330 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Arguing with Lobsel is pointless until he learns that facts are not limited to things he agrees with.

That's the trouble with arguing the same broad position for over a year to the same audience.  Not only are you personally invested in being right and resorting to motivated reasoning, but everyone else knows it.  

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...
[*]Loghan: Remind me how it was proactive to wait for Eamon to wake up, then follow his plan with no deviation to put Alistair on the throne? Your only other choice is to follow Anora's plan and have her put on the throne. Can a Cousland Warden throw his own hat into the ring to be King? Of course not. Because that would be too proactive.
[*]Orzammar: Same thing. Obey Bhelen, or obey Harrowmont. Can you tell them both to go stuff themselves and just go after Branka with Oghren, and then name whoever you want King? No. You're following orders.
[*]Sacred Ashes: Can you tell Teagan he's insane, and that he has to take action against Loghain immediately? Nope. Can you try to find some other antidote? Nope. 

[*]It was Eamon' s Plan, That doesnt mean the Warden had to put Alistair on the Throne, which means the warden could make his own descion, and there is 3 descions (4 if human noble) that the Warden is ASKED to make.  If he was so unimportant why would the Landsmeet defer to the Warden' s descision? hmmm?[*]"Obey" Behlen or Harrowmont  Dont you mean, ask them for an Army? So they ASK for something in return, which is an Excahnge of goods or services, the very definition of a Trade? [*]Sacred Ashe' s, your serious, arent you?  You need Eamon' s support for the war against Lohgain, as well as his forces towards the Blight, You have to find the Urn to wake his ass up, oh and a Redcliffe is under attack when you meet Teagan, making it hard for him to committ forces to an option that doesnt exsist
[*]last, but not least, why dont you argue FOR hawke instead of arguing AGAINST the Warden? 

[upsettingshorts]

FreshIstay wrote...

last, but not least, why dont you argue FOR hawke instead of arguing AGAINST the Warden?

I'll let In Exile dispute the specific points, but the fact you ask this question means you fundamentally misunderstand the argumetnt that is taking place here.

Nobody is arguing that Hawke is more proactive than the Warden.  Nobody is arguing that Hawke is uniquely proactive and the Warden is not.  What is being argued is that neither are proactive, and BioWare protagonists are never proactive, and have to operate under the same conceit:  That of the errand boy.  Because that's how these games work and always have. 

What is being argued here is that some people believe the illusion of choice offered to the Warden is more satisfying than the illusion of choice being offered to Hawke.  Others disagree.  Objectively, there is no difference.  Subjectively, there's all the difference in the world.  

What In Exile is arguing is precisely that:  There is no objective difference.  You are responding by declaring that your subjective experience is objective truth.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 janvier 2013 - 11:41 .

[LobselVith8]

In Exile,

Yes, I noticed you and Shorts disagree with some of the same people.

You've participated in the threads where I specified that Hawke is only permitted one viewpoint on the matter. Incessantly calling me a "liar" when you've participated in those threads doesn't really strengthen your argument, it makes it invalid.

The fact is, you're being intentionally misleading and derailing this entire thread. What's the point? The facts speak for themselves; you participated in those threads, you read my posts, you know what my argument was in favor for.

Furthermore, the game does force Hawke to be religiously Andrastian; it's the only viewpoint he's permitted to express in the Merrill scene, he hopes the Maker watches over Feynriel, his other dialogue attests to this. The player isn't given the option to express that their protagonist doesn't believe in the Maker, in sharp contrast to The Warden.

As for your comments about Hawke, I wasn't ignoring your points; you simply missed the intent of mine, which was to express that I disliked Hawke for his passivity, and for incessantly doing nothing in situations where he could have reasonably done something. Arguing my opinion against yours isn't going to change the view either one of us holds.

[mmarty]

I sense the lockdown coming.....

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

All I'm saying is asserting, "The people who agree with me continue to agree with me" isn't really going to convince anyone that any of you are right.

I was addressing that there were other people who had an issue with Hawke being religiously Andrastian, and who had a desire to see the atheist option return in the future. It's about having a preference to see something return in the future for immersion.

TheJediSaint wrote...

Arguing with Lobsel is pointless until he learns that facts are not limited to things he agrees with.

There were a plethora of people who addressed their wish to see the return of the atheist option in Dragon Age; there are people who dislike Hawke. I won't let these facts get in the way of your snide comment, however.

[AlexanderCousland]

ggghhhxxxpuf wrote...

The warden and Hawke are the same with only ONE difference, the warden had a DUTY as a warden, Hawke did not, this is true.

But in term of "proactivity" and all those thing you people are arguing about, the two of them are quite equal; the warden has to put up with many things, Arl Eamon and Orzammar being the most clear ones, and Hawke has to deal with a spineless Vicount who wants everything solved but is unable/unwilling to do so, so Hawke has to deal with these probles as the Vicount's strong hand.
You as a player are told what to do, the way you decide how to resolve it it's your own (your character's) doing, but have to do it anyway in both cases.

This.

What did Hawke get to resolve? Isabela stole the tome, War was Inevitable. Regardless of every task Viscount Dumar gave Hawke to try to create peace, War was Inevitable, because of Isabela; not Hawke.  How was anything Viscount Dumar asked Hawke to benifit of  Hawke himself, There was no, "I' ll give you X, if you go deal with the Qunari"  It was more, "Go deal with the Qunari, Citizen"  Hawke became a Champion because of unforseen circumstances, not on his own merit, nothing he Proactively (keyword) made happen. 

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Other people have also expressed that they disliked how Hawke could only be religiously Andrastian, but I take it you disagree with them as well.

By "other people" you mean the same half dozen people who start, prop up, populate, and dominate every single discussion on the subject and have non-stop for over a year?  Those other people?  

Yeah, I'm real convinced by those guys.

Also, it's not childish to call a liar a liar when they are one. 

Half-dozen? that's being a little generous isn't it?

[TheJediSaint]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Arguing with Lobsel is pointless until he learns that facts are not limited to things he agrees with.

There were a plethora of people who addressed their wish to see the return of the atheist option in Dragon Age; there are people who dislike Hawke. I won't let these facts get in the way of your snide comment, however.

And I won't let my snide coments get in the way of your delusions.  Good to see we can come to an accord.

[LobselVith8]

addiction21 wrote...

Half-dozen? that's being a little generous isn't it?

There have been a plethora of people in half a dozen threads debating this. Gaider said he would allow for disbelief from the new protagonist because a number of people kept asking for the option.

TheJediSaint wrote...

And I won't let my snide comments get in the way of your delusions.

I didn't realize not liking Hawke meant that people were delusional.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 14 janvier 2013 - 12:05 .

[addiction21]

FreshIstay wrote...

This.

What did Hawke get to resolve? Isabela stole the tome, War was Inevitable. Regardless of every task Viscount Dumar gave Hawke to try to create peace, War was Inevitable, because of Isabela; not Hawke.  How was anything Viscount Dumar asked Hawke to benifit of  Hawke himself, There was no, "I' ll give you X, if you go deal with the Qunari"  It was more, "Go deal with the Qunari, Citizen"  Hawke became a Champion because of unforseen circumstances, not on his own merit, nothing he Proactively (keyword) made happen. 

Hawke (just like the warden and the blight) did not create those problems so why are you holding Hawke responsible for them and not the Warden?
Again the definition you posted and are not following states nothing about "resolving" anything. Just taking steps towards controlling something.
Also it was more of a "You have shown capable in dealing with the Qunari (and other issues) so I am asking you to go take measures to ease the pressures and to try to stop this from becoming a armed conflict"

Again your definition states nothing about succeeding.

You can believe he does not become Champion because he is lazy and reactive but its rather clear (since both the Templars and mages are on their heals and would rather fight each other without Hawkes intervention) but his interaction in that conflict does have merit and its because Hawke gets those two to work together (flimsy because the plot needs it. Which I do not really approve of) that Hawke can defeat the AIrshok in front of the nobles.

Modifié par addiction21, 14 janvier 2013 - 12:00 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Upsettingshorts wrote..



I'll let In Exile dispute the specific points, but the fact you ask this question means you fundamentally misunderstand the argumetnt that is taking place here.

Nobody is arguing that Hawke is more proactive than the Warden.  Nobody is arguing that Hawke is uniquely proactive and the Warden is not.  What is being argued is that neither are proactive, and BioWare protagonists are never proactive, and have to operate under the same conceit:  That of the errand boy.  Because that's how these games work and always have. 

What is being argued here is that some people believe the illusion of choice offered to the Warden is more satisfying than the illusion of choice being offered to Hawke.  Others disagree.  Objectively, there is no difference.  Subjectively, there's all the difference in the world.  

What In Exile is arguing is precisely that:  There is no objective difference.  You are responding by declaring that your subjective experience is objective truth.

Good Jesus:blink:

Proactive circumstances is what Im arguing, being Proactive is not defined by someone giving you an order, or to your point, quests being given. Being Proactive mean's Controlling a situation to prevent a perceived problem before it occurs,(the blight spreading across thedas)  in which, no matter how you slice it, the Warden did. and That is not subjective to my own personal experience.

Now, What Im asking is how Hawke' s overall story can be seen as equal, or the same in terms of proactivity or lack thereof, in comparison to the Warden?  A question which has been skillfully avoided. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 14 janvier 2013 - 12:01 .

[addiction21]

FreshIstay wrote...

 Being Proactive mean's Controlling a situation to prevent a perceived problem before it occurs,(the blight spreading across thedas)  in which, no matter how you slice it, the Warden did. and That is not subjective to my own personal experience.

Now, What Im asking is how Hawke' s overall story can be seen as equal, or the same in terms of proactivity or lack thereof, in comparison to the Warden?  A question which has been skillfully avoided. 

Equal? No Hawks (for the most part) are not world threating like the blight. If we are going for "the over all story" Neither the Warden or Hawke are proactive.

Again "prevent" is not mentioned anywhere in your definition. Why is it a defining factor later when you need it to be?

[Malanek]

FreshIstay wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote..



I'll let In Exile dispute the specific points, but the fact you ask this question means you fundamentally misunderstand the argumetnt that is taking place here.

Nobody is arguing that Hawke is more proactive than the Warden.  Nobody is arguing that Hawke is uniquely proactive and the Warden is not.  What is being argued is that neither are proactive, and BioWare protagonists are never proactive, and have to operate under the same conceit:  That of the errand boy.  Because that's how these games work and always have. 

What is being argued here is that some people believe the illusion of choice offered to the Warden is more satisfying than the illusion of choice being offered to Hawke.  Others disagree.  Objectively, there is no difference.  Subjectively, there's all the difference in the world.  

What In Exile is arguing is precisely that:  There is no objective difference.  You are responding by declaring that your subjective experience is objective truth.

Good Jesus:blink:

Proactive circumstances is what Im arguing, being Proactive is not defined by someone giving you an order, or to your point, quests being given. Being Proactive mean's Controlling a situation to prevent a perceived problem before it occurs,(the blight spreading across thedas)  in which, no matter how you slice it, the Warden did. and That is not subjective to my own personal experience.

Now, What Im asking is how Hawke' s overall story can be seen as equal, or the same in terms of proactivity or lack thereof, in comparison to the Warden?  A question which has been skillfully avoided. 

That's not a difference in proactivity. It's a difference in success or effectiveness.

I tend to agree with UpsettingShorts. I do think that a voiced protagonist can be more proactive because the character can tell the player what needs to be done to advance the plot rather than hear it from another character. Rather than have Anora give a rather underwhelming battle speech it could have been the warden if voiced. I'm not really sold on a voiced protagonist by the way but this is one advantage.

Modifié par Malanek999, 14 janvier 2013 - 12:25 .

[Master Shiori]

ggghhhxxxpuf wrote...


There is a big difference between Hawke and the Warden, the Warden story occurs in a much shorter time span and requires a huge colaboration of diferent groups to achieve a goal, Hawke was just living his life in a convoluted city. It was a personal story with no BIG BAD, just a series of events Hawke was made part of, therefore the "Hawke does nothing" reaction.

Pretty much this.

Hawke has a goal in the beginning, but this is achieved by the start of act 2. She has wealth, a new home, status, friends and family (what's left of it). Everything that comes after is simply fallout from his actions in Act 1. 

Qunari problem

The Arishok asks for you by name simply becuase you left an impression on him during your past dealings. And considering that the Qunari hardly communicate with anyone in Kirkwall (aside from saying "begone!"), it makes you a prime candidate to address their concerns, whether you like it or not. Your job is to keep the peace by giving the Qunari what they require.
Should Hawke have tried to solve the problem by looking for the Tome of Koslun instead? She could if she actually knew what the Quanri were looking for in the first place. The Arishok won't tell you when you ask him and, until she mentions it, you have no reason to suspect Isabela knows anything. So yes, you're being reactive purely because you lack crucial information which you cannot acquire even if you try.


Quentin

This gets brought up a lot despite the fact that Hawke is the least responsible for dealing with that mess. Every time you get involved (first because you're paid to do it and second time as a favour for Aveline) you gather clues to help the investigation along and hand them over to people who should deal with the problem in the first place (city guards and templars). And every time they fail in their duty. Hawke did as much as she could. She's neither a guard, templar nor KIrkwall's resident Batman. There was no personal reason as to why Hawke should pursue this case until her mother was taken. 


Mage/templar conflict and Anders

Ok, this one really cannot be defended. It's a pure example of bad writing as a result of a 11 month development schedule. Hawke is doing erands for Meredith and Orsino just like the Warden was doing for the treaties in DA:O. However, unlike the Warden, Hawke has no clear overall goal here. 
The Anders issue with the Chantry is pure railroading, and a damn bad one at that. It's not that Hawke lacks the option to say "no" or to warn the templars and the Chantry. It's simply that such actions have no effect on the final plot.

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

FreshIstay wrote...

Proactive circumstances is what Im arguing, being Proactive is not defined by someone giving you an order, or to your point, quests being given. Being Proactive mean's Controlling a situation to prevent a perceived problem before it occurs,(the blight spreading across thedas)  in which, no matter how you slice it, the Warden did. and That is not subjective to my own personal experience.

Now, What Im asking is how Hawke' s overall story can be seen as equal, or the same in terms of proactivity or lack thereof, in comparison to the Warden?  A question which has been skillfully avoided. 

That is not being proactive, that's beating the game. What you are referring to is if the character's goals were met.
Yes, the Warden stopped the blight.
And Hawke bought the old Amell state thanks to the Deep Roads venture in act 1, regaining a place into the nobility.
Stopped the Qunari one way or the other in act two, saved the city and gained the title of Champion as a reward.
Legitimized a side in act 3, that, maybe, in DA3 we get random comments favouring a side depending on our choice ( I hope).
Those were his goals, not as grandiose as beating the blight, but goals nonetheless.

[Malanek]

As for the OP and the original discussion, just playing through DA2 again now after not touching it since the last dlc came out. It is good, I know act 3 is going to go downhill in terms of the writing but much of the game was very well done, particularly liked the dlc.

It is a bit disappointing there was no more dlc or expansion, feel the game has unresolved story space and the quality improved since the release of the main game. I do feel it bodes well for DA3 though. They did listen to complaints about the main game and fixed them for the dlc.

Does anyone know when we get some sort of eta about the release of DA3?

[Fallstar]

The Warden had the option to be proactive. Whether those options seemed silly to you or not, at least the options you are railroaded into taking show your protagonist taking the lead. You decide where to go and in what order. You decide who is king in Orzammar. You figure out that you need Branka, then you go into the Deep Roads and find her after years of delay by the dwarves.

This is as opposed to DA2, where Hawke doesn't seem to have a purpose. This is a flaw of the game he's set in really, as it's easy to be proactive and make progress towards your goals when you've got an obvious overarching plot right from the beginning like in DAO. Not so much in a game like DA2.

[AlexanderCousland]

addiction21 wrote...

Hawke (just like the warden and the blight) did not create those problems so why are you holding Hawke responsible for them and not the Warden?
Again the definition you posted and are not following states nothing about "resolving" anything. Just taking steps towards controlling something.
Also it was more of a "You have shown capable in dealing with the Qunari (and other issues) so I am asking you to go take measures to ease the pressures and to try to stop this from becoming a armed conflict"

Again your definition states nothing about succeeding.

You can believe he does not become Champion because he is lazy and reactive but its rather clear (since both the Templars and mages are on their heals and would rather fight each other without Hawkes intervention) but his interaction in that conflict does have merit and its because Hawke gets those two to work together (flimsy because the plot needs it. Which I do not really approve of) that Hawke can defeat the AIrshok in front of the nobles.

Here' s the difference,  The Warden' s objective is clear and defined all tasks preformed are to serve that objective, stop the blight from spreading, a circumstance he did not create but he did control it, any choice you make within that objective becomes your story.  

Hawke, What' s his objective goal, What is he working for, What is he doing? Im not saying his presence is unimportant to the Qunari War, what Im saying is that he had no control over the situation. (Proactive : Creating or Controlling) He was reactionary with no option to be proactive, no ability to have an effect on the events that occur except for choosing mages or templar' s.  

Again, every descision the Warden had an impact on the Settlements, Holdings, Kingdoms, he visited. and Reactivity is another issue that Im not going to adress, because the slides were either good enough for you or they sucked. 

[Master Shiori]

Malanek999 wrote...

As for the OP and the original discussion, just playing through DA2 again now after not touching it since the last dlc came out. It is good, I know act 3 is going to go downhill in terms of the writing but much of the game was very well done, particularly liked the dlc.

It is a bit disappointing there was no more dlc or expansion, feel the game has unresolved story space and the quality improved since the release of the main game. I do feel it bodes well for DA3 though. They did listen to complaints about the main game and fixed them for the dlc.

Does anyone know when we get some sort of eta about the release of DA3?

I agree. Aside from the last act, the game was enjoyable.

Right now, eta for DA3 is in Fall 2013, unless they decide to move it to Q1 2014 for some reason.

[addiction21]

FreshIstay wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Hawke (just like the warden and the blight) did not create those problems so why are you holding Hawke responsible for them and not the Warden?
Again the definition you posted and are not following states nothing about "resolving" anything. Just taking steps towards controlling something.
Also it was more of a "You have shown capable in dealing with the Qunari (and other issues) so I am asking you to go take measures to ease the pressures and to try to stop this from becoming a armed conflict"

Again your definition states nothing about succeeding.

You can believe he does not become Champion because he is lazy and reactive but its rather clear (since both the Templars and mages are on their heals and would rather fight each other without Hawkes intervention) but his interaction in that conflict does have merit and its because Hawke gets those two to work together (flimsy because the plot needs it. Which I do not really approve of) that Hawke can defeat the AIrshok in front of the nobles.

Here' s the difference,  The Warden' s objective is clear and defined all tasks preformed are to serve that objective, stop the blight from spreading, a circumstance he did not create but he did control it, any choice you make within that objective becomes your story.  

Hawke, What' s his objective goal, What is he working for, What is he doing? Im not saying his presence is unimportant to the Qunari War, what Im saying is that he had no control over the situation. (Proactive : Creating or Controlling) He was reactionary with no option to be proactive, no ability to have an effect on the events that occur except for choosing mages or templar' s.  

Again, every descision the Warden had an impact on the Settlements, Holdings, Kingdoms, he visited. and Reactivity is another issue that Im not going to adress, because the slides were either good enough for you or they sucked. 

So you are saying that act one that Hawkes goals are not clear? That from the start you are not beaten over our collective heads that he/she needs to get into Kirkwall and regain their noble status? That even tho we know the goal is to raise a certain amount of gold and ever little quest completed is to reach that mark none of that is clear?

Then what else is Hawke working towards? To feed the needy? To help the sick? To spend in the local ****
house?

And the Warden had control over the Blight? The Warden had control over that situation they are pretty much made a slave too?
Go with Duncan or die. Get the treaties and blood or die. Take part in the joining or die. Go to the tower or what? Chase down the treaties or what? If Hawke is reactive because of the Quanri then the Warden is just as guilty.
Your warden or Hawke can either accept the situation they are in or try (try being the main word there) and fail because the game and the plot demands they do nothing else.
You keep exempting the Warden from this but continue to damn Hawke for it. Both are thrown forcibly into what the plot/game demands and have no other option then to continue how the plot demands them to.

And while Hawkes decisions do not have the same widespread impacts they do have impacts. Also once again your definition has nothing to say about having impacts on x, y, or z.

Modifié par addiction21, 14 janvier 2013 - 01:13 .

[AlexanderCousland]

addiction21 wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

 Being Proactive mean's Controlling a situation to prevent a perceived problem before it occurs,(the blight spreading across thedas)  in which, no matter how you slice it, the Warden did. and That is not subjective to my own personal experience.

Now, What Im asking is how Hawke' s overall story can be seen as equal, or the same in terms of proactivity or lack thereof, in comparison to the Warden?  A question which has been skillfully avoided. 

Equal? No Hawks (for the most part) are not world threating like the blight. If we are going for "the over all story" Neither the Warden or Hawke are proactive.

Again "prevent" is not mentioned anywhere in your definition. Why is it a defining factor later when you need it to be?

I suppose the Merriam- Webster defnition will serve you well where the Google definition didnt :


Proactive - relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning. 

Proactive - acting in anticipation of future problem' s, needs, or changes 

synonyms- farseeing, farsighted, foreseeing.


Now, The Viscount was Proactive in contracting Hawke, but not Hawke himself. The Viscount proactively tried to remedy the Situation.  Varric even say' s "Nobody saw that coming", really Hawke, you mean you couldnt tell the situation was going to hell, even before Isabela?  Hawke was completely oblivious to what was happening around him.The Warden wasn' t, The Warden was well aware of what could happen if he didn't do his duty, and Proactively did sommething about it. 

EDIT: Was the Warden there when the Artchitect woke Urthemiel? no. Did Hawke have direct dealing' s with the Qunari when the arrived in Kirkwall? YES.

Modifié par FreshIstay, 14 janvier 2013 - 01:40 .

[addiction21]

Duncan was proactive in recruiting the Warden.

Flemeth was Proactive in guarding the treaties, saving the Warden, and laying out the plan for the Warden.

The Warden had no idea what was going to happen until others laid it out in front of him/her.

I don't believe one is better then either because I can enjoy a game or charcter that is either reactive or proactive. The Warden is reacting to becoming a Warden and everything that entails. Proactive things can happen after that with in the story but the Warden is not a wholly proactive character. Neither is Hawke a entirely reactive character.

I tried this early by (maybe not being so clear) that there a points where either character acts proactively or reactively but I will argue till I fall over that the Wardens role in the blight is reactive.

Modifié par addiction21, 14 janvier 2013 - 01:23 .

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

FreshIstay wrote...


Now, The Viscount was Proactive in contracting Hawke, but not Hawke himself. The Viscount proactively tried to remedy the Situation.  Varric even says "Nobody saw that coming", really Hawke, you mean you couldnt tell the situation was going to hell, even before Isabela?  Hawke was completely oblivious to what was happening around him.The Warden wasn' t, The Warden was well aware of what could happen if he didn't do his duty, and Proactively did sommething about it. 

Mmmm, I think the base of your argument is "Hawke will fail sometimes, the Warden won't"

The core problem of this dicursion is not "proactivity" or "reactivity", It's with how the script treated your hero, not with the hero itself.

If DA2 was made the same way DAO was, it would be something like this:
Get to Kirkwall, go to the Deep Roads, is your sibling with you and you didn't take Anders? You still encounter the Wardens, they accept to take the sibling.
Get rich, people like Petrice start to move and qunari grow tense, persuade check everyone, Petrice now loves qunari. Go save mom, persuade check Quentin into suicide,it fails, he battles you, either way mom's safe. The qunari explode because "muh book", persuade check Isabela to give the book, it fails, battle Isabela and give the book back to the qunari, they leave, if you decide not to give the book/side with isabela, battle the qunari.
Become champion, etc,etc...

What you want is to not "fail", to be the mighty RPG hero someone posts back said this game deconstructs because Hawke doesn't always gets the "I win" option.
What if you sided with Bhelen/Harrowmont and the opposite side started a civil war rendering the dwarves useless? You would have an army less, the blight would be said to be much more crude, what if it was scripted you couldn't do anything about it? what about the other choices?
The Warden was scripted in a world with win-win situations, because it was the Warden's duty to stop the blight, it was the game's goal; Hawke could not stop bad things to happen because he was not in charge of anything, it wasn't the game's goal to stop these things. His game's goal was to live his life and choose a side.

Modifié par ggghhhxxxpuf, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:30 .

[AlexanderCousland]

addiction21 wrote...

Duncan was proactive in recruiting the Warden.

Flemeth was Proactive in guarding the treaties, saving the Warden, and laying out the plan for the Warden.

The Warden had no idea what was going to happen until others laid it out in front of him/her.

I don't believe one is better then either because I can enjoy a game or charcter that is either reactive or proactive. The Warden is reacting to becoming a Warden and everything that entails. Proactive things can happen after that with in the story but the Warden is not a wholly proactive character. Neither is Hawke a entirely reactive character.

I tried this early by (maybe not being so clear) that there a points where either character acts proactively or reactively but I will argue till I fall over that the Wardens role in the blight is reactive.

A reactive event that couldn' t have been prevented by the Warden beforehand, an Event which he proactively stopped. there's absolutley no way you can say the Warden could haven known the Architect was going to awake Urthimiel. Wether or not somebody tell' s you what can happen has no bearing on Proactivity,  if you dont do anything about it with the knowledge you posses. YOU MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF AN EVENT TO BE PROACTIVE ABOUT IT,  The Warden was proactive on his own merit, because if he' s not, then you didnt complete any main quest in origins and we are not having this discussion. Every Action has a Reaction, Proactivity in itself is reactionary. Lesson 1.

Hawke was in Kirkwall when the Qunari arrived and had direct dealings with them before he was Champion, and took no initiatives to prevent the Qunari Conflict before it happend, The Viscount asks him to make peace, sister petrice frames him, The Arishok knows and doesnt care, Aveline asks for some elves back, Arishok goes BOOM because of the elves, Shameus, and Isabela, and Hawke is like WTF have i been doing these quests for.