330 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexanderCousland]

Sutekh wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

Thanks for snipping my points, and responding to partial parts of my statements. and I appreciate you answering none of my question' s. 

Proactivity doesn' t mean prevention before occurrence, I suggest you read the Meriam-Webster and Google definitions I posted on this thread. 

I always snip large quotes, like many people around here. It's not to erase your statement but to prevent clutter.

Your questions were "Do your wardens have the same journeys than mine, same order, same results". I didn't answer them directly, because they weren't related to the topic at hand at all. And the answer is, obviously "no". As for not responding to all your statements? My answer would have been the same: reaction to existing situations that they didn't initiate.

Proactive (from Webster): acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

Proactive (from dictionary.com) serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.

Proactive (from Google): Creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after... [seems to be something missing here]

The last one is particularly interesting, because different from the others. Now, do you think that the Warden causes things to happen, or that they solve a series of existing situations? 

Do you think Commander Kurt's analogy is a good one? Because he's saying exactly what I've been saying.

((Also, honestly, if you're looking for a fight on semantics, you're gonna fight alone.))

Anticipation of the Blight' s potential Future devestation. (which can be realized in Darkspawn Chronicles)

Prepare an Army to Intervene in the expected civil war with Lohgain so the blight can be Controlled 

Causing various factions to unite under the Warden banner and controlling the spread of the blight before its spreads into other nations rather then fleeing to Kirkwall to avoid it. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 16 janvier 2013 - 12:16 .

[RosaAquafire]

Something that I think people are disregarding is that Dragon Age II is intentionally written to feel "less reactive" than most video games. The word "heroic" keeps slipping into the debate here, where the real argument doesn't seem to be that the Warden was less proactive than Hawke, but rather than she was more heroic. I think it's verrry telling that that word keeps creeping in, and guess what: I entirely agree. The Warden was way more heroic.

And that makes him a worse character.

So guess what, batlin, you're about to get that literary analysis of why DAII's plot is objectively good and DA:O's plot is objectively bad.

The monomyth and the Hero's Journey is a beacon and a victory of our collective human culture. Many of our greatest stories from throughout history conform to the monomyth. Our characters, our role models, our gods -- even the gods we still worship today -- all conform to the hero of the thousand faces. It's a template for the framework for our oldest stories, and it's been used as a benchmark to create amazing works from The Illiad to Lord of the Rings to Star Wars to Journey. But like any template, it can also be used as a crutch.

It can be used as a BIGTIME crutch.

The fact of the matter is that the monomyth doesn't resonate with everyone, and it only works for a specific type of story -- the story of a hero. It works for the 1.0 version of stories that we started telling to escape from the dullness of life and our own irrelevance, but the fact is that that isn't the only type of story that exists, and I'd argue it's a weaker story than one that's less built around trying to overdose us on a power fantasy.

What's that saying. Art imitates life?

Well, life is frustrating. Life is demoralizing. Life is about being powerless and not realizing that you could have stopped something horrible from happening until it's too late. While a power fantasy makes us escape that reality into something simple and enjoyable and empowering, exploring that reality instead of hiding from it can give us perspective and catharthis. A sobering, tragic, frustrating story is a lot more challenging than an escapist fantasy, and challenging is good.

DA:O wants you to feel like a hero. The Warden is a heroic archetype and that's basically all there is to them. They have a solution to every problem and never come across a situation where they can't offer a genius way to fix it and make everybody happy. There are clear good and evil paths to most of their decisions, and when they make big decisions they get the freedom to take them in the direction they want. It works as a power fantasy -- but it fails as a story. DA:O had great characters but a really crappy ass plot. You are an everyman, you become a hero, you save the world, and you either die heroically or live to embrace glory. It's a tale as old as time, and it's populated by some really great characters -- but it is NOT challenging.

DA2's approach to storytelling can weather a lot of deserved criticism, but the one thing it is is challenging. You're completely right -- Hawke isn't as heroic. Hawke isn't MEANT to be as heroic. She is a normal person who just wants to make her own way in the world with her family, but who keeps getting swept up into events beyond her control. Hawke's plan when coming to Kirkwall wasn't to become a hero and save the world, because like most normal people, he'd probably never thought about that. I, personally, don't interview for a new job and think "I bet I'm going to become CEO and then save the world," I think "well this will pay the bills." And then those normal, every day decisions, like the decision to join an expedition so you can move your mom and your younger sibling out of your sleazy uncle's crappy apartment slowly changes the course of your life in ways you could never have expected.

What makes DA2's plot good is that Hawke ISN'T as heroic as the Warden. She's a normal person completely over her head, and most of the terrible **** that she blunders into doesn't fall into the big picture until way later. All she wanted was to get out of Gamlen's and find a place in Kirkwall. Her joining the expedition lead to her becoming a wealthy public figure, which lead the Viscount to ask him to help investigate the Qunari business, which lead to the Viscount's death and Hawke being declared champion, which lead to the power vacuum that Meredith filled and the title that forced Hawke to back a side. Hawke didn't affect any of that chain of events other than setting it into motion, and that's a theme that reoccurs consistently throughout DA2.

If you'll remember the Destiny trailer, narrated by the incomparible Kate Mulgrew, it supports this reading. "What of those who are forced into greatness?" or something similar, she says. Fate and destiny and the way that it robs power from the people who get caught in its whirlwind are what DA2 is all about. Of course Hawke feels powerless to affect the outcome of events. That's the point. Dragon Age 2 is about that, a deconstruction of both the hero and the Great Men theory of history reading, showing us that the people who are remembered as the most important movers and shakers in history felt as powerless in their daily lives as we do, and while history will remember them as having shaped and defined their generations, they really never had any other paths open to them than the one they took, because, like everybody else, their story is written more by everyone around them than by themselves. That's not bad writing, that's good writing. That's way better than anything DA:O tackled.

Hawke has options in how to relate to people, what paths to take on individual quests, what sort of relationships to forge with his companions (addition of Friendship/Rivalry system is one of the ways in which DA2 was objectively better than DA:O, just as there are places in which DA:O was objectively better than DA2) and how to solve specific immediate problems, but he CAN'T change the flow of his destiny no matter how much he struggles against it -- which is an artistic choice and what DA2 was about.

So.

Sorry if you'd rather be an indisputable hero than be challenged by something that forces you into the role that actual humans take in actual crises -- people who really want to make a difference but can't no matter how much power they ostensibly have because events rush past beyond your control. Could Bioware have added more control over the larger events? Yes. Should they have? That depends. Would you rather a game with more choices and outcomes or a game with stronger, more thematically consistent authored narrative? And that's a valid discussion to have, but going on about how DA2's story was objectively bad and DA:O's story was objectively brilliant just betrays how little you understand about stories and art and the fact that real art is a kick in the balls more often than it's a cool glass of lemonade. Frankly, I'm glad that Bioware finally made a game that isn't based around the monomyth, because as a scholar of literature and storytelling, THAT GOT OLD IN VIDEO GAMES TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

Was DA2's story flawlessly handled? No.

Is it better to try something challenging and clever and thematically dense than just writing another kill the demon save the world story? HELL. YES.

[AlexanderCousland]

RosaAquafire wrote...

Something that I think people are disregarding is that Dragon Age II is intentionally written to feel "less reactive" than most video games. The word "heroic" keeps slipping into the debate here, where the real argument doesn't seem to be that the Warden was less proactive than Hawke, but rather than she was more heroic. I think it's verrry telling that that word keeps creeping in, and guess what: I entirely agree. The Warden was way more heroic.

And that makes him a worse character.

So guess what, batlin, you're about to get that literary analysis of why DAII's plot is objectively good and DA:O's plot is objectively bad.

The monomyth and the Hero's Journey is a beacon and a victory of our collective human culture. Many of our greatest stories from throughout history conform to the monomyth. Our characters, our role models, our gods -- even the gods we still worship today -- all conform to the hero of the thousand faces. It's a template for the framework for our oldest stories, and it's been used as a benchmark to create amazing works from The Illiad to Lord of the Rings to Star Wars to Journey. But like any template, it can also be used as a crutch.

It can be used as a BIGTIME crutch.

The fact of the matter is that the monomyth doesn't resonate with everyone, and it only works for a specific type of story -- the story of a hero. It works for the 1.0 version of stories that we started telling to escape from the dullness of life and our own irrelevance, but the fact is that that isn't the only type of story that exists, and I'd argue it's a weaker story than one that's less built around trying to overdose us on a power fantasy.

What's that saying. Art imitates life?

Well, life is frustrating. Life is demoralizing. Life is about being powerless and not realizing that you could have stopped something horrible from happening until it's too late. While a power fantasy makes us escape that reality into something simple and enjoyable and empowering, exploring that reality instead of hiding from it can give us perspective and catharthis. A sobering, tragic, frustrating story is a lot more challenging than an escapist fantasy, and challenging is good.

DA:O wants you to feel like a hero. The Warden is a heroic archetype and that's basically all there is to them. They have a solution to every problem and never come across a situation where they can't offer a genius way to fix it and make everybody happy. There are clear good and evil paths to most of their decisions, and when they make big decisions they get the freedom to take them in the direction they want. It works as a power fantasy -- but it fails as a story. DA:O had great characters but a really crappy ass plot. You are an everyman, you become a hero, you save the world, and you either die heroically or live to embrace glory. It's a tale as old as time, and it's populated by some really great characters -- but it is NOT challenging.

DA2's approach to storytelling can weather a lot of deserved criticism, but the one thing it is is challenging. You're completely right -- Hawke isn't as heroic. Hawke isn't MEANT to be as heroic. She is a normal person who just wants to make her own way in the world with her family, but who keeps getting swept up into events beyond her control. Hawke's plan when coming to Kirkwall wasn't to become a hero and save the world, because like most normal people, he'd probably never thought about that. I, personally, don't interview for a new job and think "I bet I'm going to become CEO and then save the world," I think "well this will pay the bills." And then those normal, every day decisions, like the decision to join an expedition so you can move your mom and your younger sibling out of your sleazy uncle's crappy apartment slowly changes the course of your life in ways you could never have expected.

What makes DA2's plot good is that Hawke ISN'T as heroic as the Warden. She's a normal person completely over her head, and most of the terrible **** that she blunders into doesn't fall into the big picture until way later. All she wanted was to get out of Gamlen's and find a place in Kirkwall. Her joining the expedition lead to her becoming a wealthy public figure, which lead the Viscount to ask him to help investigate the Qunari business, which lead to the Viscount's death and Hawke being declared champion, which lead to the power vacuum that Meredith filled and the title that forced Hawke to back a side. Hawke didn't affect any of that chain of events other than setting it into motion, and that's a theme that reoccurs consistently throughout DA2.

If you'll remember the Destiny trailer, narrated by the incomparible Kate Mulgrew, it supports this reading. "What of those who are forced into greatness?" or something similar, she says. Fate and destiny and the way that it robs power from the people who get caught in its whirlwind are what DA2 is all about. Of course Hawke feels powerless to affect the outcome of events. That's the point. Dragon Age 2 is about that, a deconstruction of both the hero and the Great Men theory of history reading, showing us that the people who are remembered as the most important movers and shakers in history felt as powerless in their daily lives as we do, and while history will remember them as having shaped and defined their generations, they really never had any other paths open to them than the one they took, because, like everybody else, their story is written more by everyone around them than by themselves. That's not bad writing, that's good writing. That's way better than anything DA:O tackled.

Hawke has options in how to relate to people, what paths to take on individual quests, what sort of relationships to forge with his companions (addition of Friendship/Rivalry system is one of the ways in which DA2 was objectively better than DA:O, just as there are places in which DA:O was objectively better than DA2) and how to solve specific immediate problems, but he CAN'T change the flow of his destiny no matter how much he struggles against it -- which is an artistic choice and what DA2 was about.

So.

Sorry if you'd rather be an indisputable hero than be challenged by something that forces you into the role that actual humans take in actual crises -- people who really want to make a difference but can't no matter how much power they ostensibly have because events rush past beyond your control. Could Bioware have added more control over the larger events? Yes. Should they have? That depends. Would you rather a game with more choices and outcomes or a game with stronger, more thematically consistent authored narrative? And that's a valid discussion to have, but going on about how DA2's story was objectively bad and DA:O's story was objectively brilliant just betrays how little you understand about stories and art and the fact that real art is a kick in the balls more often than it's a cool glass of lemonade. Frankly, I'm glad that Bioware finally made a game that isn't based around the monomyth, because as a scholar of literature and storytelling, THAT GOT OLD IN VIDEO GAMES TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

Was DA2's story flawlessly handled? No.

Is it better to try something challenging and clever and thematically dense than just writing another kill the demon save the world story? HELL. YES.

I walk in to a Interview wanting to own the place, to acheieve the highest spot possible. I live life with a ambitious attitude, I dont settle for less, I want to be extraordinary in everything I possibly can. Normality is for the weak willed.

I play rpg' s to create my story within the confine' s of the world, not to be a "normal" person, I dont want companion's to define my success, and their lives and feelings are not more Important than my own, I play rpg' s for MY character. 

If I wanted to watch a movie, Id watch a movie, I dont want the writer' s subsequently telling me what my character wasn' t meant to be, while defining what my companion' s are. My reason for buying the game isnt to take a backseat to the narrative, My reason Is to define the narrative by my actions within it.  

My life' s successes or failures arent defined by the people around me, I push,I strive to acheive, you can either board my plane or get off because I have goals to accomplish.

Video Games arent movies or books, they are made for the player. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 16 janvier 2013 - 03:23 .

[RosaAquafire]

If video games are art, they need to be thematically dense. If video games are made for escapism for the player, then they are not art. If you're okay with that, then fine, we just have different opinions on what a video game should be.

By the way, have you owned one of those companies you got a job in yet? Or are you prime minister of your country? It's almost like ... no matter how much ambition you have or how little you want to settle for less, you're still only human and there are severe limits to your achievement because the world is populated by way more people than just you who define your life way more than you do!

[LobselVith8]

RosaAquafire wrote...

If video games are art, they need to be thematically dense. If video games are made for escapism for the player, then they are not art. If you're okay with that, then fine, we just have different opinions on what a video game should be.

By the way, have you owned one of those companies you got a job in yet? Or are you prime minister of your country? It's almost like ... no matter how much ambition you have or how little you want to settle for less, you're still only human and there are severe limits to your achievement because the world is populated by way more people than just you who define your life way more than you do!

Hawke can tell Varric he wants to pursue politics. He can become wealthy and a noble. I don't think a man (or woman) who can kill a plethora of people is an ordinary person. I see the problem with Hawke's passivity in certain situations. Despite being able to kill an Ancient Profane and a High Dragon, he doesn't do anything to stop Petrice when he has a chance; he doesn't kill a person who made it clear she wants to start a religious war with the Qunari. Despite the death of his mother, he doesn't bother to investigate a letter revealing that Quentin had a benefactor. Despite being Champion, it takes him three years before he can be bothered to do something about Meredith. There's a stark difference between The Warden and Hawke, and it's how Hawke is continually passive when he has the power to do something. Hawke can stop Petrice, he can investigate the letter from "O", he can try to do something about Meredith's dictatorship, but instead he does nothing. This continues when Hawke stands idly by with the Corypheus possessed Warden and Tallis.

[AlexanderCousland]

RosaAquafire wrote...

If video games are art, they need to be thematically dense. If video games are made for escapism for the player, then they are not art. If you're okay with that, then fine, we just have different opinions on what a video game should be.

By the way, have you owned one of those companies you got a job in yet? Or are you prime minister of your country? It's almost like ... no matter how much ambition you have or how little you want to settle for less, you're still only human and there are severe limits to your achievement because the world is populated by way more people than just you who define your life way more than you do!

The story isnt the only part of  video game that is art, check skyrim. You seem to want to be a passive character, someone who is subject to other people within the game. Thats fine, not me. 

I am a LLC, but my abmition is limitless, and other people do not define how far i can go, I do. My performance, my dedication, my drive, people dont define that. My acheievments arent limited to your thought process. 

[Plaintiff]

RosaAquafire wrote...

If video games are art, they need to be thematically dense. If video games are made for escapism for the player, then they are not art. If you're okay with that, then fine, we just have different opinions on what a video game should be.

By the way, have you owned one of those companies you got a job in yet? Or are you prime minister of your country? It's almost like ... no matter how much ambition you have or how little you want to settle for less, you're still only human and there are severe limits to your achievement because the world is populated by way more people than just you who define your life way more than you do!

There's actually no rule that says art has to be thematically dense.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:50 .

[TheRealJayDee]

RosaAquafire wrote...

Sorry if you'd rather be an indisputable hero than be challenged by something that forces you into the role that actual humans take in actual crises -- people who really want to make a difference but can't no matter how much power they ostensibly have because events rush past beyond your control. Could Bioware have added more control over the larger events? Yes. Should they have? That depends. Would you rather a game with more choices and outcomes or a game with stronger, more thematically consistent authored narrative? And that's a valid discussion to have, but going on about how DA2's story was objectively bad and DA:O's story was objectively brilliant just betrays how little you understand about stories and art and the fact that real art is a kick in the balls more often than it's a cool glass of lemonade. Frankly, I'm glad that Bioware finally made a game that isn't based around the monomyth, because as a scholar of literature and storytelling, THAT GOT OLD IN VIDEO GAMES TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

I'm not saying DA2's story was objectively bad and DA:O's story was objectively brilliant. I have no problem admitting that DA2's story had the potential to be a more interesting narrative than it's predecessor, although it's basically a "from rags to riches" story, which is... not that original by itself. But they could have made something really intense and challenging out of it.

But imo the execution betrays the potential DA2 had. There are too many problems, which I would probably talk about in depth if I wouldn't need to get to work real soon. Just some quick points: as others have said, oftentimes the "events rush past beyond your control" parts don't have the desired impact, because you saw them coming miles ago when they were just starting to gain momentum. And that's why it's rather frustrating instead of shocking or challenging when they finally arrive and Hawke seems to be completely taken by surprise. Also... no, ****, I have to get going. Sorry! Last words:

RosaAquafire wrote...

Is it better to try something challenging and clever and thematically dense than just writing another kill the demon save the world story? HELL. YES.

Well, I'd say yes. Maybe. Probably not though when it's something you really normally don't do and you're on one hell of tight schedule. Cobbler... yeah, you know it...

[CrystaJ]

I guess Flemeth summed DA 2's premise nicely in the beginning: "hurtled into the chaos you fight, and the world will shake before you."

It's certainly different than "Darkspawn are coming, we need to kill the Archdemon."

I am a LLC, but my abmition is limitless, and other people do not define how far i can go, I do.

Other people and other less controllable circumstances certainly do affect how far you can go. You may hope your boss appreciates your limitless ambition, but that's hardly a guarantee. I don't think it's terrible to have a protagonist that, gasps, struggles and doesn't always succeed in spite of how adamant they are to do so; if anything it makes them easier to empathize with, and also more rewarding if they do ultimately come out on top.

[Sutekh]

FreshIstay wrote...

Anticipation of the Blight' s potential Future devestation. (which can be realized in Darkspawn Chronicles)

Prepare an Army to Intervene in the expected civil war with Lohgain so the blight can be Controlled 

Causing various factions to unite under the Warden banner and controlling the spread of the blight before its spreads into other nations rather then fleeing to Kirkwall to avoid it. 

But isn't that reacting to the existing Blight? If you catch say... the plague and take antibiotics, are you proactive (anticipating your potential death from the bacil and acting accordingly) or reactive (you caught it, and react by treating it)?

Reacting is still acting: what you (and the Warden) don't do is "nothing", because it happens that you (and the Warden) are lucky enough to have antibiotics (Warden blood, Treaties). Hawke doesn't, so he takes his family and runs as far from the plague as possible.

This serial reactions isn't only about the Blight. It's the way the quests are linked to each others throughout most of the game. Let's say we have a given Warden. We'll call him Bill:

- After Ostagar, Bill finds himself at Flemeth's in possession of the Treaties and "decides" (more on "decisions" later) to use them. So he goes to Lothering to regroup, gather intel and prepare a bit before tackling the main task. So far, so good.

- He arbitrarily starts with Eamon (let's say Bill is a Cousland, so that's the most obvious path). He arrives at Redcliffe to see him (whom he learned is sick), but the town is under attack by the Walking Dead. Rick Bill reacts by saving the village (or not - because he has the choice not to, but there will be consequences, and that's great).

- But that doesn't solve his main problem: Eamon's still sick, Connor is still possessed, and he still can't enforce his Treaty. So he goes to the Circle to fetch some mages (again, he could opt to kill the boy or his mother, and go later to the Circle only to enforce the Mage Treaty. Choices.). But the Circle is under attack from Abominations. So Bill reacts by cleaning the Tower, after which he can opt for the Annulment or not, but the whole Circle Adventures is still only a reaction to the initial Abomination Troubles (although opting for the Annulment is very proactive, only not for the Blight itself).

- Back at Redcliffe, Connor is cured (or dead. Either way, problem solved), but Eamon's still sick. So Bill reacts by going to Haven where the Ashes are supposed to be. But the village is under the domination of a Cult of Crazies, so he reacts by eliminating them (or cooperate) to get the Ashes.

And so on, and so forth. It's the same pattern: "Decision" -> Travel -> Obstacle -> Reaction -> Choice. 

Now the decision part:

While fighting the Blight itself, the Warden never really decides his course of actions all by himself, for the simple reason that the plot (game) never gives him an alternative. The plot dictates. He gets a lot of leeway when eliminating secondary obstacles (Order of the tasks, Annulment or not, Harrowmont/Belhen, to Golem or not to Golem, Werewolves/Elves, will Loghain keep his head etc...), and that's awesome, but decisions re: the Blight are made for him, except for the DR. It's emphasised by the fact that alternatives are sometimes suggested, only to be immediately rejected by the game (see convo with Eamon after the latter is cured, or with Alistair and Morrigan in Lothering).

- The Warden doesn't decide to join. Duncan does.

- He doesn't decide to go light the beacon in the Tower of Ishal instead of participating in the battle. Cailan does.

- He doesn't decide to enforce the Treaties. Flemeth does.

- He doesn't decide to confront Loghain at the Landsmeet instead of going at him head on on the battlefield. Eamon does.

- He doesn't decide to immediately march on Denerim after the battle of Redcliffe. Again, Eamon does (and Riordan too).

- He doesn't decide on the main strategy during the battle of Denerim. Riordan does.

- In comparison, he does decide whether or not he'll die in the process (he can even do it twice). That's when he's really, absolutely proactive.

With one exception, none of the major decisions with direct consequences on the Blight are actually made by the Warden. Without alternative, there can't be real decisions (proaction), you just go with the flow, or, in that case, react to the "suggestions" of others (and then get things done).

Those "suggestions" are done subtly enough that you get the illusion they are your (the Warden's) decisions, and most of them are the logical thing to do, but if you pay attention to the various dialogues leading to them, you'll realize that when it comes to the Blight itself, you're never really in charge: you just react to the "advice" or sometimes the orders of others. That's the way the game gently but firmly keeps you on the intended path.

(Not saying that things could have been done differently within the constraints of a computer game, but that's the way it is)

Hawke in comparison often does nothing at all, even when it's strongly suggested either by others or the situation that he can act. Or (worse) he's given the means to act, but nothing ensues (see ratting on Anders to Cullen) but that makes Hawke passive or powerless while the Warden is active and powerful, not Hawke reactive when the Warden is proactive.

And... that's all 

[smallwhippet]

RosaAquafire wrote...

*snipped to avoid text wall*

Is it better to try something challenging and clever and thematically dense than just writing another kill the demon save the world story? HELL. YES.

Absolutely agree. I also find the insistence of certain people on the forums that the PC should be the most important/powerful/successful/interesting character in a game to be rather limiting, to say the least.

I found DA2 to be a much more emotionally engaging experience than DA:O, for all the reasons you have cited above, and in spite of its flaws. To beat the game but to feel that one had ultimately failed was an extraordinarily powerful blow to expectations, but a good one in my view. Very cathartic.

[AlexanderCousland]

Sutekh wrote...

- The Warden doesn't decide to join. Duncan does.

- He doesn't decide to go light the beacon in the Tower of Ishal instead of participating in the battle. Cailan does.

- He doesn't decide to enforce the Treaties. Flemeth does.

- He doesn't decide to confront Loghain at the Landsmeet instead of going at him head on on the battlefield. Eamon does.

- He doesn't decide to immediately march on Denerim after the battle of Redcliffe. Again, Eamon does (and Riordan too).

- He doesn't decide on the main strategy during the battle of Denerim. Riordan does.

- In comparison, he does decide whether or not he'll die in the process (he can even do it twice). That's when he's really, absolutely proactive.
And... that's all 

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PROACTIVITY IS REACTIONARY.

1. Duncan Concript' s the Warden before we know It' s even a True blight, so your point is? 

2. Cailin is the King, again this is the beginning of the game, without meta knowledge we are acting as if we can stop the spawn at Ostagar because we are unaware it' s a true blight at that point. so what' s your point?

3. The Warden enforces the Treaties, Im pretty sure I didnt see Flemeth negotiating with Orzammar,Dalish,The Circle, Landsmeet. Where are those cutscenes at? Do you have a different version of DAO?

4. Eamon Calls the Landsmeet, which is only right he' s a respected Noble, Which Is why the Warden needs his help and this is only to Further the Warden' s agenda, not Eamon' s. 

5. Eamon ask's you if your armies are prepared to go to Denerim , and only goes with the Warden' s blessing. You seem to be advocating that Eamon is making descions that he isnt, The Warden is a silent  PC.

6.Riordan comes up with a plan to slay the Archdemon yea, He Fails. The Warden takes over from there. The Victory there is clearly attributed to the Warden' s effort' s, Darkspawn Chronicle' s show' s you what happens without him/her. 

7. You must forget the Warden descides who takes the Final Blow, so besides the fact he gathered an army to stop the blight, there' s your direct Impact. Blight wont stop until Urthimiel dies.

8. Your point about Hawke not having "antibiotics" like the Warden thats pretty funny you consider the joining "antibiotics" lol, Hawke tucked his tail and ran, I can recall an army of Fereleden' s, Dwarves, and Dalish that didnt have "antibiotics" and they stood and fought. that goes for Aveline as well. "Soilders" humhp <_<

Im not arguing that the event's of the blight aren' t reactive, THEY ARE. Im arguing that the Warden is Proactive by nature of the quests/tasks he carries out. Furthermore, I' ve already proven such by definition. Reactive and Proactive are not the antithesis of eachother.

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PROACTIVITY IS REACTIONARY.  Good Day, Sir. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 16 janvier 2013 - 01:06 .

[Sutekh]

FreshIstay wrote...

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PROACTIVITY IS REACTIONARY.

1. Duncan Concript' s the Warden before we know It' s even a True blight, so your point is? 

2. Cailin is the King, again this is the beginning of the game, without meta knowledge we are acting as if we can stop the spawn at Ostagar because we are unaware it' s a true blight at that point. so what' s your point?

3. The Warden enforces the Treaties, Im pretty sure I didnt see Flemeth negotiating with Orzammar,Dalish,The Circle, Landsmeet. Where are those cutscenes at? Do you have a different version of DAO?

4. Eamon Calls the Landsmeet, which is only right he' s a respected Noble, Which Is why the Warden needs his help and this is only to Further the Warden' s agenda, not Eamon' s. 

5. Eamon ask's you if your armies are prepared to go to Denerim , and only goes with the Warden' s blessing. You seem to be advocating that Eamon is making descions that he isnt, The Warden is a silent  PC.

6.Riordan comes up with a plan to slay the Archdemon yea, He Fails. The Warden takes over from there. The Victory there is clearly attributed to the Warden' s effort' s, Darkspawn Chronicle' s show' s you what happens without him/her. 

7. You must forget the Warden descides who takes the Final Blow, so besides the fact he gathered an army to stop the blight, there' s your direct Impact. Blight wont stop until Urthimiel dies.

8. Your point about Hawke not having "antibiotics" like the Warden thats pretty funny you consider the joining "antibiotics" lol, Hawke tucked his tail and ran, I can recall an army of Fereleden' s, Dwarves, and Dalish that didnt have "antibiotics" and they stood and fought. that goes for Aveline as well. "Soilders" humhp <_<

Im not arguing that the event's of the blight aren' t reactive, THEY ARE. Im arguing that the Warden is Proactive by nature of the quests/tasks he carries out. Furthermore, I' ve already proven such by definition. Reactive and Proactive are not the antithesis of eachother.

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PROACTIVITY IS REACTIONARY.  Good Day, Sir. 

OK.

1-2. Whether we know it's a true Blight isn't the point. The point is that the very first step of our proactive hero is a forced one (and no, shutting down the game isn't the alternative). As are each and every major step he'll take from then, except for the very last one.

3. I never said that Flemeth enforces the Treaties, i said she's the one who suggests doing so, in a series of dialogues where no other possibility is given. She's the one who truly initiates the whole thing, not the Warden, and he can't refuse. The game, via Flemeth, has decided for you that you will. Is it more clear?

7. re: Final Blow, that's exactly what I said:

- In comparison, he does decide whether or not he'll die in the process (he can even do it twice). That's when he's really, absolutely proactive.

So, what's your problem there? What am I forgetting?

8. Yeah, it was an analogy. Anyway, Elves and Dwarves are armies, Aveline flees with Hawke, and I wasn't making excuses for what he does. Just that he has a very good reason to do it, and that's not cowardice.

As for the rest, I think we're done indeedy. Either you missed my point, either you misread. I don't know. If having someone waiting for your blessing while having no other possibilities than giving said blessing is being proactive, then the Warden is a paragon of proactivity.

Anyway, good day to you too (but I'm not a "sir"). 

[Kais Endac]

FreshIstay wrote...

8. Your point about Hawke not having "antibiotics" like the Warden thats pretty funny you consider the joining "antibiotics" lol, Hawke tucked his tail and ran, I can recall an army of Fereleden' s, Dwarves, and Dalish that didnt have "antibiotics" and they stood and fought. that goes for Aveline as well. "Soilders" humhp <_<

There is a possibility that hawke *was* in the army that was routed at ostagar he was on the front lines fighting. He like many others fled from what was an inevitable victory for the darkspawn. His family was in Lothering a short march from ostagar, if it was my family I would have done the exact same thing taken them and fled as far as possible you can't blame him for that.  

At that stage the king was dead seemingly betrayed by the warden's, the entire army had been routed, and the dawkspawn menace was free to continue further into ferelden. What could hawke have done as one man - nothing - . He doesn't have the resistance of the wardens or their treaties which compels the other races to fight. As I see it he had three choices join up with the remnants of the army to help combat the darkspawn, join the wardens ( a group that had by all accounts led the king to his death) or take his family and flee.

Along a simular vein the Warden had much more freedom in how he acted that Hawke, Grey Wardens act mostly outside of the law and politics they can conscript whoever they like (even Kings). The warden is not concerned in politics outside of the civil war that is stopping Ferelden from reacting to the blight.  The civil war also means that the Warden can act with impunity. 

Whereas Hawke must act within the confines of the politics and law (well sort of) in Kirkwall. So yes Hawke could have been proactive and stepped in before the Qunari problem escalated but other than storming the docks which held god knows how many qunari what could hawke have actually done. The qunari were already hated in kirkwall by many factions some even actively provoking the Qunari what more could. The official policy was pretty much leave the qunari to their buisness, everything the qunari had in Kirkwall was the result of the Viscount trying to appease them to prevent outright war.

I'm sure there are a variety of was Hawke should/could have acted perhaps he could have united all the factions and pushed the Qunari out, or challenged the Arishock to a duel. We will never know but I can honestly say that I enjoyed Hawke's story even railroaded as some choices were 

Edit: I'm not arguing the point that Hawke was justified in his inaction just that some of his problems stem from his position in the city he was still beholden to the law and politics no matter how powerful he may be.

As I see it the Warden is a blend of being proactive and reactive. Yes stopping the darkspawn from spreading and causing more devistation is proactive but the warden is reacting to events in the game as the happen and using them to either solve his own problem (the blight) or to futher destablise Logain.  

Modifié par Kais Endac, 16 janvier 2013 - 04:34 .

[Leanansidhe]

I will explain why I, for one, prefer DA2 to DA:O.

To me, Origins was Alistair's story, and I was the sidekick.  The Rulership plotline was a much bigger thing to me than the Archdemon plotline.  Everything revolved around settling the throne so you could get Loghain out of your way.  Only then could you go after the Archdemon, who kind of felt like an afterthought.

It's a very good thing that I loved Alistair's character.  If it had been Morrigan who was the "star" of the show, I would have done my level best to wreck her world, and it probably would have totally ruined the game for me.

So, while it was an interesting situation, I prefer a game where I have more of a voice.

DA2 gives me that, both figuratively and literally.

Granted, events are beyond my control for the most part, but it was MY story, it was MY destiny.  I chose how I wanted to interact with the world and it's people.

Also, @RosaAquafire 
Really, really excellent post.

And, to be on topic, a thank you to BioWare from me, as well.  I've loved each of your games more than the last for 15 years now.  I don't know how you manage it, but keep up the excellent work.

[Cimeas]

I like DA2 more because the world is far more atmospheric. I also feel like Hawke is actually a part of it, rather than the Warden, who was a nameless sidekick that just happened to be doing most of the heavy work and making the choices but other than that didn't feel like a 'part' of the adventure the same way Morrigan/Alistair/Leliana were.

Also, does anyone else just replay DA2 now because Origins is just so long and vast? i just try every time and then get to the bit where you go to the 4 places and give up at that point.

[Melima]

Oh yeah, I'm excited about Dragon Age III. I have loved BioWare and David Gaider's work long before I knew it was his writing. Baldur's Gate, on up through Throne of Bhaal had me addicted for replaying goodness and heartbreak. Origins was like a big "Yes!" because roleplaying games were still alive and well in at least one company! I got so involved with the characters and story, just like all of you people who post here. I was mad, sad, frustrated, happy, laughing out loud, and other things...and while I liked DA:O better than DA II, I still liked DA II. I've bought and read the David Gaider books that tell more of the DA tale, and peeked at the related comic books, comments, etc. I'm so involved, and on my cliffhanger, hoping for more, more, more, and it can't be soon enough for me, though of course I want the bugs worked out. So, yes! THANK YOU!

[SweQue]

SKRemaks wrote...

I will explain why I, for one, prefer DA2 to DA:O.

To me, Origins was Alistair's story, and I was the sidekick.  The Rulership plotline was a much bigger thing to me than the Archdemon plotline.  Everything revolved around settling the throne so you could get Loghain out of your way.  Only then could you go after the Archdemon, who kind of felt like an afterthought.

DA2?

act1. money for deeproad
act2. qunari problem
act3. anarchy in kirkwall between mages and templars

you think this story was well-written?
act3 wrap up with an event you can't influence at all, and ends with no information about what happend to hawke or where he/she went.  that is not good story writing, that is lazy if not "out of money" writing.

[Naughty Bear]

Every time I hear the word 'art'. My brain cells commit suicide one by one. I'm getting sick of the word.

[upsettingshorts]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Every time I hear the word 'art'. My brain cells commit suicide one by one. I'm getting sick of the word.

This is so common that we even have a word for you.

[TheJediSaint]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

Every time I hear the word 'art'. My brain cells commit suicide one by one. I'm getting sick of the word.

This is so common that we even have a word for you.

To be fair, discussions arguments mudslinging contensts fights over art on the forums have been done to death.   Even more so that other done-to-death subjects on BSN.  So I could undertand why some people would roll their eyes whenever art comes up.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 16 janvier 2013 - 06:45 .

[Naughty Bear]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

Every time I hear the word 'art'. My brain cells commit suicide one by one. I'm getting sick of the word.

This is so common that we even have a word for you.

Just because I don't appreciate art, does not mean I'm incapable of 'intellectual' values.

If a game has to be art, it's Spec Ops: The Line. The themes and message it tries to get across is very adult like and dealt in a very mature manner.

Don't get me wrong, Mass Effect and Dragon Age both have interesting lore, but are they art? No. What is so artistic about synthesis, control and destroy? Organic and synthetic conflicts that has been done plenty of times in many forms of media?

Spec Ops: The Line did something different, but unfortunately it is hugely under-rated.

You keep thinking your intelligent.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 16 janvier 2013 - 06:55 .

[upsettingshorts]

Naughty Bear wrote...

You keep thinking your intelligent.

[AlexanderCousland]

---- Reactive, Proactive are both response' s to Action. Defeating the Blight is took Proactivity from all parties involved, Cailin, Duncan, Lohgain, Flemeth, The Warden.Cailin was proactive in stopping the Blight, He Failed, The Warden continued on that very same mission, proactively. Proactivity does not equate prevention before occurrence., 
Issac Newton  said "Every Action has an EQUAL and opposite REACTION"  Proactive and Reactive would be the equal reactions in terms of types available to the Blight, The Blight is the external force that set events in to motion. 3rd Law of motion. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:20 .