243 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Hawke isn't even an anti-hero... he's just a bit of a failure. 

Hawke is a hero archetype deconstruction.  The framed narrative - and bull**** yarn Varric tells first and Cassandra sees through, but still makes references to when her assumptions are shattered - is part of this.

That he/she was just at the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time) and overcome by events and not the flashpoint of the conflict, as the HERO STORY would have everyone assume, was the point.

I'm not saying everyone had to like it or even think that kind of story is something that belongs in an RPG, but that's what DA2's narrative was about, and I liked it.  But even I'll admit I don't think I'd enjoy it every time.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:17 .

[Palipride47]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Which kind of turns Hawke into a springboard for DA3 instead of a fleshed out character of your own. I liked my Hawke, and I'm slightly alright (now, before I was FURIOUS) with the fact that either way, I f*cked up everything. A real anti-hero (especially to the side you spurned) 

Eh. Hawke isn't even an anti-hero... he's just a bit of a failure. 

An anti-hero is someone who saves the day but isn't your typical hero-type. Hawke doesn't save the day, he doesn't save his family, he doesn't make Kirkwall a better place, he doesn't resolve the Qunari problem peacefully... the only thing he can do is either be a d!ck to his friends or be nice to them, with some shades of gray. 

DA2 didn't ever suffer from bad writing. It just suffered from bad writing for a video game. If DA2 had been a book, I think it would have been one of the better ones (or even each Act broken down into a novel to make a trilogy). 

To get a little more on topic, having a dialogue tone that is set like in DA2 is dangerous. I always said that if I can't be nice to Mages and mean to Templars without the personality system in DA2 going haywire (which it would), then there is a problem. The game hints at the conflict the entire game, sets us up to choose sides, MAKES us choose a side, but we can't be antagonistic to one side and friendly to another with any sort of consistency. That's a bit of a problem.

Poor word choice then. I meant that, you weren't rising to power because you were "chosen" and you have a great task and you are awesome. You are some refugee in the ass end of Kirkwall, who did all the stuff you did in Act 1 to get money.

You resolve the Qunari problem, at least, mostly because evveryone else was being too insane. But you did it. 

It does suck that in the end, I didn't actually "save" anyone, but I wasn't a "hero" to begin with. Bioware told you that you were. I shouldn't have listened to them, I should've made my own assumptions.  

On the dialogue bit, I agree. 100%. The fact that my tone actually chose plot points for me, not merely how they were resolved or different, was infuritating, and highly simplistic. And why the wheel failed, imo. 

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hawke is a hero archetype deconstruction.  The framed narrative - and bull**** yarn Varric tells first and Cassandra sees through, but still makes references to when her assumptions are shattered - is part of this.

That he/she was just at the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time) and overcome by events and not the flashpoint of the conflict, as the HERO STORY would have everyone assume, was the point.

I'm not saying everyone had to like it or even think that kind of story is something that belongs in an RPG, but that's what DA2's narrative was about, and I liked it.  But even I'll admit I don't think I'd enjoy it every time.

That is what I grew to enjoy. I did not like it at first (which is an understatement). 

Modifié par Palipride47, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hawke is a hero archetype deconstruction.  The framed narrative - and bull**** yarn Varric tells first and Cassandra sees through, but still makes references to when her assumptions are shattered - is part of this.

That he/she was just at the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time) and overcome by events and not the flashpoint of the conflict, as the HERO STORY would have everyone assume, was the point.

I'm not saying everyone had to like it or even think that kind of story is something that belongs in an RPG, but that's what DA2's narrative was about, and I liked it.  But even I'll admit I don't think I'd enjoy it every time.

I thought it made for incredibly dull gameplay.  Every step of the way, I found myself asking "Why do I care?"

Given that I had basically no input into any significant aspect of the in-game reality, nor into any aspect at all of the story being told, I never understood what point there was to me playing the game.  Nothing I did made any difference, to the events, to my character, or to Varric's story.  So why waste my time?

[upsettingshorts]

It's definitely not a premise that lends itself to emergent narratives in the sense you appreciate, I don't believe. Because, in a manner of speaking, Hawke's story already happened and you as the player are uncovering the truth of it through your actions. The "why" is something you find out along the way, as well as Cassandra.

The appeal, at least for me, was that I lucked into a character who kind of fit into what the narrative was trying to do perfectly. In this respect I cannot speak for anyone else's experience. But in playing a Hawke who constantly struggled to curtail the extremists among both mages and Templars and encourage reformers and moderates in a futile effort to keep the peace, I basically walked right into a near-perfect deconstruction. Cassandra, and the Hawke story assumed that Hawke masterminded the whole Kirkwall scheme from start to finish. But there was my character, who couldn't have viewed the endgame as anything other than a total disaster and failure of everything he hoped to achieve.

So if I'd dispute anything in your summary, its the idea that nothing mattered for Hawke's character. DA2 is full of opportunities for you to have Hawke define who he or she is as a person, not as much where they end up, what they're able to accomplish, or the worldstate they're left with.  There are quite a lot of examples to define "why?" for Hawke.  An example of this I like to point to is all the characters (especially Fenris and Aveline) who ask you how you feel about Ferelden. A lot of players, if the BSN comments are to be believed, felt like their Hawkes missed it and wanted someday to return. On the other hand, mine was glad to be rid of it and couldn't be happier to leave it behind. That DA2 asked these questions, and allowed you to answer them, was a big deal to me, as you know how I feel about roleplaying options that the game doesn't acknowledge or react to.

You've said your character never answered Meredith's summons in your playthrough and you stopped there.  I can see how you'd find this but-thou-must offputting enough to abandon the game forever.  But, and this is something I think we both understand, history says Hawke answered that letter.  It happened.  But why?  That's what's up to you.

Not saying everyone ought to appreciate it, but it was what it was.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:58 .

[Xewaka]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Real Neutral Option Critical Path- "No, sir. This is someone else's problem." Credits.

I liked that so much in The Bard's Tale (2004).
"Who said Undead don't know how to party?"

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:44 .

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Which would have worked out, if the opposite was not starting the war, but the war is written in the stars, no matter how we go about it.  The choice of start it, or Anders does isn't really player agency, although it does appear to be, since the war is starting no matter what.

I said character agency, not player agency.

Yes, no matter what the player chooses there, the same outcome occurs.  But the character can choose to start a war or not - that's a big deal.  Being allowed to make a decision is far different from having it made for you, even if the outcome is the same.

Perhaps some would be happy with the illusion of agency, however?

There's no illusion.  There's a difference between player agency and character agency; don't equate them just because DA2 offered neither.

Just a lack of understanding what you were saying on my part.  I don't think that having Hawke blow the Chantry as an option would have assuaged a lot of the bad feelings that were presented early on in DA 2 though.  The biggest thing was that no matter what, you wound up fighting both sides, and that wouldn't have changed, as far as we know, if Hawke blew it up.  Changing that, above all else, might have helped with the choice mattering.

It's not the first time I've run into this in the DA franchise though.  My Cousland wanted to get the archdemon out of Denerim as fast as possible, my CE didn't give a rat's ass if it burned, once I cleared the Alienage, and would have instead stayed there to keep the darkspawn out, killing the archdemon after the rest of the city had burned.  Regardless of her feelings on the matter, however, she was forced to act like saving Denerim was a big deal.  She may have felt differently, if Alistair hadn't dumped her to be King, but he did, right when she was starting to think that some humans were worth saving...  So lack of character agency for the benefit of the story is nothing new to DA.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You've said your character never answered Meredith's summons in your playthrough and you stopped there.  I can see how you'd find this but-thou-must offputting enough to abandon the game forever.  But, and this is something I think we both understand, history says Hawke answered that letter.  It happened.  But why?  That's what's up to you.

I disagree with this, and I disagree for three separate reasons (any one of which would be sufficient).

1. History doesn't say Hawke answered the letter.  In my playthrough, Hawke didn't answer the letter.  The history simply stops being recounted.

2. Answering why to that question isn't possible, as you can only do it after the fact.  You cannot reach the conclusion reasonably, but must instead rationalise it.  As such, you need to re-rationalise every single action with the discovery or each new plot twist, as the reason invented for one might preclude another.  Manitaining character coherence then requires an absurd level of computational complexity.

3. Even moment-to-moment, we can't answer why anyway, because the cinematics and paraphrase render Hawke's behaviour beyond our control.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You've said your character never answered Meredith's summons in your playthrough and you stopped there.  I can see how you'd find this but-thou-must offputting enough to abandon the game forever.  But, and this is something I think we both understand, history says Hawke answered that letter.  It happened.  But why?  That's what's up to you.

I disagree with this, and I disagree for three separate reasons (any one of which would be sufficient).

1. History doesn't say Hawke answered the letter.  In my playthrough, Hawke didn't answer the letter.  The history simply stops being recounted.

Which is like saying the American Revolution didn't happen because in my recounting of the skirmish on Lexington Green, I stopped before shots were fired.  Cassandra's interrogation of Varric takes place after the events of Dragon Age 2, therefore the events of Dragon Age 2 he is describing already happened.  The alternative is to assume Varric left Cassandra hanging and refused to go on, which still doesn't explain how Kirkwall got the way it did and why she thought the Champion was behind it in the first place.  

Alternatively, you can pretend Varric invented the letter and the entire episode in order to [your reason here] Cassandra.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

2. Answering why to that question isn't possible, as you can only do it after the fact.  You cannot reach the conclusion reasonably, but must instead rationalise it.  As such, you need to re-rationalise every single action with the discovery or each new plot twist, as the reason invented for one might preclude another.  Manitaining character coherence then requires an absurd level of computational complexity.

Enemies talk to each other all the time for a variety of reasons.  Pick one.  Then be as hostile at the meeting as you like.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

3. Even moment-to-moment, we can't answer why anyway, because the cinematics and paraphrase render Hawke's behaviour beyond our control.

You can probably guess how I'd respond to this already.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Enemies talk to each other all the time for a variety of reasons.  Pick one.  Then be as hostile at the meeting as you like.  

And when Hawke's behaviour contradicts that reason, what then?

Which is like saying the American Revolution didn't happen because in my recounting of the skirmish on Lexington Green, I stopped before shots were fired.

 
If you stop before shots were fired, then you have no way of knowing whether the American Revolution happened.

Cassandra's interrogation of Varric takes place after the events of Dragon Age 2, therefore the events of Dragon Age 2 he is describing already happened.

But what those events are is determined by the gameplay.  Anything that isn't played out may not have ultimately occurred.

The alternative is to assume Varric left Cassandra hanging and refused to go on

Why is the altenative to a baseless assumption always another baseless assumption?

Rather than conclude either that Varric finished the story a certain way, or that he finished it another way, or that he didn't finish it (one of which is almost certain to be the case), we could instead not jump to conclusions.

which still doesn't explain how Kirkwall got the way it did

What is that way?  If you don't get through Act III, then that way remains a mystery. 

Alternatively, you can pretend Varric invented the letter and the entire episode in order to [your reason here] Cassandra.

That's also possible, but it's equally possible for players to accept that they don't know what happened.

You can probably guess how I'd respond to this already.

That I know what you would say doesn't make you right.

[bloodransom]

I'm so sick of this entitled attitude where consumers think they have a right to dictate how a company produces a game, just so that when they play it they, the entitled consumer, will think it's great. If you don't like a particular companies product, go produce a game on your own, see how the players like it (and how much flame you will get on how it should have been). That's kinda how great games get made.

On another note, there is this idea that consumers display an unwarranted sense of ownership over these stories, or rather a right to dictate the intricacies of plot development and character behavior.  These writers work hard and put their hearts and souls into these narratives, so how then can they really be "your" stories, in any form other than your imagination, if you didn't write them? If you get irritated simply because you can't dictate where you go first on a map or say things exactly like you would have said them then you have no business reading any type of literature, watching any type of movie or playing any video game. Point? I'ts extremely easy to play captain hindsight and complain and say how one would have done it better or differently. Learn to appreciate a game based on things other than your amount of control. Get lost in the narrative, learn the characters, learn the world and enjoy it. If you don't like the finished product make your own.

Modifié par bloodransom, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bloodransom wrote...

On another note, there is this idea that consumers display an unwarranted sense of ownership over these stories, or rather a right to dictate the intricacies of plot development and character behavior.  These writers work hard and put their hearts and souls into these narratives, so how then can they really be "your" stories, in any form other than your imagination, if you didn't write them?

I did write them.  I created the entire personality of the main character.  I know why he does what he does.  BioWare does not.  BioWare can't, because BioWare isn't making the choices.

And I need to know, otherwise I can't make choises either.  So, given that the game asks for my input, and further given that any roleplaying endeavour requires that the player have knowledge of his character's mind in order to make decisions on his behalf, then it must be the case that I, the player, am part of a collaborative writing process.

That's where the literature or cinema analogy falls apart.  The reader of a book or the watching of a movie has no input at all into what happens in that narrative.  But roleplaying games actively solicit player input - creative player input.

[bloodransom]

Your creative player input is only limited in nature and the consequences of the choices bioware wrote for you to choose from have already been pre-ordained. No matter how you try to sell it, you are still on rails. I understand that people will always feel like the protagonist is their character because they make choices for them and to an extent they are right. However, the story will only ever unfold in a way that the writing staff dictates. They make the ultimate choices on how stories turn out not you...because they wrote them. Arguing that a certain statement didn't portray enough of something or too much of something is a call that you can never make unless you are a part of the staff. In my eyes, the real owners of Hawke, and the warden are the writing staff. They put the ideas together, they wrote all the different nuances and plot twists you can experience, they, not us. Ultimately, you are just along for the ride. If you don't like it then you can always get off.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bloodransom wrote...

Your creative player input is only limited in nature and the consequences of the choices bioware wrote for you to choose from have already been pre-ordained. No matter how you try to sell it, you are still on rails. I understand that people will always feel like the protagonist is their character because they make choices for them and to an extent they are right. However, the story will only ever unfold in a way that the writing staff dictates.

This is only true of the part of the story that is dictated by the writers.  The decision-making process of the protagonist is not part of the authored narrative.  The writers cannot know why any given protagonist makes any given decision, as they are not in control of that decision.

If, however, you maintain that the writers do know why the protagonist makes any given decision, I ask you then how the player is then supposed to choose among the available options, when he doesnt know why Hawke is doing what he is doing?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Enemies talk to each other all the time for a variety of reasons.  Pick one.  Then be as hostile at the meeting as you like.  

And when Hawke's behaviour contradicts that reason, what then?

Well, in such an event you have a few choices, none of them ideal:

* (DA2 only) Pretend Varric got something wrong.
* Retcon the reason
* Rationalize the contradiciton away  
* (If none of the others work) Reload and choose an option you can work within better.

Personally I tend to do the last two the most.  As you say, my approach demands responding to situations like these with some frequency.  But I'm just used to it, since I've always run into this issue in cRPGs.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you stop before shots were fired, then you have no way of knowing whether the American Revolution happened.

But it did happen.  Your knowledge of the event isn't the determinator of whether or not it happened.  I mean, we're talking about events in a fictional game, but the premise here is that Varric is retelling a history that is real to Thedas.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But what those events are is determined by the gameplay.  Anything that isn't played out may not have ultimately occurred.

Then why do you care if it seems as though your character answered a letter in an episode that may not have ultimately occurred?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Rather than conclude either that Varric finished the story a certain way, or that he finished it another way, or that he didn't finish it (one of which is almost certain to be the case), we could instead not jump to conclusions.

Fair enough, I was simply assuming that Cassandra would not have been satisfied until Varric got as close to, or near, the present as possible.  But there's no good reason to assume that.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What is that way?  If you don't get through Act III, then that way remains a mystery.

Not to Cassandra and Varric.  But then we're getting into Schroedinger's Cat territory.  They know the status of the cat, but it isn't determined for us until we open the box/choose sides in Act 3.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That I know what you would say doesn't make you right.

I don't think there's an objectively correct position in this case.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, in such an event you have a few choices, none of them ideal

Hence my preference for a system wherein this problem doesn't arise.

* (DA2 only) Pretend Varric got something wrong.

This works, but then it creates extensive gameplay that is irrelevant to my character.  So I stop caring.  I actually tried to play the entire game like this (my second playthrough attempt) - I didn't make it through Act I.

* Retcon the reason

This is too computationally complex to be workable.  Every reason for every previous action would need to be re-examined every time to verify coherence.

* Rationalize the difference until they are compatible. 

Rationalisation is a scourge upon humanity.  Kill it with fire.

* (If none of the others work) Reload and choose an option you can work within better.

This is the only viable option, though it also spoils outcomes by revealing when the player has not yet been able to adopt his character's correct state-of-mind.  As you say, none of them are ideal.

Personally I tend to do the last one the most.  As you say, my approach demands responding to situations like these with some frequency.  But I'm just used to it, since I've always run into this issue in cRPGs.

And I never did (I may have, but only very rarely, and I cannot recall even one instance), so this seems like an unnecessary burden.

But it did happen. Your knowledge of the event isn't the determinator of whether or not it happened.

 
That's metagame knowledge.  It's irrelevant.

Then why do you care if it seems as though your character answered a letter in an episode that may not have ultimately occurred?

Are you suggesting I should have arranged to encounter Meredith for some other reason, and imagine that I hadn't actually responded to the letter?

That's a good idea, actually.  If I hadn't been so eager to find a reason to stop playing the game at all, I wish I would have thought of it.

Not to Cassandra and Varric.  But then we're getting into Schroedinger's Cat territory.  They know the status of the cat, but it isn't determined for us until we open the box/choose sides in Act 3.

Exactly.  What they know isn't knowable to us (or even them) until we resolve that selection.

You have a very linear approach to the concept of time.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I never did (I may have, but only very rarely, and I cannot recall even one instance), so this seems like an unnecessary burden.

It's a consequence of the belief that I don't really look at cRPGs as proper RPGs, as my requirements as to what constitutes proper roleplaying are incompatible with prewritten choices and outcomes.  As such, games make compromises, so I make my own in response to them to allow me to enjoy as much roleplaying as I think cRPGs allow.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's a consequence of the belief that I don't really look at cRPGs as proper RPGs, as my requirements as to what constitutes proper roleplaying are incompatible with prewritten choices and outcomes.  As such, games make compromises, so I make my own in response to them to allow me to enjoy as much roleplaying as I think cRPGs allow.

I know you do that.  But as I don't, this new system is far worse for me than the old one (as you're well aware).

[GithCheater]

Nevermind ...

Modifié par GithCheater, 24 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .