190 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Darth Death wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

If you play Awakenings again, try defending Amarantine at first, then abandoning it and going back to Vigil's keep with Anders in the party. You will see DA2 Anders there.

DA2 Anders is all there on DAA, he just masks it very well with humor.

For the opposite experience, when Anders asks your help on act 3, try choosing the "What aren't you telling me prompt (right after you investigate his proposal). He goes back to DA Awakening Anders and jokes about a lurid dream with a naked Elthina and a glowing cheese wheel. He does that to use humor to prevent you from guessing what he is really up to.

Anders in Awakening: A friendly cat lover that told jokes.:innocent:
Anders in DA2: A derange terrorist that told jokes.  

He never stopped being friendly and he never stopped loving cats, and those were never the most important aspects of his personality.

To me, those aspects of his character were important, but that's merely what I think. AmstradHero did a good job expressing what I felt about Anders fate. 

So when you talk about your friends and family, you consider whether or not they like cats do be a defining aspect of their personality.

You've grossly oversimplified Anders' character in both games, and completely disregarded the extensive development he undergoes in DA2, so I can only conclude that you don't want complex characters that grow, but would prefer shallow caricatures that don't challenge you in any way.

[Exicuren]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Sudden change=/=growth.

Anders certainly placed a high value on his freedom in Awakening, for sure. But he was morphed into a whiny terrorist who bared such little resemblance to his former self that he may as well have been a completely new character. He was easy going, lustful and adventurous. Then he became mopy, withdrawn and deranged. We never saw that change happen, so it wasn't growth, it was just change. And not at all subtle.

What?

Have you played DAA choosing all the anti-mage dialog choices with Anders in the party? All of his responses show the DA2 Anders, even more if you use have a mage grey warden, i remeber that in some dialog he says that if the warden remebers the life in the circle, when i reply that it was ok (my mage liked the circle), then he disqualified my argument with all the whinny rant from DA2 Anders

[Plaintiff]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

You've grossly oversimplified Anders' character in both games, and completely disregarded the extensive development he undergoes in DA2, so I can only conclude that you don't want complex characters that grow, but would prefer shallow caricatures that don't challenge you in any way.

Sudden change=/=growth.

Anders certainly placed a high value on his freedom in Awakening, for sure. But he was morphed into a whiny terrorist who bared such little resemblance to his former self that he may as well have been a completely new character. He was easy going, lustful and adventurous. Then he became mopy, withdrawn and deranged. We never saw that change happen, so it wasn't growth, it was just change. And not at all subtle.

It was growth, and it occurred over seven years. You are literally just making things up. Or you weren't paying attention. Anders does not start blowing up buildings from the minute you meet him. He is a healer, and he spends most of the game believing that change can be brought about peacefully, as evidenced by the prolific production of his handwritten manifestos.

And I don't agree that Anders is deranged. I think his logic is perfectly sound, and that the Chantry was (and is) a perfectly acceptable target. In fact, I think it was the right thing to do.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 août 2012 - 03:57 .

[Renmiri1]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. But I can see why Anders and Justice thought it needed to be done.

But in the context of a world / universe where life is cheap and people die due to monsters / blood mages / raiders, etc.. all the time, it certainly isn't the same as blowing up a church here in RL. Int the ocntext of having his friends systematically raped, beaten, lobotomized and killed by Templars, killing the person who can do something about it but never does is very understandable. Is not ethical or moral. Sure in war non-combatants die all the time. But the war has not been declared yet so attacking them in stealth is very cowardly.

We are more used to accepting assassins and our heros killing game npc, but very few of us would consider a RL hitman worthy of friendship. And very few of us would ever kill anyone in RL. We know killing is wrong. We know a court of law should judge bandits, not we with a 6 ft sword. We accept in game killing and assassins because we know is just a game. Is just roleplay. Yet game NPCs that kill for political reasons still weird out most people out.. RL Terrorism is too fresh in most people's minds to allow them to be able to relax and enjoy a terrorist NPC in a game.

I see that a lot, as an Anders fan and Anders "mancer". People here on the forums want him dead in the most horrid ways, yet the same person "loves" Fenris who rips peoples heart out of their chests and kills his own sister. Or "loves" Zevran, Leliana, Veranna... To them somehow serial killing (Veranna), killing for money (Zevran) and killing as a spy for rich people (Leliana) is perfectly fun and fine.. but they still see terrorism as too close to RL for confort. It isn't RL but you should play games for fun and if terrorist NPC give you the creeps, by all means, kill them with fire. Twice!!

Anders grows a lot from Act 1 to the beginning of Act 3. Somewhere in the middle of Act 3 he devolves into a terrorist. It was not well done and it feels pretty rushed. I chalk it up to Justice taking control but some people just can't bring themselves to tolerate what Anders has become. It's their game , their time and their money so who am I to judge ? I certainly enjoy romancing him and having my Hawke running away with her sweet magey. If we are all having fun, on a game, what is wrong with that ?

Modifié par Renmiri1, 31 août 2012 - 04:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

And I don't agree that Anders is deranged. I think his logic is perfectly sound, and that the Chantry was (and is) a perfectly acceptable target. In fact, I think it was the right thing to do.

In terms of blowing up the Chantry, I'm inclined to agree, but I wish Hawke had been given the option to blow up the Chantry himself.

Anders drives the action there.  Hawke is merely a bystander.

[PounceTeazle]

I wish there would have been more impact from the players side if/how/who blows up the chantry.
With the same outcome (fight between mages and templars) but it feelt a little bit constructed to me the way it was done, and questionable regarding anders/justice to lash out on passive bystanders.
Even with Justice turned into Vengance I do not see so much the logic, booth characters where more inclined to go after the active evil and not the passive bystander (It was mentioned that the Cleric is not allowed to take sides by faith).

Blowing up the templar wing in the gallows taking out the new recruits who would not make a difference in the endfight would have tipped the knight commander over as well and had more logic imho

[AmstradHero]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The game is even structured in three acts, which is pretty common for dramas. Varric the narrator can also be seen as a form of chorus which was usually present in old tragedies to convey information and provide insight to the audience.

On a related note, Corypheus, the name used for the antagonist behind Legacy DLC, was the leader of the chorus in Greek drama. Not directly applicable to my point, but still...

In a nutshell, I found the basic structure and the building blocks of DA2 very appealing in its literary elegance. Unfortunately, the end product provides pretty much the opposite experience.

Do yourself a favour and check out Hulk Presents: The Myth of 3 Act Structure. Now the grammar and all caps make this fairly horrendous to read at times (I would seriously suggest copy-pasting into a document editor and converting to sentence case for readability), but the comments he makes on story writing and construction are spot on.

[Lotion Soronarr]

1. DA2 is not reactive. It's actually a pretty "static" game

2. Anders is a tool and blowing up the Chantry was a stupid, stupid move. Calling it the right thing to do is even stupider. But Anders WAS possesed by the spirit of Vengance, and vengance isn't known for rationality and temperance.

3. Being able to influence who blows up the Chantry is not an improvement AT ALL. If it is in Anders character to do so, then he should do it. The idea that the PC can talk everyone into anything and tailor the entire game world to his whims is DEEPLY FLAWED.
99% of people complainign about Anders blowing up the Chantry just don't like it that their beloved character went that way. Their obections are emotional, not rational.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 août 2012 - 06:33 .

[edeheusch]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I wouldn't go as far as saying it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. But I can see why Anders and Justice thought it needed to be done.

But in the context of a world / universe where life is cheap and people die due to monsters / blood mages / raiders, etc.. all the time, it certainly isn't the same as blowing up a church here in RL. Int the ocntext of having his friends systematically raped, beaten, lobotomized and killed by Templars, killing the person who can do something about it but never does is very understandable. Is not ethical or moral. Sure in war non-combatants die all the time. But the war has not been declared yet so attacking them in stealth is very cowardly.

We are more used to accepting assassins and our heros killing game npc, but very few of us would consider a RL hitman worthy of friendship. And very few of us would ever kill anyone in RL. We know killing is wrong. We know a court of law should judge bandits, not we with a 6 ft sword. We accept in game killing and assassins because we know is just a game. Is just roleplay. Yet game NPCs that kill for political reasons still weird out most people out.. RL Terrorism is too fresh in most people's minds to allow them to be able to relax and enjoy a terrorist NPC in a game.

I see that a lot, as an Anders fan and Anders "mancer". People here on the forums want him dead in the most horrid ways, yet the same person "loves" Fenris who rips peoples heart out of their chests and kills his own sister. Or "loves" Zevran, Leliana, Veranna... To them somehow serial killing (Veranna), killing for money (Zevran) and killing as a spy for rich people (Leliana) is perfectly fun and fine.. but they still see terrorism as too close to RL for confort. It isn't RL but you should play games for fun and if terrorist NPC give you the creeps, by all means, kill them with fire. Twice!!

Anders grows a lot from Act 1 to the beginning of Act 3. Somewhere in the middle of Act 3 he devolves into a terrorist. It was not well done and it feels pretty rushed. I chalk it up to Justice taking control but some people just can't bring themselves to tolerate what Anders has become. It's their game , their time and their money so who am I to judge ? I certainly enjoy romancing him and having my Hawke running away with her sweet magey. If we are all having fun, on a game, what is wrong with that ?

I think that a lot of what you have said is true but I don't agree with the last part.
Anders and Justice are 2 characters I really liked in DAOA and I don't recognise any of them in the DA2 Anders.
Some claim that if you choose the anti-mage dialog choices with Anders in the party in DAOA you see the Anders of DA2 but if you play DAOA and choose all the anti-circle/templar dialog choices in DAOA with Anders in your party you see that he has nothing in common with the Anders of DA2.
For me both Anders and Justice are really well written, Anders is a multidimensional character and Justice is really one dimensional but for a good reason. But the authors failed totally to make me believe that the fusion of Anders and Justice of DAOA could become the Anders of DA2. Although DAOA is really short I discovered a much deeper character in Anders than I never consider the Anders of DA2. You could argue that the Anders of DA2 is more one dimensional than the Anders of DAOA because of Justice but, unfortunately, the main trait of the Anders of DA2 is a trait that Justice never had in DAOA.
I have no problem with the characters I hate, it is a sign of a well written character but I have a lot of problem with the characters I cannot believe which is a sign of poorly written character (and the Anders of DA2 is a character I cannot believe). The first think the authors should avoid is to bring back one of the main characters from a previous title and give him a main role again, especially if the character is not written by the same author.
To my point of view Anders is the worst companion of DA2 and it is sad that he has such an important role.   

Modifié par edeheusch, 31 août 2012 - 07:03 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

And I don't agree that Anders is deranged. I think his logic is perfectly sound, and that the Chantry was (and is) a perfectly acceptable target. In fact, I think it was the right thing to do.

In terms of blowing up the Chantry, I'm inclined to agree, but I wish Hawke had been given the option to blow up the Chantry himself.

Anders drives the action there.  Hawke is merely a bystander.

I would've liked that option myself. I understand his reasoning, but it's slightly frustrating that no matter how pro-mage you are, or how intimate you are with Anders, he sees fit to hide his plans from you. I would help gladly, if given the choice.

[Mr Fixit]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I see that a lot, as an Anders fan and Anders "mancer". People here on the forums want him dead in the most horrid ways, yet the same person "loves" Fenris who rips peoples heart out of their chests and kills his own sister. Or "loves" Zevran, Leliana, Veranna... To them somehow serial killing (Veranna), killing for money (Zevran) and killing as a spy for rich people (Leliana) is perfectly fun and fine.. but they still see terrorism as too close to RL for confort. It isn't RL but you should play games for fun and if terrorist NPC give you the creeps, by all means, kill them with fire. Twice!!

I think that's because there are many people who conflate 'cool, buddy-chummy' with 'interesting, likable character', not that a cool character can't be interesting or likable. So you witness adoration of Zevrans and other buddy-chummies, but the moment a somber and/or conflicted guy arrives -- oh, he's a whiner, a soap-opera character. And if that "whining" character is a woman, gods themselves won't save her from the fans' righteous wrath.

[PounceTeazle]

I play an mage hawk who sides with the mages (I think that is pretty logical with an apostate father and all the background, beside in the end siding with the mages when right of annulment is up ... hawk would have to commit suicide in the end no?

Blowing up the barracks of the templars would have been logical, hell hawk would lit the fuse herself given what the templars did even before the knight commander went lunatic.

So Anders is friend with an 100% pro mage hawk would does not think twice offing a templar and freeing each mage who does not attack her on sight, who would set the KC on fire if given the chance first day in Kirkwall.

If they went together to blow up the templar HQ (with the main forces outside it so the endfight does happen anyways, it would have no impact on the outcome in the grand picture but 100% in character for an mage hawk, made anders a little bit more believable, made Justice more belieavble (even as Vengance the Knight Commander is the more obvious target, Anders hates the Templars from day one (his mage circle cat turned demon and he cheered it killing templars in DAA).

Anders has no issues with the chantry directly, Justice even more, Anders+Justice=Vengance going after the chantry instead Templars if blowing up the Templars HQ will force an endfight is logical.

Blowing up the chantry is just an show how much he is nuts plus deceiving Hawk into helping him.

I do not mind if the big picture remains the same no matter what, game mechanics do not allow 100 different endings and in reality what single people do does not change the course of history, only if they manage to rally many to there idea it does, so an Hawk only able to take the ride is believable.

If an hawk against mages dissmisses anders, anders goes lunatic and blows up random buildings contra an pro mage hawk supports anders, he stays sane and they blow up together the templar HQ happens in DA2 THEN you have the same outcome, but the player does feel like decisions mattered some way (Anders stay sane they support the mages versus anders goes nuts and hawk sides with the templars.

You are responsible how an npc developes in a very major way, if the chantry or the templar hq goes boom, if you want to keep it the same ending booth buildings are ruins after that, but what happend when is still decided by hawks actions, the player has an choice and still the same outcome.

As it is you only decide if you fight with the templars or mages, if you support anders over the whole game or oppose him has no impact, so the player feels there is no choice.

In previous games choices meant a whole city was burned to the ground or saved depending on choices, in DA2 at most you decide if you get a thank you letter from someone you saved from death.

I am OK if anders blows up the chantry because he became nuts, but i feel as if i got an say how things play out but anders does it anyways no matter what, so why give me the illusion of having an impact anyways.

If it looks as if my actions do make a change (like with the Qunari, leaving peacefull (someway) or figthting them to the last man standing then it is rewarding, with anders it was " things will happen and you get a few snippets of different replies"

If the story is " one building goes boom, you decide wich one by your actions" it is a DECISION.

If the story is " you can do what you want it plays out this way with an anders 100% supported by you or opposed by you" then it just happens.

I had the feeling over the whole storyline that hawk (even as mage) gives a **** about what happens in Kirkwall, and as mage at least it would be vital to DO something about things, it is the own PCs life depending on the mages templar issue, the knight commander only does not off Hawk outright because the champion thing, even without she gives a lot of hints that she sees hawk as competition to the power over kirkwall and would not mind to do a little bit political motivated murder to get hawk out of the way.

So hawk should choose either the mages or the anti Knight commander faction of the templars to battle the knight commander, that would make sense, still lead to the big endfight in very similar ways (less scripting rendunand game content, or we pay 1000 dollars for the game due work invested)

BUT it would make sense and the player feels like riding the storm, caught between political forces who want to have the champion on there side against the Knight Commander who goes more and more power mad due the idol.

Like an canoe rider going dwon the stream, choosing left or right around rocks and smashing if not making a choice, the ride is pre determined by the river but choices have consequences and no choice is not the option.

Origins was like that, the arch demon had to be defeated but how to do it was up to the player, alone or with as many allies as possible, ending dead, queen/king married to queen king, or riding off into the setting sun.

With DA2 Hawk saves his home town and anders blows up the chantry, mages and templars have an fight and hawk ends as boss of kirkwall and leaves or leaves outright.

So with DA1 i had reason to play it like ten times, with DA2 i had reason to play it two times pretty much, or make it 30 to 10 if playing each class/outcome

That is what puts me off a little, DA2 is technically good and has a good story but it has become pretty much an linear play through once game compared to DA1 where the end of the game always was about killing the archdemon but your own fate so to say was decided by your actions (like accepting the dark ritual or not, what class and origin you have, telling alistair to marry the queen, or marry her depending gender and what not)

In DA1 the warden shapes his future, in DA2 Kirkwall pretty much shapes the heroes future who rather reacts to what happens instead choosing allies and shaping her.his own fate (as advertised)

I am annoyed that a lot of good work and ideas resulted in an good but pretty much average game from an team that showed that they can do much better than an good but average game.

The ressources and talents involved, the idea behind it, it could have been much more than it was.

And the "more reactive figthing" style?

If i want reactive fighting and hitting keys fast I play arcade games, I play rpg adventours because i want story and strategy, not another console game where you win by hitting buttons fast.

1 Storie
2 Strategy
3 More Storie
4 Make an offshot with only the fights for the console button pushers and leave me alone with reactive fighting, i want to use my brain for more like the puzzles in the thiving DLC, that was an hint of old good DA1

I bought DA2 mainly because I am an hopeless fn of the series, not because it was that awesome, made good but nothing taking your breath away, it suffered mainstreaming and making it for the "taste of the most target groups" in my opinion, not like the sword coast series or DA1 to make the best possible adventour story game by people who love making rpg games and telling a story.

I do not think DA2 bad, just way not as good as it could have been, wasted ressources on an (good) mainstream product by people who showed they can do much better.

And i agree with Plaintiff, Anders doing stuff no matter what was one of the main issues, you could steer anders to blow up Templar HQ instead the chantry, same outcome player feels like hawk DID something instead just waiting for the next thing to happen and then try to survive it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Renmiri1 wrote...
I see that a lot, as an Anders fan and Anders "mancer". People here on the forums want him dead in the most horrid ways, yet the same person "loves" Fenris who rips peoples heart out of their chests and kills his own sister. Or "loves" Zevran, Leliana, Veranna... To them somehow serial killing (Veranna), killing for money (Zevran) and killing as a spy for rich people (Leliana) is perfectly fun and fine.. but they still see terrorism as too close to RL for confort. It isn't RL but you should play games for fun and if terrorist NPC give you the creeps, by all means, kill them with fire. Twice!!

Different characters, different circumstances.

Anders starts a war, kills innocents and feels no remorse. He's glad he did it.

Fenris...is hate-filled. Him killing his sister IS crossing the line, I agree.
But ripping hearts out of peoples chest during battle is no worse then beheading them really...

Zevran? Not they type of person I would trust. Especialyl since he tried o kill the Warden. Same goes for Veranna.

Leliana? That was in the past. She admits it, is repentant and wants to change and she has done nothing against the Warden AND wants to help, so why should I kill her?


The problem is when people become blind to a characters faults just because they like them OR foster endless hate just because some character sez something they don't like.


All in all, I really don't kill characters becasue tehy annoy me - only if they do something REALLY horrible. Even then I'll probably give them a second chance (depending on what they did and circumstances). And if I do kill them, I won't do it laughingly, but with sadness tha it came to that.

Some people here take too much pleasure from killing characters...even if fictional. It's damn disturbing.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 août 2012 - 10:28 .

[Heimdall]

I don't really get the vehement desire to kill Anders. I mean, I kill him in 2 out of 3 play throughs but that's a matter of what Hawke considers just. Then again, I seem to be in a minority that sees Elthina's apparent inaction as understandable.

[Lotion Soronarr]

PounceTeazle wrote...
If an hawk against mages dissmisses anders, anders goes lunatic and blows up random buildings contra an pro mage hawk supports anders, he stays sane and they blow up together the templar HQ happens in DA2 THEN you have the same outcome, but the player does feel like decisions mattered some way (Anders stay sane they support the mages versus anders goes nuts and hawk sides with the templars.

You are responsible how an npc developes in a very major way, if the chantry or the templar hq goes boom, if you want to keep it the same ending booth buildings are ruins after that, but what happend when is still decided by hawks actions, the player has an choice and still the same outcome.

Frankly, I prefer you NOT being abel to influence and change every damn cahracter you ran across.
Especially Anders.

I know Anders lovers will wail and rage against it, because they want THEIR Anders to be like they invision him, not how he is. Funny how much poeple want to mold their "beloved" into what tehy want, insted of accepting them as they are (evne if they said tehy do).

So Anders didn't let the PC into their plan. So what? Happens all the time. Even married couples can have secrets. He simply didn't want to involve Hawke into it.

[PounceTeazle]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I don't really get the vehement desire to kill Anders. I mean, I kill him in 2 out of 3 play throughs but that's a matter of what Hawke considers just. Then again, I seem to be in a minority that sees Elthina's apparent inaction as understandable.

I tell him that he should go and try to fix the mess he caused, offing him is what he wants, he wants to be a matyr and i do not give him that.
Besides i do not really feel one way or the other about him, the way it plays out i feel as if the author/team does not tell/,ake a story but forces me into an "tragic ending", it does not really matter if you kill him or not.
If your choice was to kill Anders or he blows up the chantry then it would mean something imho.

[Fast Jimmy]

All of the Anders discussion aside... how things happen with Anders is a perfect example of how the game is NOT reactive.

Despite what you do, whether you are chummy with Anders or whether you constantly berate him about his increasingly more extremist view of how to deal with the Templars, he is completely unpersuaded. Fine, that's understandable. Then, regardless of if you help him or not, he still get all of his components together and suceeds just as well whether Hawke is there or not. Sure, whatever, we'll buy that.

Then, when the Kaboom happens, you are faced with the choice - spare him because you believe he is right, or execute him as Meredith demands for his crimes.

Regardless of what you choose, Meredith flies off the rails and condemns all mages to death, and the Templars follow her right in step. So... essentially, every single interaction you have with Anders, the companion who has the most impact on the main plot, is completely irrelevant to how things play out.

Let's compare that to Allistair, the companion you have that has the most impact to the main plot in DA:O. You can romance him as a female, and open up different options in the end to be queen or the royal mistress. You can harden him through his interactions with Goldana, making him either more or less assertive in his dealings at the Landsmeet. You can push him to grab the crown, ask him to take a back seat, or even arrange a marriage with him. Then, through your choices at the Landsmeet itself, you can have him be king, become the leader of the Gray Wardens or be exiled from the country and wind up being a random drunk in Kirkwall.

So... how is DA2 (and not DA:O) the most reactive game Bioware has ever made?

[Heimdall]

PounceTeazle wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I don't really get the vehement desire to kill Anders. I mean, I kill him in 2 out of 3 play throughs but that's a matter of what Hawke considers just. Then again, I seem to be in a minority that sees Elthina's apparent inaction as understandable.

I tell him that he should go and try to fix the mess he caused, offing him is what he wants, he wants to be a matyr and i do not give him that.
Besides i do not really feel one way or the other about him, the way it plays out i feel as if the author/team does not tell/,ake a story but forces me into an "tragic ending", it does not really matter if you kill him or not.
If your choice was to kill Anders or he blows up the chantry then it would mean something imho.

Yeah but that would be such an easy choice for me :happy:...

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So... how is DA2 (and not DA:O) the most reactive game Bioware has ever made?

Reactivity is not purely based on character interactions, for one thing.

For another, in DA2, Hawke's relationship with each character can take one of two markedly different paths, based on dialogue choices, and within each of those paths is the option for romance, which can also play out differently.

By comaprison, in DA:O, Leliana and Alistair are the only ones that have any variance in their development, when they are "hardened", and even then it is extremely slight. Leliana's outlook is not noticeably altered, and Alistair is no less of a puppy than he was before.

The rest of the party members each only have one path: You have to raise approval to specific thresholds in order to receive character development, or you can leave them at a neutral position and get nothing, or you can ****** them off so much that they leave and you still get nothing. Failing to hit certain checkpoints doesn't result in different development, it just results in the character remaining static. That's not very reactive at all.

[PounceTeazle]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Frankly, I prefer you NOT being abel to influence and change every damn cahracter you ran across.
Especially Anders.

I know Anders lovers will wail and rage against it, because they want THEIR Anders to be like they invision him, not how he is. Funny how much poeple want to mold their "beloved" into what tehy want, insted of accepting them as they are (evne if they said tehy do).

I am not pro or contra anders, in DA2 he is not an character I feel for, I do side more to the mages and what he tries to do but he is not cast as an character I develop any ties to.

What irks me is that he is cast as a companion but is not interactive in a way that who your hawk is has any influence on his actions.

Make him an npc who does his thing and interacts a few times with hawk (getting the map, getting the black powder reagents) fine.

But the point of companions is that there fate is tied with what hawk does, if hawk sides with the templars or mages, there is way to much "Geeee i am a mage and the KC wants me dead but hawk is such so cool i commit suicide by helping him against mages" crap. (or if siding with the templars with Fenric and so on)

Hawk is so smoothered in awesomsauce companions do if you do it right act against there own core interests but on the other hand anders just does his thing and does not bother if hawk is pro or contra mages,

so you have companions who are slaves to hawk and companions who just do there thing.

Sebastian is an preaching nitwitt but at least he has a spine, i hate his guts but there is feelings involved, with Anders i am just "meh why bother"

Merrill siding with hawk against the mages is plain out silly, Anders not one bit influenced by his interacting with hawk too, I do not have the feeling that companions have really spine (mostly)

I hate sebastian but it is an respecting hate, he has his core beliefs and stands to them, if you romance him and he is very much your friend you can have him side with you still but he reasons that mages deserve fair trial, not an powermad KC killing them.

Anders though does his thing, interacting with him is pointless, and most of the other companions side if motivated by hawk wathever rather easy.

If you side mage or templar and that means that you loose half of the companions plus minus a few you can convience (reasonable) there is something, maybe they decide to leave kirkwall because they want not to fight against hawk, ok, but the way it was done was "hawk is so awesome mages kill mages and anders just does his thing.

There way it is actions do not have consequences with people close to hawk as long you do not play him to the extreme, the good way or the bad way.

Anders 100% mage side is in character, Anders not one bit influenced by hawk HOW he helps the mages (blowing up chantry or Templar HQ) or if hawk sides with templars doing his thing means he is pointless as a companion.

It feels more real when companions have an core interest and a spine and hawk and they try to find an compromise or if there is no common ground given hawks decision leave/turn hostile, with DA2 Anders is bad at that, Sebastian very good (and i still want to put an fireball between the twitts eyes)

[PounceTeazle]

Plaintiff wrote...
By comaprison, in DA:O, Leliana and Alistair are the only ones that have any variance in their development, when they are "hardened", and even then it is extremely slight. Leliana's outlook is not noticeably altered, and Alistair is no less of a puppy than he was before.

Leaving the party if you ****** them off feels more natural to me than an Hawk who is an **** and they still follow...
You have to choose your allies, by your behaviour, if you play the rogue or the shiny knight in DA1 makes a difference, in DA2 it feels like "gee hawk is a **** but soooo awesome anyways"

If you play the rogue so more the rogue like companions stay/favour you while and lawfull anders has companions who stay because they are inclined this way and then put on top the love/hate systhem would make sense, like " I hate hawk but he does further my interests"  is dynamic.

So we have an awesome sauce covered hawk who can not be taken by demons in the fade and people follow hawk no matter what pretty much against there won interests.

In Baldurs gate you had to either act a certain way or loose companions, that makes sense, not an mage siding with hawk for the templars who KILL ALL MAGES ON SIGHT

Really.

Stupid.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So... how is DA2 (and not DA:O) the most reactive game Bioware has ever made?

Reactivity is not purely based on character interactions, for one thing.

For another, in DA2, Hawke's relationship with each character can take one of two markedly different paths, based on dialogue choices, and within each of those paths is the option for romance, which can also play out differently.

By comaprison, in DA:O, Leliana and Alistair are the only ones that have any variance in their development, when they are "hardened", and even then it is extremely slight. Leliana's outlook is not noticeably altered, and Alistair is no less of a puppy than he was before.

The rest of the party members each only have one path: You have to raise approval to specific thresholds in order to receive character development, or you can leave them at a neutral position and get nothing, or you can ****** them off so much that they leave and you still get nothing. Failing to hit certain checkpoints doesn't result in different development, it just results in the character remaining static. That's not very reactive at all.

True, you have two paths to get to know the character more deeply, the Friendship or Rivalry path. But given that you can do everything possible to tick that character off and they still stand by you and follow you seems more static to me, honestly.

I agree, it is a shame that only Allistair and Leliana had the hardening option, it would have been nice to see for more (or all) companions. And it would have been great to have it create even MORE of a response. I don't disllike the concept of the Friendship/Rivalry mechanic, but the Rivalry path seems like it is a little illogical sometimes, especially with characters like Fenris or Anders, who are so diametrically opposed to the actions you are doing to raise the Rivalry level that far.

Besides, neither Fenris nor Anders outlook on anything is altered, regardless of if you choose Friendship or Rivalry. So while DA:O might not have done it perfectly, I wouldn't say DA2 did it better. DA:O's changes were small, but I'd say DA2's changes based on how you interacted with the companions were non-existent.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 août 2012 - 12:10 .

[PounceTeazle]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Besides, neither Fenris nor Anders outlook on anything is altered, regardless of if you choose Friendship or Rivalry. So while DA:O might not have done it perfectly, I wouldn't say DA2 did it better. DA:O's changes were small, but I'd say DA2's changes based on how you interacted with the companions were non-existent.

In DA2 how your character behaves has too little consequences, you side with templars or mages (where in reality it should be for or against the knight commander in my opinion)
Mages in your group fighting mages should be an full stop no.
Varric taking either side is ok for example, he does not have much preference (even states so as dwarf that humans are to him rather the same and he judges them more how they act, not what they are, my impression.

Without companions leaving an hawk acting full against there interests it is even weirder than in DA1 where all had a common goal, saving there own hide from a blight if one boils it down.

In DA1 a band of missfits tries tosave there own land (morrigan and wynne working together with Wynne rather pro circle and morrigan against it, booth have an common enemy, the archdemon, morrigan fleeing flemeth and wynne seeing the warden as the only means to end the blight)

In DA2 especially mages siding with templars under an knight commander who searches excuses to kill them or make tranquil it takes a lot of suspended disbelief. (In Act 3 executing runaways who turn themself in, and not doing so because parents of high standing intervene/hawk says he is silly not dangerous compared to anders who escaped how often?

How would an mage siding with the KC hope to survive?

Especially Merrill where the KC stands for all she considers evil and templars roasting an elf alive to gain info on an mage living with her clan and she can be still talked into helping hawk. Really.

Fenris is someway consitent as that templars remind him of slavers so it balances out his hate against mages.

Especially in act 3 character act so often out of chracter it is not funny, the only one who does not so is the bloody knight commander who from the start considers mages walking timebombs at best, Sebastian if one takes DLC into account.

I do not gripe when an author writes somethign i do not agree with, but bending the storie left and right into characters acting way out of there own selfinterest breaks the third wall rather hard.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
And I don't agree that Anders is deranged. I think his logic is perfectly sound, and that the Chantry was (and is) a perfectly acceptable target. In fact, I think it was the right thing to do.

In terms of blowing up the Chantry, I'm inclined to agree, but I wish Hawke had been given the option to blow up the Chantry himself.
Anders drives the action there.  Hawke is merely a bystander.

Well, Hawke gathered the ingredients for the bomb, so technically, Hawke is an enabler -creating the opportunity for something to happen- , and Anders a securer - taking the created opportunity and ensuring it suceeds-.
In football (or soccer if you're from the USA) terms, Hawke is a midfielder doing the pass, Anders the striker securing the goal.