194 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I disagree. You can support or condemn it in conversations with Duncan and Jowan in the Magi Origin as well as in conversation with the blood mage in the Circle Tower;

Which is precisely what you can do with Merril, and then moreover with the Eluvian (as a parallel to Duncan/Jowan).

As far as the blood mage in the tower, I can't recall you being able to speak favourably about BM - just about the mages efforts to be free.

You can say it was useful (to Merrill). That's it. Shouldn't Dragon Age II improve on Origins?

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote... 

In addition, you can even ask to learn the craft with the Desire Demon or the Baroness (so it isn't ignored like it is in Dragon Age II).

Point taken here: DA2 totally fails to have you learn your specializations in-game. The cloest you have to this sort of deal is Fenriel - which DA2 could have used as a point to learn BM. 

Feynriel? Why not Merrill? Feynriel is a Dreamer, while Merrill knows blood magic.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 décembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Which doesn't mean Hawke needed to be as well, and his dialogue makes it clear he isn't atheist.

No, it doesn't. I disagree entirely. I am an atheist - and at absolutely no point did I feel that, substituting "God" for "Maker", that Hawke ever expressed a view in-game based on my choices that would denote any Andrastian sort of faith.

That's why I'm very curious as to the exact wording of the phrases which made you feel this way.

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can condemn Duncan to Alistair. Also, Dragon Age II prohibits you from doing things that were possible in Origins, like having an atheist protagonist.

No, you can't condemn Duncan. You can say that you don't care for him - but you can't say he's a kidnapping and murdering swine that deserves death for what he did to Jory alone.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can say it was useful (to Merrill). That's it. Shouldn't Dragon Age II improve on Origins?

Absolutely. DA2's treatment of magic and views on magic, for how central they wanted to make it to the plot, is ridiculous.

I just disagree with you that you had more real latitude to express a view on BM in DA:O.

In Exile wrote...
Feynriel? Why not Merrill? Feynriel is a Dreamer, while Merrill knows blood magic.

No, that's totally correct. Merril is the more reasonable person. I was more thinking in the "deal with the devil" way.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which doesn't mean Hawke needed to be as well, and his dialogue makes it clear he isn't atheist.

No, it doesn't. I disagree entirely. I am an atheist - and at absolutely no point did I feel that, substituting "God" for "Maker", that Hawke ever expressed a view in-game based on my choices that would denote any Andrastian sort of faith.

That's why I'm very curious as to the exact wording of the phrases which made you feel this way.

Hawke saying to Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker, Hawke telling Creators believer Feynriel that he hopes the Maker watches over him, his religiously Andrastian dialogue with Sebastian, ect.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You can condemn Duncan to Alistair. Also, Dragon Age II prohibits you from doing things that were possible in Origins, like having an atheist protagonist.

No, you can't condemn Duncan. You can say that you don't care for him - but you can't say he's a kidnapping and murdering swine that deserves death for what he did to Jory alone.

I don't disagree about having more dialogue options, but Dragon Age II restricted what options we used to have in Origins. I could give an opinion on blood magic in Origins; in Dragon Age II, I could simply say it was useful once. Could it be done better? Of course. But Dragon Age II didn't do better, it did worse.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke saying to Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker, Hawke telling Creators believer Feynriel that he hopes the Maker watches over him, his religiously Andrastian dialogue with Sebastian, ect.

Where is this dialogue coming from? Again - I can only assume it is something tied to the diplomatic personality, because Sarcastic Hawke simply does not say these things.

In Exile wrote...
I don't disagree about having more dialogue options, but Dragon Age II restricted what options we used to have in Origins. I could give an opinion on blood magic in Origins; in Dragon Age II, I could simply say it was useful once.

Technically, that's giving an opinion on blood magic. To me, it seems that the entire friendship path with Merril is giving an opinion on blood magic - because on the rivalry path, this is certainly an issue of contention. You can often condemn blood magic - so I suppose what you're clamoring for is more options to say it is positive?

Because now that I'm trying to recall DA2, I remember you get lots of chances to loathe blood magic.

Could it be done better? Of course. But Dragon Age II didn't do better, it did worse.

I felt that it did worse in certain parts - which happen to be views you like to express - and certainly much better in other parts (which align with views I want to express -namely, sarcasm).

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke saying to Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker, Hawke telling Creators believer Feynriel that he hopes the Maker watches over him, his religiously Andrastian dialogue with Sebastian, ect.

Where is this dialogue coming from? Again - I can only assume it is something tied to the diplomatic personality, because Sarcastic Hawke simply does not say these things.

The scene after Leandra's death; Act II's Night Terrors; primarily, Hawke and Sebastian discussing the Maker and Andraste at the Gallows.
Again, I'm not given a choice to make Hawke an atheist, while my Warden condemned the Chantry, told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman, informed Velanna that Andraste used their people, and told Justice that belief in the Maker was a foolish superstition. I had choices to shape my protagonist in Origins; these freedoms aren't avaliable in Dragon Age II. Will they be avaliable in Inquisition? I doubt it.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't disagree about having more dialogue options, but Dragon Age II restricted what options we used to have in Origins. I could give an opinion on blood magic in Origins; in Dragon Age II, I could simply say it was useful once.

Technically, that's giving an opinion on blood magic. To me, it seems that the entire friendship path with Merril is giving an opinion on blood magic - because on the rivalry path, this is certainly an issue of contention. You can often condemn blood magic - so I suppose what you're clamoring for is more options to say it is positive?

Because now that I'm trying to recall DA2, I remember you get lots of chances to loathe blood magic.

Saying it's useful isn't an opinion about whether it's good or bad. I'm not given the choice to have Hawke defend blood magic, or even have him address that he's a blood mage himself. Also, his status as an apostate is pretty much ignored for most of the narrative. Hawke's disagreement about the Eluvian with Merrill focuses on that specific elven technology, which Hawke knows nothing about. If I have no choice in shaping my protagonist's views - like I could with The Warden - then Dragon Age II is removing something that was previously avaliable.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The scene after Leandra's death; Act II's Night Terrors; primarily, Hawke and Sebastian discussing the Maker and Andraste at the Gallows.

I'll open DA2 and see if I have saves nearby.

Again, I'm not given a choice to make Hawke an atheist, 

Again - you feel this way. I felt that Hawke was quite consistent with being an Atheist, because I never had to choose dialogue that made me express faith in any religion. And otherwise I don't feel that a need to thump one's chest about views = your PC having those views.

while my Warden condemned the Chantry,

Hawke can do this with the Grand Cleric. Which to me feels that it's quite enough.

told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman, informed Velanna that Andraste used their people, and told Justice that belief in the Maker was a foolish superstition.

It's true that you don't get this in DA2 - but when, other than with the Grand Cleric (where you do get to say this) - would it have been appropriate in DA2 to say?

Valana and Justice - both non-Andrastians - explicitly ask you about Andraste. Merill doesn't do the same in DA2, so where else would this come from? 

I agree with you, however, that not being able to call Seb out for his faith is sorely missing.

In Exile wrote...
Saying it's useful isn't an opinion about whether it's good or bad.

I completely disagree. Saying that what most people believe is pure irredeemable evil is useful is absolutely saying that it's good.

I'm not given the choice to have Hawke defend blood magic,

You're not given that choice in DA:O either.

or even have him address that he's a blood mage himself.

You're not given that choice in DA:O either.

Also, his status as an apostate is pretty much ignored for most of the narrative.

Just like race is ignored in DA:O. The game defaults to human unless. DA2 defaults to non-mage unless.

Hawke's disagreement about the Eluvian with Merrill focuses on that specific elven technology, which Hawke knows nothing about.

It's more than just about the technology. It's about what Merril gives up for it - including becoming a blood mage.

If I have no choice in shaping my protagonist's views - like I could with The Warden - then Dragon Age II is removing something that was previously avaliable.

Being able to bellow your opinion is not shaping the Warden's views. It's what you choose to do. You can help, romance, and defend a known blood mage - Merril. That' substantive. You can't do the reverse: turn her in as a blood mage to the templars. On that reading of DA2, it's far more pro-BM than DA:O ever was.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 janvier 2013 - 01:10 .

[Dragoonlordz]

It's so subjective as to whether or not the protaganist is the most interesting character to an individual, the only way to make sure such happens for all players is to make everyone else as interesting as a plank of wood which I am not in favor of doing.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 janvier 2013 - 01:41 .

[Dragoonlordz]

All the characters in the game should be as interesting as possible whether thats NPC's, protaganist or antagonists. The question is silly (imho). Because the only way for the protaganist to potentially be seen as most interesting to every potential player over all other characters in the game is to make others less interesting on purpose taken to the extreme (aka vastly all less interesting not just slightly less interesting) as I see it. As for VO or silent is matter of preferences, self insert, first or third person RP.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 janvier 2013 - 06:29 .

[Elsariel]

I'm torn.  I seem to be in the minority in that I loved the voiced protagonist.  I didn't think I would at first because I didn't think I could identify with LadyHawke's voice, but surprisingly, I did.  I like it so much that I would hate to think that DA3 would NOT have it.

At the same time, I recognize that playing the Warden gave you more choices in how to flesh out your character (as others pointed out).  And also, there wasn't that jarring voice disconnect that I had when playing Hawke if you happened to want to choose a different way to respond vs. normal.  I would cringe anytime my sweet diplomatic hawke would try to flirt because suddenly she went from endearing to "bow chicka wow wow" voice-wise. 

If there was just a way to keep the voiced protagonist but make it..... MORE.  I dunno.    I think I'm going with Psychoblonde here in that I would love a way to establish my background at character creation and then expand on it during the game.

[Kaosbuddy]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can condemn Duncan to Alistair. Also, Dragon Age II prohibits you from doing things that were possible in Origins, like having an atheist protagonist.

No, you can't condemn Duncan. You can say that you don't care for him - but you can't say he's a kidnapping and murdering swine that deserves death for what he did to Jory alone.

Actually, you can. When you talk to Alistair after Ostagar, there's a "he got what he deserved" response. Surprisingly, Al doesn't take kindly to that.

[nightscrawl]

mmarty wrote...

For me, the villain of the piece should be the most interesting character. Every hero needs a compelling nemesis.

I think this is a good point. Many times the villain is so interesting or compelling that you will read the whole book, watch the whole movie, or play the whole game just so you can see all of the parts with the villain because they are just that good. Then they're defeated and you're bummed you can't see them anymore... and yay for the hero I guess.

I loves me a good villain.

[Swagger7]

The most interesting character The character I make should be the protagonist.


Fixed it for you.

[Sir JK]

After a fashion, I agree. The player should have the tools to make the protagonist the most interesting character. Key word, however, being: tools. Most rpgs uses supporting characters and antagonists to carry the narrative, which is all fine. But usually the protagonist is so blank and customizeable that it really does not matter at all what they are. The game reacts the same way to them regardless of how you view your character.

I think predetermining protagonists can only take one so far in terms of making them engaging characters in the narrative before roleplay value starts to be lost. It can solve some of the problems that come with the complete tabula rasa, but taken too far there's eventually not any interesting choices to be made regarding who they are.

I think a better approach would be to pepper the games dialogues, equipment and levels with interactive "hooks"; things which you can use to make statements regarding who your character is.

Say, a small coin found in the inventory that you can give to a number of people. When you then turn it in, you get a short dialogue in which you can explain the significance of this coin. Thus "telling" the narrative an aspect of your character, laying the ground for this trait to later be called into question.

Or early on you meet a wandering preacher, and you may have a short philosophical debate with this person should you choose to. Allowing you to "grab a hook" that regards to faith or religion. The answers you give will then be brought up and questioned later in the narrative.

I imagine that if there were plenty such hooks available in the game, it could allow one to mold the protagonist and then actually have them participate heavily in the plot. With their own motives and quirks, and retain both player choice as well as hopefully making them by far the most fleshed out and interesting character.

[Elsariel]

Or early on you meet a wandering preacher, and you may have a short philosophical debate with this person should you choose to. Allowing you to "grab a hook" that regards to faith or religion. The answers you give will then be brought up and questioned later in the narrative.

I imagine that if there were plenty such hooks available in the game, it could allow one to mold the protagonist and then actually have them participate heavily in the plot. With their own motives and quirks, and retain both player choice as well as hopefully making them by far the most fleshed out and interesting character.

I like that idea, too.  Actually, probably better than just setting some checkmarks at character creation.  Either way, making those kinds of statements early on can set the tone for your character later.  Also, I don't want to be constrained by those "hooks".  If at first my character is a devout Andrastian, but then witnesses something awful with the Chantry, I want her to be able to say "eff the Chantry" and change her tune.

[Sir JK]

That's sort of the core of the idea. A Hook stands, but there's always a later hook to allow you to dig deeper. In you example, you'd be using a second Hook on the same theme. Defecting from the chantry would lead to them judging you oh so much harsher than if you had never been a believer in the first place, but the choice ought to be there.

Thus as you progress through the game, the Hooks you've used allows you to develop your character. Later hooks allowing you to delve deeper. And allowing you to wrap up your character's story in the endgame.

I'm not expecting this to be particularily trivial to implement. It'd be rather work intense and as a writer you'd probably have to write several "plots" lying in the background ready to be picked up.

But I'd think it'd be neat.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

This reminds me of AC3 were the protagonist is annoying, and the antagonist is the best character in the game.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, I'm not given a choice to make Hawke an atheist,

Again - you feel this way. I felt that Hawke was quite consistent with being an Atheist, because I never had to choose dialogue that made me express faith in any religion. And otherwise I don't feel that a need to thump one's chest about views = your PC having those views.

Thinking a family member is with the Maker means Hawke is atheist? I respectfully disagree.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

while my Warden condemned the Chantry,

Hawke can do this with the Grand Cleric. Which to me feels that it's quite enough.

When Hawke belligerently screams, "Out of my way!" to Elthina? Again, I'm going to have to disagree.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman, informed Velanna that Andraste used their people, and told Justice that belief in the Maker was a foolish superstition.

It's true that you don't get this in DA2 - but when, other than with the Grand Cleric (where you do get to say this) - would it have been appropriate in DA2 to say? 

Valana and Justice - both non-Andrastians - explicitly ask you about Andraste. Merill doesn't do the same in DA2, so where else would this come from? 

I agree with you, however, that not being able to call Seb out for his faith is sorely missing.

Which comes back to the problem of having Hawke tell non-Andrastian Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him, and tells Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Saying it's useful isn't an opinion about whether it's good or bad.

I completely disagree. Saying that what most people believe is pure irredeemable evil is useful is absolutely saying that it's good.

No it isn't. Saying it's useful means it's useful, period. Let's not insert headcanon into this debate about hidden meanings behind what's explicitly said.

[Wulfram]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Thinking a family member is with the Maker means Hawke is atheist? I respectfully disagree.

(assuming this is the Merrill conversation after All that remains.  Sorry if I'm forgetting something else)

You don't have to say this, and the relevant dialogue choice is pretty clearly paraphrased.  You might well not like the other dialogue choices available at this point - I don't mind because I find being a bit of a jerk after bereavement to be realistic - but that doesn't change that this dialogue is optional.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Absolutely, absolutely, no, no, no, no, no, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

"Protagonist as most interesting character" == "predefined protagonist."

This is SUPPOSED to be a roleplaying game.


Edit: I'm NOT opposed to this in spirit. Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) was one of my favorite games, and i love the AC series. But absolutely, unequivically, neeeeeeeeeeeeeever in an RPG.

So Final Fantasy is not an RPG series?

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm not given the choice to have Hawke defend blood magic,

You're not given that choice in DA:O either.

What about the conversation with Duncan and Jowan, where you can advocate blood magic? When Hawke condemns it without my input, it's an issue.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

or even have him address that he's a blood mage himself.

You're not given that choice in DA:O either.

Only because the scene bugged the Landsmeet.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, his status as an apostate is pretty much ignored for most of the narrative.

Just like race is ignored in DA:O. The game defaults to human unless. DA2 defaults to non-mage unless.

Race isn't ignored. It could be handled better, but it's factually inaccurate to claim it's ignored.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke's disagreement about the Eluvian with Merrill focuses on that specific elven technology, which Hawke knows nothing about.

It's more than just about the technology. It's about what Merril gives up for it - including becoming a blood mage.

Except it's primarily a debate about the technology, and no option to advocate blood magic. No improvement on the options avaliable in Origins.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If I have no choice in shaping my protagonist's views - like I could with The Warden - then Dragon Age II is removing something that was previously avaliable.

Being able to bellow your opinion is not shaping the Warden's views. It's what you choose to do. You can help, romance, and defend a known blood mage - Merril. That' substantive. You can't do the reverse: turn her in as a blood mage to the templars. On that reading of DA2, it's far more pro-BM than DA:O ever was.

Bellow? You mean have opinions that aren't avaliable in Dragon Age II to express my Warden's views, while I don't have such range with Hawke. Like when he tells Merrill that Leandra is with the Maker. Why can't I determine if the protagonist is religiously Andrastian or not?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 janvier 2013 - 06:34 .