no? 
Is there any reason an apostate Hawke would even remain in Kirkwall if he is hearing stories about Ferelden having a mage as its national hero?  

Yes. You have to do it because that is the story. It's Hawke's story, not a different story you want to happen in your head.  This section of narrative is essential to the main plot. You know that all of the main story quests are essential (that's why they are under the heading Main Story), and that all the others are optional. Why are you surprised?

Even in interactive computer-game land, the writer is the author, not the player. Not yet. Otherwise, I could be asking why I can't visit Lothering or Orlais? Why can't I go and meet the Grey Warden or Queen Anora? They aren't part of this story - that's why.

LobselVith8 wrote... 
Perhaps you can formulate an argument as to why Hawke is passive for three entire years when a dictatorship transpires, especially if he is pro-mage, or why Hawke stands idly by when a murder transpires right in front of him?

No dictatorship transpires. I don't know which game you're playing. And I don't know which murder you're typing about but DA's is a tough world. Maybe you aren't RPing this RPG well enough.

/Applaudes

Frankly, I think all the people who QQ about this game should just generally avoid RPGs. They aren;t mentally mature enough to handle not having their hand held. :/

[hero 2]

TonberryFeye wrote...

The difference, my mentally challenged friend, is that Origins set up these things as goals right from the off. As soon as we're done with the opening act (Ostagar, and arguably Lothering) we know what our mission is - go to the Dalish, to Orzammar, to the Circle and to Redcliffe and raise an army. This is the goal of the game; the long-term, plot-spanning objective that we must work to accomplish. These goals don't exist in isolation either - they are part of the even greater goal of ending the Blight.
[..]

This is what people are talking about when they say there is no choice in DA2. Or player agency. Or plot.

So you're all upset because there's no explanation for the particular laundry list of quests in DA2?

Hurled into the chaos you whine! And the world will laugh before you.<3

[LobselVith8]

hero 2 wrote...

Yes. You have to do it because that is the story.

In other words, the narrative provides no actual reason for the protagonist to make these specific choices, aside from the demands of the Plot? Because if Hawke says he won't do something, that shouldn't mean that the Plot ignores this and forces him to do it.

hero 2 wrote...

No dictatorship transpires.

Meredith becomes the de facto Viscount. It's an issue of contention among many groups in Act III because she prevents the election of a new Viscount and installs her templars in the Viscount's Keep, even attempting to take command of the City Guard. Hawke, meanwhile, does nothing about it. He's basically in a coma for three years.

Also, Hawke watches Grace kill Thrask and does nothing, despite the fact that she has been going on and on about killing someone.

[TonberryFeye]

Hero, you're the one who clearly needs to avoid RPGs; thinking is not your strong suit.

RPGs focus on narrative. Narrative, in any form, has certain rules. One of those rules is that "characters don't just do things for the hell of it."

Take any good narrative and you will see this clearly. Luke Skywalker, for example. He did not want to become a hero; he chose to go with Obi Wan when his family was murdered by Imperial Stormtroopers. Prior to that his plans were to go home, work on the farm and maybe, in a few years, go to the Imperial Academy and become a pilot.

Now imagine how stupid Star Wars would have been as a film if Luke told Obi Wan this and then went with him anyway. This is exactly what makes Hawke a terrible character, and DA2 a terrible game.

The Warden in Origins is motivated to stop the Blight. They become a Grey Warden (often not by choice, I may add; it's that or death) and it is made very clear that the fate of the entire nation rests on them. There is a clear call to action, and no matter how many times people make stupid arguments to the contrary, the narrative is easy to see - the Grey Warden has been thrust into the situation, and the burden of the hero's duty rests on their shoulders.

Hawke has no such burden. The Blight ends during the transition from prologue to Act 1, so the reason for coming to Kirkwall is void. All that's keeping Hawke there is the fact that (s)he cannot financially afford to leave.
By the end of Act 1, Hawke is rich enough to buy passage back to Ferelden, and if (s)he so chose (s)he could rebuild Lothering twice over. What was the reason for being in Kirkwall again?
But the lack of agency runs deeper than that. This call to action against the Qunari is a false one, born of the fact 'the Arishok is impressed with you'. Why? Since when? I don't recall doing him any favours, or indeed doing anything that impressed him much.
Moreover, what does Hawke actually do? Origins made it clear what a Grey Warden did - kill Darskpawn - and then used that to tie in to the overall plot. "You must kill the Archdemon because you are a Grey Warden, and Grey Wardens kill Archdemons."
Hawke is... rich. Is it the duty of rich people to put down rebellions? I thought that's what the City Guard was for. If it is the duty of rich people, why Hawke? Why not the families who were rich before Hawke even got to Kirkwall? Why this jobless hobo who has no land, no title, no political influence and nothing to gain from the venture?

The Mage/Templar war is just more of the same. The Warden got involved in this because he needed the Mages, so he had to secure the Tower and recruit them, or purge the Tower to convince the Templars to answer the call instead. Why does Hawke need the mages? He doesn't. Why does Hawke need the Templars? He doesn't. Why does Hawke need to pick a side? He doesn't. We are told that people hope Hawke, as Champion, will be a voice of reason, but when you try to be the voice of reason you're told "No middle ground! You have to pick a side! Only one can be right!"
But neither are right. We all know this. The game deliberately sets us up as a mediator, and then denies us that role. The endgame is the worst of it - blowing up the Chantry and forcing a conflict on the most farcical terms ever seen ("An Apostate outside of our control blew up the Chantry! Kill the Circle Mages who were not involved!"). Here, at least, Hawke does have some motivation - Meredith is clearly a bloody lunatic, so you're arguably acting in self defense when you kill her. That said, it's a pathetic motivation for an end of game boss. Origins had us slay the Archdemon to save an entire nation. DA2 has us slay some loony old bint because she's annoying.

[Plaintiff]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Aside from the Epilogue outcomes, there are the choices about sparing or killing Loghain and supporting Alistair, Anora, both, yourself (as the Cousland heir) as King/Queen, getting Alistair killed, whether the dark ritual will be done with Morrigan or not, and the royal boon (like asking the new ruler to emancipate the mages of the Circle of Ferelden, which the ruler publicly agrees to do) that makes me feel like my choices matter. I don't feel like Hawke's choices matter, because it felt like the narrative railroaded me down a specific path even if it made absolutely no sense.

Origin's main plot isn't really any less restrictive in that sense. Certain boxes have to be ticked no matter what.

I imagine Hawke's choices matter very much to the people affected by them. There are a dozen individuals at least who can be seriously affected by his decisons, and that's not even counting party members. Hawke's presene can be a boon or it can be uterly devastating. It would take more than two hands to count the times where Hawke gets to decide whether or not someone lives or dies.

Maybe you feel like these choices matter less because the people involved aren't Kings or Queens, or because they didn't have a major role in the main plot threads? I suppose that might be a fair criticism, but I have to disagree. There's no definite way of telling how far-reaching the consequences of any given choice might be until we see the next installment, or possibly not even until the next one ofter that. Not much carries over from Origins, after all, or hasn't yet, at least.

Frankly, I feel like epilogue slides are "cheating" in a fashion. It's easy to show consequences when they all take the form of short blocks of text in a slideshow. The way DA2 shows consequences is an improvement in my eyes, but could still stand to be much better.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I recall the entire premise of Origins being that The Warden needed to gather allies to fight the darkspawn and defeat the Blight. The narrative explained why these actions needed to be done. Is there any reason Hawke is continually forced to complete certain tasks, even if he doesn't need to, i.e. aiding Petrice even if you explicitly tell her no? Is there any reason an apostate Hawke would even remain in Kirkwall if he is hearing stories about Ferelden having a mage as its national hero? Perhaps you can formulate an argument as to why Hawke is passive for three entire years when a dictatorship transpires, especially if he is pro-mage, or why Hawke stands idly by when a murder transpires right in front of him?

This seems to have wandered off into an entirely different argument. Hero2 was talking about player agency and you're now talking about the lack of a proper motivation for the character.

Origins explains why cetain actions need to be done, but actually, there's no compelling reason that the Warden has to do them. Oh sure, he's the only one that can, but why does it follow that he should feel compelled to? He didn't necessarily choose to be a warden in the first place, not to mention he was only inducted the night before and is suddenly expected to raise and lead an army. The responsibility has been thrust upon him by circumstance. Nothing is actually preventing him from ****ing off to another country, except for the fact that the game simply doesn't offer that option.

I think Hawke has a pretty good reason to stay in Kirkwall, though it's never explicitly spelled out. He (or she) is simply tired of running. The whole family is, and why wouldn't they be? It's revealed that they spent much of their lives on the run due to Malcom, Bethany and possibly Hawke himself being mages. They settled in Lothering, and lived secretly, doing their best to avoid attention, and then it was destroyed by Darkspawn.

Kirkwall may be a ****ty place for a mage, but it's the only place where they have any family at all, and they had to incur a year's worth of work debt just to get in. By the time that's done with, they've been living in Lowtown for a year already. It's not ideal, no, but they've become accustomed to it, and they have nothing to gain by moving. It might not be the decision you would make, it's not the decision I would make, but it's a perfectly understandable one. Penty of people IRL persist in bad situations simply because they are too afraid or too fatigued to seek an alternative.

And then you wander into the issue of passivity, which is also a whole other argument.

Well, I can only say that I don't see how the Warden is anymore proactive than Hawke is. The Warden doesn't really show initiative either. Flemeth and Alistair told him what needed to be done, so he did it. Everywhere the Warden goes, he is reacting to problems that have been thrown in his path, or to orders that have been given. Very rarely, if at all, does he demonstrate any independant thinking of his own.

This is an issue with virtually all games, all stories, really, and not one that I see being solved anytime soon. I'm not really sure I'd even classify it as a problem in and of itself. Someone has to tell the hero what needs to be done, or somehow provoke him into action, so that he can do it. Link has Zelda, Frodo has Gandalf, Hawke has everyone he meets. The list goes on. Without a goal, the hero would just live a peaceful life and then die, and then there would be no story.

If the Warden is classified as proactive, then I don't see how Hawke could possibly not be. If going around solving everybody's problems for them isn't proactive, then what extra lengths does the Warden go to in order to qualify?

I'm happy to admit that the three-year time skips are problematic. They are, for a number of reasons. Why didn't Hawke take action when Meredith seized power? Good question, I don't know. On the flipside of that coin, why didn't anyone else? Why didn't the nobility of Kirkwall oppose her more openly at the time? Why didn't Elthina tell her to back off and go do her actual job? Why did Orsino wait three years before marching up to Hightown to give his little speech?

The problem is not that Hawke takes too long to act, it's that everyone does.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:09 .

[LobselVith8]

Fauxnormal wrote...

Frankly, I think all the people who QQ about this game should just generally avoid RPGs.

Why? Because some people disliked the story about a plethora of insane and stupid mages and sadist templars? People point to the Witcher 2 as a well-developed story with sane characters who had interesting motivations. I didn't find that in Dragon Age II. I did find the schism between the Legion and the Stormcloaks in Skyrim interesting, because neither was vilified, and both groups were flawed. Some fans didn't appreciate having little control over their protagonist and being railroaded into decisions with no explanation. This was a problem for me, because Hawke was railroaded down a path that didn't make sense. I also don't think that Dragon Age II was much of an RPG.

[Plaintiff]

TonberryFeye wrote...
By the end of Act 1, Hawke is rich enough to buy passage back to Ferelden, and if (s)he so chose (s)he could rebuild Lothering twice over. What was the reason for being in Kirkwall again?

Because he's been there for two years at this point? Because he had to incur a massive work debt just to get in?

He's established a whole new life out of the ashes of his old one. It might not be wonderful, but it's his. What good would it do to go back to Ferelden? Even if he rebuilt Lothering, virtually everyone he knew there is dead. His old life is gone. It would be more travel and more work for very little gain.

You might as well ask why people insist on living in countries where war, disease, famine and crime run rampant. It's their home.

[RaenImrahl]

Insulting another user's intelligence at the start of your wall of text is a great way to get your account temporarily banned... FYI.

[hero 2]

Plaintiff wrote...

TonberryFeye wrote...
By the end of Act 1, Hawke is rich enough to buy passage back to Ferelden, and if (s)he so chose (s)he could rebuild Lothering twice over. What was the reason for being in Kirkwall again?

Because he's been there for two years at this point? Because he had to incur a massive work debt just to get in?

He's established a whole new life out of the ashes of his old one. It might not be wonderful, but it's his. What good would it do to go back to Ferelden? Even if he rebuilt Lothering, virtually everyone he knew there is dead. His old life is gone. It would be more travel and more work for very little gain.

You might as well ask why people insist on living in countries where war, disease, famine and crime run rampant. It's their home.

Indeed, Miriam's letter to Leandra states that,  " the Blight poisoned the land. It'll take decades for the earth to recover. It may never. "
Also, he's also made some jolly new friends in Kirkwall and one of his friends is the guard captain, it's not like she's just going to leave, and she says as much.
Leandra seems to want the old family estate back.

Modifié par hero 2, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:13 .

[LobselVith8]

Plaintiff wrote...

Origin's main plot isn't really any less restrictive in that sense. Certain boxes have to be ticked no matter what.

I imagine Hawke's choices matter very much to the people affected by them. There are a dozen individuals at least who can be seriously affected by his decisons, and that's not even counting party members. Hawke's presene can be a boon or it can be uterly devastating. It would take more than two hands to count the times where Hawke gets to decide whether or not someone lives or dies.

It's certainly more restrictive than games like New Vegas or Skyrim, but there are more opportunities to have different outcomes and results than Dragon Age II. As for the motivation of the protagonist and why the narrative proceeds at a certain path, there are reasons provided for why The Warden has to get the treaties and stop the civil war from the very beginning, but I agree that more could have been done to establish why certain Wardens should care. However, I feel that there's a severe lack of motivation for Hawke in many respects. There are no explanations for why a pro-mage Hawke has to help the templars, why a pro-templar Hawke has to help a Qunari mage escape or aid apostates, or why an apostate Hawke would remain in Kirkwall given the dangers of living at the center of templar power over eastern Thedas.

Plaintiff wrote...

Maybe you feel like these choices matter less because the people involved aren't Kings or Queens, or because they didn't have a major role in the main plot threads? I suppose that might be a fair criticism, but I have to disagree. There's no definite way of telling how far-reaching the consequences of any given choice might be until we see the next installment, or possibly not even until the next one ofter that. Not much carries over from Origins, after all, or hasn't yet, at least.

Frankly, I feel like epilogue slides are "cheating" in a fashion. It's easy to show consequences when they all take the form of short blocks of text in a slideshow. The way DA2 shows consequences is an improvement in my eyes, but could still stand to be much better.

The choices didn’t feel like they mattered because everything pretty much remained the same.  I didn’t feel there was any reaction to what my protagonist was doing in Kirkwall. Did the elves react to my Hawke going against the Magistrate and killing Kelder? No. Did the Magistrate enact revenge for the death of his son? No. The entire quest served to provide an additional line for Cullen explaining why Hawke’s family didn’t suffer for shielding Bethany from the templars (if Hawke killed Kelder), but if he didn’t, then the scene plays out exactly the same except Cullen doesn’t mention the Magistrate pulling any strings for Hawke. In Origins, I saw the casteless talk about Bhelen becoming King; the prosperity of the Dalish elves when the curse was lifted; Redcliffe village standing after fighting off the invasion of the undead. In Ferelden, I felt that my Warden’s actions mattered, and it had nothing to do with some of the characters being nobility.

Plaintiff wrote...

This seems to have wandered off into an entirely different argument. Hero2 was talking about player agency and you're now talking about the lack of a proper motivation for the character.

Hero 2 was saying “derp derp” repeatedly; let’s not pretend that he made some nuanced argument here simply because you two share a love for Dragon Age II. I addressed that there was a reason for why The Warden did certain actions; that isn’t true for Hawke, who has to complete certain tasks even if he openly refuses to do them, because the developers dictated that they must be done even if there’s no plausible explanation provided for why.

Plaintiff wrote...

Origins explains why cetain actions need to be done, but actually, there's no compelling reason that the Warden has to do them. Oh sure, he's the only one that can, but why does it follow that he should feel compelled to? He didn't necessarily choose to be a warden in the first place, not to mention he was only inducted the night before and is suddenly expected to raise and lead an army. The responsibility has been thrust upon him by circumstance. Nothing is actually preventing him from ****ing off to another country, except for the fact that the game simply doesn't offer that option.

I think Hawke has a pretty good reason to stay in Kirkwall, though it's never explicitly spelled out. He (or she) is simply tired of running. The whole family is, and why wouldn't they be? It's revealed that they spent much of their lives on the run due to Malcom, Bethany and possibly Hawke himself being mages. They settled in Lothering, and lived secretly, doing their best to avoid attention, and then it was destroyed by Darkspawn.

Kirkwall may be a ****ty place for a mage, but it's the only place where they have any family at all, and they had to incur a year's worth of work debt just to get in. By the time that's done with, they've been living in Lowtown for a year already. It's not ideal, no, but they've become accustomed to it, and they have nothing to gain by moving. It might not be the decision you would make, it's not the decision I would make, but it's a perfectly understandable one. Penty of people IRL persist in bad situations simply because they are too afraid or too fatigued to seek an alternative.

There is very little reason for an apostate Hawke to remain in Kirkwall, especially given what he learns about the abuses going on in the Circle of Kirkwall. I imported my Surana Warden save, and it made even less sense. Why would apostate Hawke remain in Kirkwall if the Hero of Ferelden is a mage, and the new ruler of Ferelden has shown to be pro-mage with his proclamation about mages earning the right to govern themselves? What good would it do for a mage to remain in Kirkwall, which has one of the only two Circles of Magi in the Free Marches, and one after the Starkhaven Circle Tower is burned down? I don’t see the point in an apostate Hawke staying in Kirkwall.

The Warden is proactive in the way he can outmaneuver both dwarven politicans or maneuver around the Landsmeet to help Queen Anora retain her throne against Arl Eamon’s wishes. He can bring Alistair and Anora together as King and Queen to rule Ferelden together. In contrast, Hawke is passive in how he spends years doing nothing but wearing a silk jacket and punching foes every three years, watching someone get murdered right in front of him because he stands idly watching the events unfold, or how he does nothing with his wealth but purchase a mansion.

Plaintiff wrote...

And then you wander into the issue of passivity, which is also a whole other argument.

Well, I can only say that I don't see how the Warden is anymore proactive than Hawke is. The Warden doesn't really show initiative either. Flemeth and Alistair told him what needed to be done, so he did it. Everywhere the Warden goes, he is reacting to problems that have been thrown in his path, or to orders that have been given. Very rarely, if at all, does he demonstrate any independant thinking of his own.

This is an issue with virtually all games, all stories, really, and not one that I see being solved anytime soon. I'm not really sure I'd even classify it as a problem in and of itself. Someone has to tell the hero what needs to be done, or somehow provoke him into action, so that he can do it. Link has Zelda, Frodo has Gandalf, Hawke has everyone he meets. The list goes on. Without a goal, the hero would just live a peaceful life and then die, and then there would be no story.

Actually, The Warden can suggest to Alistair that they go after the treaties, and The Warden can handle a myraid of quests in different ways. In fact, The Warden can turn down Brother Burkel's plea for help, while Hawke is continually forced by the Plot to do certain tasks, even if the narrative provides no explanation as to why he has to do them. There is also the different ways in which the political stalemate between Bhelen and Harrowmont can be resolved, as well as duping Eamon to aid Queen Anora. I wanted to see Hawke dealing with different political groups and rising to power through his wits and cunning, but all he did was punch his way to the position of Champion.

Plaintiff wrote...

If the Warden is classified as proactive, then I don't see how Hawke could possibly not be. If going around solving everybody's problems for them isn't proactive, then what extra lengths does the Warden go to in order to qualify?

I'm happy to admit that the three-year time skips are problematic. They are, for a number of reasons. Why didn't Hawke take action when Meredith seized power? Good question, I don't know. On the flipside of that coin, why didn't anyone else? Why didn't the nobility of Kirkwall oppose her more openly at the time? Why didn't Elthina tell her to back off and go do her actual job? Why did Orsino wait three years before marching up to Hightown to give his little speech?

The problem is not that Hawke takes too long to act, it's that everyone does.

As for his passive attitude, I’m not addressing the nobility or Elthina, I’m addressing Hawke’s passive attitude for three years while Meredith seizes power; Hawke, the passive protagonist of Dragon Age II. The man does nothing; he does nothing about the possessed Warden in Legacy despite the indications that something serious is off with the Warden, and he does nothing about Tallis. If more DLC had come from Bioware, I bet we would see more of Hawke going through a hack and slash adventure to end up doing nothing about the antagonist – in the same way he does nothing about Petrice after she admits she wants to kill innocent people to start a religious war with the Qunari. It seems to be what Hawke does best: nothing. The problem is certainly Hawke.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:08 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I hated what they did with Meredith. She should have been the one who saw reason and logic. She's a templar. Yet, she's just this oppressive **** who wants to annihilate all mages, but if she can't do that, she'll settle with enslaving them. This makes no sense and makes puts the templar order (clearly) in the wrong.

The elder mage should have been the one who was more fanatical, but still gave good reasons as to why the mages should be free. But he would be willing to do whatever it took to get the job done. He's a mage, afterall. He is the equivalent of an arch mage and he's an absolute weakling. This was done on purpose to make you side with the mages.

This whole thing was so poorly executed. It's hard for me to play the game because of it. I want to side with templars, and if Gregor was in charge, I would have. But how can anyone support Meredith? Especially if you play as a non-mage character. What they do (or want to do) to Bethany is terrible.

[hero 2]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I hated what they did with Meredith. She should have been the one who saw reason and logic. She's a templar. Yet, she's just this oppressive **** who wants to annihilate all mages, but if she can't do that, she'll settle with enslaving them. This makes no sense and makes puts the templar order (clearly) in the wrong.

The elder mage should have been the one who was more fanatical, but still gave good reasons as to why the mages should be free. But he would be willing to do whatever it took to get the job done. He's a mage, afterall. He is the equivalent of an arch mage and he's an absolute weakling. This was done on purpose to make you side with the mages.

This whole thing was so poorly executed. It's hard for me to play the game because of it. I want to side with templars, and if Gregor was in charge, I would have. But how can anyone support Meredith? Especially if you play as a non-mage character. What they do (or want to do) to Bethany is terrible.

Leaving aside the fact that Meredith's mind was addled by the idol, what Meredith SHOULD have been and what she WAS are exactly the point. 
People do strange things, when people with enormous power do strange things, chaos can ensue and many people can suffer. Orsino tries to restrain himself (ultimately unsuccessfully) in that despite all of his magic, he comprehends that the place of the circle in society is to keep magic safely contained.

I think that the choices are too tough for people too used to the ordinary simple good/evil dichotomy.  In this respect, I think DA2 is one of the most lifelike games I've seen.

Modifié par hero 2, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:15 .

[Xilizhra]

I think that the choices are too tough for people too used to the ordinary simple good/evil dichotomy. In this respect, I think DA2 is one of the most lifelike games I've seen.

Maybe I'm not too used to it, but this choice was incredibly easy for me.

[Chiramu]

Play a character like Bender from Futurama and ask the thread title again.

It would be nice to have retorts that go along the lines like. "Pfft, like I care?"

[Dave of Canada]

Because some don't meta-game their reasons or understands the dangers of mages.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:51 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

We have several active threads on mages/templars..... Did we really need this one? Really?

[eroeru]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

I hate the fact that all DA can do now is talk about Mages vs. Templars. DA2 every quest was about this conflict. If it's the same in DA3, it will be very sad, Dragon Age has many different conflicts and ideas that can be explored.

They botched it badly in DAII. They reduced an interesting dichotomy to a ridiculous display of lunatics and monsters who made no sense.

This.

Modifié par eroeru, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

hero 2 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I hated what they did with Meredith. She should have been the one who saw reason and logic. She's a templar. Yet, she's just this oppressive **** who wants to annihilate all mages, but if she can't do that, she'll settle with enslaving them. This makes no sense and makes puts the templar order (clearly) in the wrong.

The elder mage should have been the one who was more fanatical, but still gave good reasons as to why the mages should be free. But he would be willing to do whatever it took to get the job done. He's a mage, afterall. He is the equivalent of an arch mage and he's an absolute weakling. This was done on purpose to make you side with the mages.

This whole thing was so poorly executed. It's hard for me to play the game because of it. I want to side with templars, and if Gregor was in charge, I would have. But how can anyone support Meredith? Especially if you play as a non-mage character. What they do (or want to do) to Bethany is terrible.

Leaving aside the fact that Meredith's mind was addled by the idol, what Meredith SHOULD have been and what she WAS are exactly the point. 
People do strange things, when people with enormous power do strange things, chaos can ensue and many people can suffer. Orsino tries to restrain himself (ultimately unsuccessfully) in that despite all of his magic, he comprehends that the place of the circle in society is to keep magic safely contained.

I think that the choices are too tough for people too used to the ordinary simple good/evil dichotomy.  In this respect, I think DA2 is one of the most lifelike games I've seen.

Are you telling me I'm not smart enough to understand the story? It's not that complex and it's made quite easy because of how often it leans towards the mages being oppressed. It wasn't difficult for me to side with the mages at all. Meredith was in the wrong.

It's exactly why the story fails. The choices aren't diffuclt to make at all, and no matter which way you go, the end is the same. The Qunari storyline was about the only thing that made this game worth anything.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I think the means the overall mages/templar situation, and not Kirkwall.

Frankly Kirkwall is a mess and I'd rather not side with anyone and let the city burn.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:20 .