177 réponses à ce sujet

[CyndaneShepard]

I agree, combining both would be great.
Still, I`m not convinced DA2 had more personal story. I liked the game, but on my second playthrough as a warrior I asked myself "Why am I dong this? Why do I care? Why me? Surely there is someone in this town who can handle Qunari better since I``m just a nobody who sucks at diplomacy anyway" I simply lacked motivation to do anything.
On the other hand, in DA:O, Ferelden depends on you. If you don`t stop the Blight, who will? Yes, other countries may send aid, but it would come far too late

[Megakoresh]

philippe willaume wrote...

I don't think it is personal vs saving the world.
the premices of DA:2 was quite good I thought.

DA:2 story is poorly ended and have a feeling of "bugger me, that will do, i can't be arsed anymore".
In some choice branches
DA:0 Main story arc is resolved and we have closure on all subplots and characters.

If DA:2 act III was of the same irk as DA:2 act II, we wouldn't have that conversation.
phil

Indeed, however ending of DA2 was more of a beginning of the next game so that is understandable. And as for "bugger me, that will do, i can't be arsed anymore", that you can say about a lot of things in DA2. But I still think it's more due to the fact that it was terribly rushed.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 02 février 2013 - 03:07 .

[Wulfram]

Megakoresh wrote...

My point is based on that Hawk's story revolves much more around him himself, with his bias towards things. The very initiation is triggered by him personally trying to escape the blight with the family. Whereas Origins just forces the PC into events because "he must"

The Warden's initiation is triggered by someone kidnapping them/their bride on their wedding day.  Or because their family is slaughtered by Howe.  How is that less personal than Hawke going to Kirkwall?

Hawke's story in the second two acts barely involves him.  The Qunari and the Mages/Templars just do their stuff and occasionally Hawke shows up to slaughter some guys, without really changing anything, and without any particular motivation for getting involved beyond the fact that this is a main quest so you have to.

The first act has an incredibly weak excuse about needing money to hide from the Templars, which is silly and immediately forgotten.  And there's the five minutes where you're sad because dead mum.  But for the vast overwhelming bulk of the game, the story is distinctly impersonal.

[Megakoresh]

CyndaneShepard wrote...

I agree, combining both would be great.
Still, I`m not convinced DA2 had more personal story. I liked the game, but on my second playthrough as a warrior I asked myself "Why am I dong this? Why do I care? Why me? Surely there is someone in this town who can handle Qunari better since I``m just a nobody who sucks at diplomacy anyway" I simply lacked motivation to do anything.
On the other hand, in DA:O, Ferelden depends on you. If you don`t stop the Blight, who will? Yes, other countries may send aid, but it would come far too late

To me that is exactly why i prefer story of DA2. It's that question: "Why me?" "Why the hell am I doing all this?". Well, that is what makes it personal.

You have your own story. Your own quests: looking out for your family, trying to make a living, trying to establish your personal life. You are not interested in world changing events, deciding who is right and who is wrong, but the circumstances are created in such way that you must choose.

And they ALWAYS provide full explanation for why. Can you remember a single dialogue where you were given 2 choices right off the bat? Where you were not at least allowed to attempt a neutral stand? I can't.

In Origins it was that annoying feeling of "Predetermined destiny". You are out to save the world. That is your purpose from the start. You are not pursuing anything personal. In fact the entire POINT of "Origin quests" is to COMPLETELY wipe out any person interests you might have had. It's more like your personal interests are pursuing your ultimate purpose. You are not dragged into the events while living your own life and forced to make choices you aren't interested in. You are simply a hollow and utterly unhuman person who exists with a singular purpose.

I can't roleplay a character if there is not a character to roleplay.

This is the reason why I so much loved the "Witch Hunt" DLC. In there you are actually doing your own mission. Your own. That I really like. For the game to be my own story.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 02 février 2013 - 03:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...

My point is based on that Hawk's story revolves much more around him himself, with his bias towards things. The very initiation is triggered by him personally trying to escape the blight with the family. Whereas Origins just forces the PC into events because "he must."

The Warden's initiation is triggered by someone kidnapping them/their bride on their wedding day. Or because their family is slaughtered by Howe. How is that less personal than Hawke going to Kirkwall?
Hawke's story in the second two acts barely involves him. The Qunari and the Mages/Templars just do their stuff and occasionally Hawke shows up to slaughter some guys, without really changing anything, and without any particular motivation for getting involved beyond the fact that this is a main quest so you have to.
The first act has an incredibly weak excuse about needing money to hide from the Templars, which is silly and immediately forgotten. And there's the five minutes where you're sad because dead mum. But for the vast overwhelming bulk of the game, the story is distinctly impersonal.

This. 

In nearly all of the Origins, you see friends, family and loved one die during your initiation to the world. And the story in Origins is about you, personally, leading the effort against the Blight and Loghain. 

Hawke has a family which only serve as short-lived companions and quest givers. I'm glad I was given the option to tell them all to quit whining about stuff Hawke had no control over (which was quite a large number of things) and stuff their sorries in a sack. 

I've come to the conclusion that many people are pretty incapable of viewing a silent protagonist as a character they can relate with. The amount of tragedy in any given DA:O origin meets or exceeds that of the opening of DA2 and the amount of "but thou must" is MUCH higher for Hawke staying in Kirkwall, especially in the very possible outcome of all his family being dead. 

So the only thing I can draw from that is that people love having a more rigid, set, defined protagonist or they just can't relate to their story at all. Since the references to the origins for each character when you return to the area where you are from are pretty substantial (or fighting Howe for the HN and the shriek ambush for the Dalish elf) and nearly equal to what Hawke runs into with his family outcomes. 

Point being - I don't think Hawke's story is any large degree more personal than any of the Warden Origins, I just think it is a great deal less epic.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 février 2013 - 06:33 .

[Darth Death]

BioWare seems to specialize in the "saving the world from evil" storytelling. I think DA2 was a foreign realm for BioWare to explore, & as a result not their strength when communicating a good story. Depends how you want to look at it. IMO Origins was a "saving the world from evil" type of story, accompanied with personal storytelling elements. Your LI, race, background, & silent PC all contribute to an imaginative & personal experience. "Personal" shouldn't be only limited to biological family.

[Fast Jimmy]

You have your own story. Your own quests: looking out for your family, trying to make a living, trying to establish your personal life. You are not interested in world changing events, deciding who is right and who is wrong, but the circumstances are created in such way that you must choose.

And they ALWAYS provide full explanation for why. Can you remember a single dialogue where you were given 2 choices right off the bat? Where you were not at least allowed to attempt a neutral stand? I can't.

So, my first playthrough of Hawke had all of my family dead before Act 3, not enjoying any companions except Isabella (who wanted to run away from Kirkwall as soon as possible) and enough money to buy a small fleet of boats to do so (let alone just the one that would be needed).

I didn't want power, because I knew that as long as Meredith was alive, the only power in Kirkwall would be her. And I didn't want t declare war on the Chantry, so I was fine with being a nobody. And settling down was nowhere near on my priorities list... least of all in a city where demons, cut throats and madmen were around every corner.

So, tell me... how did the game make me feel about being forced to stay in Kirkwall and then being forced to take a side in yet ANOTHER Mage/Templar decision (since we got the same exact decision in DA:O already). I'll give you a hint - it didn't.

[grregg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

(...)

Point being - I don't think Hawke's story is any large degree more personal than any of the Warden Origins, I just think it is a great deal less epic.

True, DA:O origins are personal, but the problem is that they end pretty quickly and dump you into the main story which is pretty much the standard cRPG one-size-fits-all type. If a story can accommodate a human noble, a dwarf commoner, a mage and an outcast elf, how personal can it get really?

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate various shout-outs that origins get during the main plot, but they're not exactly extensive. Maybe the other origins are better but I played City Elf and frankly by the time I got to the Landsmeet I almost forgot that I'm playing an elf. The occasional "what are you doing here elf!" doesn't not make the story into a personal tale.

[LinksOcarina]

Darth Death wrote...

BioWare seems to specialize in the "saving the world from evil" storytelling. I think DA2 was a foreign realm for BioWare to explore, & as a result not their strength when communicating a good story. Depends how you want to look at it. IMO Origins was a "saving the world from evil" type of story, accompanied with personal storytelling elements. Your LI, race, background, & silent PC all contribute to an imaginative & personal experience. "Personal" shouldn't be only limited to biological family.

I would have to agree to most of  this.

That said, I liked that they tried something new at the very least, in the sense of attempting to build a family-friendship connection that actually meant something to both the player and to the story they were telling, as reactive as you can be. It was really a breath of fresh air and something you only hinted at in the origins of Dragon Age, before forgetting about them until you either meet a character from the said origin, or you finish the game and you're alive. 

In all honesty, I doubt inquisition will follow suit, since the percieved plot makes it difficult for that connection to be in the forefront, but I hope they don't abandon what they did in Dragon Age II either, because it was a lot of good ideas that can be done again. 

[Conquerthecity]

 It's been a long night, so I apologize if this is a rambling mess. (Not that my other posts are much more coherent. 

I am super tired of saving the world/universe/galaxy/etc. Unfortunately, I have to live with it, because with a few noteable exceptions video games in general don't seem to want to move on and use smaller plots. They can be mixed, however. For example,  at it's core Alan Wake was a story about a man who wanted to save his wife. But at the same time, there was the Dark Presence that thwarted him from doing so at every turn, and by hindering it (somewhat) Alan kind of did a favor for the world. So, yeah, I'd be happy if Bioware could give the PC something personal to strive for that was tied to the main plot. I think they were trying with the Siblings and Leandra. But it didn't really work. I never got to know Leandra enough to care about her or be swayed by the nature of her death. And though I like Carver and Bethany, their fate in whichever organization is totally off screen and thusly a non-issue in my decision making. 

[Ruairi46]

Darth Death wrote...

BioWare seems to specialize in the "saving the world from evil" storytelling. I think DA2 was a foreign realm for BioWare to explore, & as a result not their strength when communicating a good story. Depends how you want to look at it. IMO Origins was a "saving the world from evil" type of story, accompanied with personal storytelling elements. Your LI, race, background, & silent PC all contribute to an imaginative & personal experience. "Personal" shouldn't be only limited to biological family.

^This. But im not saying DA2 is a bad game in any way, just extremely rushed.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mungolian_ wrote...

snip

I agree, good post. I don't hate that DA2 tried for a more personal story, but I didn't feel like it ever hit home for me, ever.

One thing that I REALLY disliked was the use of the letter system (and, conversely, the email system Mass Effect also used). If you want me to totally and completely not care about the follow up of a choice or character, then send them to me via a letter. That results in having the most shallow, boring and uninspiring content to me, ever. If I find the fake Viagra letter more entertaining than hearing about my sibling and how they are doing in the Templars/Circle/Grey Wardens, then that is a serious problem.

You'd think it's because they are short, or all text based. But that wouldn't be the case. For instance, I love epilogue slides, unvoiced ones being just as good as voiced ones. But it all comes down to placement.

If I am still in the game and I made a choice I hope affects the world or the people in it, it is not satisfying for me to have the consequence of that choice to not be seen at all except in a letter (aka, not seen at all). It requires your player to take themselves out of the game to see effects, which is a bad thing to do. Effects should draw the player in, not make them distance themselves from the experience.

In contrast, an ending is the time when the player is done with the game. They are leaving the world, saying their final goodbye. Now is the PERFECT time to give consequences and outcomes in a way that causes them to take themselves out of the game. For one, the game is over, so this process is already happening. For two, it lets the player leave with a completed feeling of knowing what they did mattered. It gives them the feeling that the world they are leaving exists after the Game Over screen. It keeps them thinking about what happened and wanting to come back as soon as possible, in either the form of the game's sequel or another playthrough.

In game consequences are good, but there will never be enough. While you are still playing the game, you can't help but think "I wonder where this is going, or how far it will go?" One follow up will make me ask "I wonder if this is a bigger part of the plot?" Another consequence reference will make me go "Oh, boy, this is getting great! Is this going to result in a huge arc for my character?" Another one will make question if the endgame will be affected, or if they will carry it over into future games.

Yet one choice like whether or not I give the sword back to the kid in Redcliffe and is never mentioned again in game, but has an epilogue slide that talks about the boy growing up and being a hero himself is much more satisfying to me as a consequence than having Carver be a Greg Warden or a Templar. Because, despite the number of factors that affected one set of outcomes versus the other, the quest with the boy-turned-adventurer gave me those outcomes at the right time.

If Carver was given some good closure in the endings, via a mechanic like the epilogue slides, I would have been much more in touch with his character, personally. Since nothing is resolved by the endings, I'm left with just a general sense of "meh" about everyone and everything I did in it.

Does every game need epilogue slides? No. I'd love it, but no, they don't need it.

But every game SHOULD try and give us an idea of how our choices affected things, outside of just the main plot. Epilogue slides are the most cost effective means I've seen of doing this, but if there are other methods of doing this that can give the same levels of acknowledgement to a large number of consequences, I'd be all for it.

Again, the problem becomes how you deal with consequence in regards to the timing. Certain ways of dealing with choice can make things seem forced or artificial, while the same exact method used at another time becomes very effective. It's not an easy path to walk.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 février 2013 - 04:38 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Megakoresh wrote...

What do you prefer?

Personal story only be personal if I'm the one who write it.

In DAO, my personal story was the moment when I pretend MYSELF as the Warden which isn't a problem because DAO was first person roleplaying ( Game design mistake claimed by BioWare as they actually and silently intended for third person roleplaying as shown in DA 2 ), and blank slate character for me to fill in MYSELF ( although it does annoys some people who resist imaginery gameplay or roleplay ). As the result, DAO is more personal to me than Hawke or ME 2's Sheppard ( I never played ME 3 after ME 2 ), even though it focus more on world saving theme as oppose to "Shallow illusive personal story of BioWare's Hawke".

DA 2's biggest crime as to why it never feel personal to me is DA 2's Hawke himself/herself. He or she was designed by BioWare using 3 templates of dominant personalities known as Diplomatic Hawke, Humorous Hawke or Aggressive Hawke, none ever suit my roleplaying and my intented character creation. Although it is possible to mix and match the tones, it never satisfy my need to create unique PC. Too restrictive to break character designed by BioWare which favor heavily the three dominant personalities.

Hawke's cinematic acting potrayed by BioWare is too generic and only make my roleplaying a nightmare, I just wish BioWare would just leave a zombie and emotionless PC for me to imagine myself. 

Hawke's lack of player agency and character agency to the world is a death warrant to my roleplaying. Almost everything about DA 2 turn bad, from the companions ( due to quest centric designed dialogues ) to the narrative presentation and execution. Almost everything about DA 2 is a disappointment.     

In the end, Hawke, in my view, only sound three tones but still a friendly two goody shoes BioWare's character. Never related to me and my roleplaying experience. It's hard to care and be personal for something that you don't create yourself ( with passion and love like my wardens )  but merely choosing from a template of 3 predefined characters. That's too bad considering DA 2 is supposed to be more personal than DAO - which is why I preorder DA 2. It's a mistake I wouldn't repeat in future.        

Megakoresh wrote...

So why was one recieved worse than another?

 

Just like you've said it yourself, "I like it because I get to play MY story."
In DAO, I am the Warden. His story is MY story. Even then, I could create any wardens and they're still my stories.
In DA 2, I'm not Hawke. I could never be. The game isn't designed to be roleplayed in such perspective.  And yet I couldn't even create my own Hawkes. Merely forced to settle with BioWare's friendly two goody shoes Diplomatic Hawke or   BioWare's friendly two goody shoes Humorous Hawke or  BioWare's friendly two goody shoes aggresive Hawke. They're all the same BioWare's Hawkes with different sound. 

PLUS: DA 2 is a story being told. You're merely an passive audience imagining the event which may or may not  true in the form of make up flashbacks. There is nothing personal about it.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 février 2013 - 04:51 .

[Brodoteau]

 I always thought that this:  this was the best review of the story of DA2.  It's an immigrant's story.  Viewed in these terms, Hawke's trying to fit in, trying to get gold, trying to make a name for him/herself, makes sense.  Did they do this especially well?  No.  By the 3rd act they'd largely forgotten this thread (there is one tease with Aveline considering where her home is, but that's very small).  And by the 3rd act most of the anti-Fereldan attitudes have unfortunately disappeared.  In other words, they could have done much more. Even the Act 2 Qunari invasion makes sense, when viewed in the immigrant framework, because its about how different immigrant groups choose to adapt or not to adapt.  There was a lot of potential here, that seemed rushed.    

DAO is opposite.  It's the story of someone trying to protect their home; sacrificing everything, even in some ways their identity to save what's important.  So the different being that while DA2 the main character is trying to make life better for his/her family and self, in DAO, the main character, who is basically an orphan (and sometimes literally is) is trying to save everyone. One is not better than the other, just different.  

My hope is for DA3 that we get more of the latter and less of the former.  If the Inquisition is supposed to figure out what happens, than the dynamic of the story should be about whether or not you sacrifice what is good for you versus what is good for everyone.  But who knows. 

Finally, let's not mistake that "a personal story" means that lousy things have to happen to the protagonist.  This is Peter Parker-syndrome and one of the reasons why they got rid of the MJ marriage -- because some people believe there is no personal growth if there is happiness or well-adjustedness.  That's crap.  Sometimes, I think labelling it a personal story is an excuse to kill the protoagonists loved ones, torture and hurt him/her.  One can have a personal story of triumph. 

[Sutekh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The Warden's initiation is triggered by someone kidnapping them/their bride on their wedding day. Or because their family is slaughtered by Howe. How is that less personal than Hawke going to Kirkwall?
Hawke's story in the second two acts barely involves him. The Qunari and the Mages/Templars just do their stuff and occasionally Hawke shows up to slaughter some guys, without really changing anything, and without any particular motivation for getting involved beyond the fact that this is a main quest so you have to.
The first act has an incredibly weak excuse about needing money to hide from the Templars, which is silly and immediately forgotten. And there's the five minutes where you're sad because dead mum. But for the vast overwhelming bulk of the game, the story is distinctly impersonal.

This. 
In nearly all of the Origins, you see friends, family and loved one die during your initiation to the world. And the story in Origins is about you, personally, leading the effort against the Blight and Loghain. 
Hawke has a family which only serve as short-lived companions and quest givers. I'm glad I was given the option to tell them all to quit whining about stuff Hawke had no control over (which was quite a large number of things) and stuff their sorries in a sack. 
I've come to the conclusion that many people are pretty incapable of viewing a silent protagonist as a character they can relate with. The amount of tragedy in any given DA:O origin meets or exceeds that of the opening of DA2 and the amount of "but thou must" is MUCH higher for Hawke staying in Kirkwall, especially in the very possible outcome of all his family being dead. 
So the only thing I can draw from that is that people love having a more rigid, set, defined protagonist or they just can't relate to their story at all. Since the references to the origins for each character when you return to the area where you are from are pretty substantial (or fighting Howe for the HN and the shriek ambush for the Dalish elf) and nearly equal to what Hawke runs into with his family outcomes. 
Point being - I don't think Hawke's story is any large degree more personal than any of the Warden Origins, I just think it is a great deal less epic.

I'm going to this the this, and what follows too.

Except for that:

I've come to the conclusion that many people are pretty incapable of viewing a silent protagonist as a character they can relate with.

Can't talk for "many" people, but as far as I'm concerned, the silent protag is more an immersion problem than a relation one. I relate much more to the Warden than to Hawke, despite the former being silent and the latter voiced, because it doesn't really enter into the equation.

VA, perspective (1st vs. 3rd) etc... are cosmetic factors who can affect immersion, but relating to a PC (i.e. roleplaying) is more linked to customization (backgrounds, CC, gender and races) and storytelling itself (personal implication, choices, relationships, control). DAO offers more than DA2. So even though the scope of DA2 is narrower and more centered on people than events, DAO feels and is experienced as much more personal (all this, again, for me).

--

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In DAO, my personal story was the moment when I pretend MYSELF as the Warden which isn't a problem because DAO was first person roleplaying ( Game design mistake claimed by BioWare as they actually and silently intended for third person roleplaying as shown in DA 2 ),

OK. I have to ask because it confuses me. What do you call "first person roleplaying" vs. "third person"?

[XX-Pyro]

I'd prefer a story like DA2's over DAO's, but a mix of the two would be even better. Make the story more gripping and suspenseful too, neither game managed to do this.

[Reikilea]

To be fair I feel like Personal story is a bad title.

Every game is a personal story. That´s what interectivity is for. Especially every RPG has it.

What DA2 had was character based story, whereas DA:O had plot based story.

DA:O was pefectly written plot story, with great fictional world.

DA2 had badly written character development story inserted into a great fictional world (obviously not Kirkwall).

Join them together and there goes the best possible story.

Modifié par Reikilea, 02 février 2013 - 08:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sutekh wrote...

I'm going to this the this, and what follows too.

Except for that:

I've come to the conclusion that many people are pretty incapable of viewing a silent protagonist as a character they can relate with.

Can't talk for "many" people, but as far as I'm concerned, the silent protag is more an immersion problem than a relation one. I relate much more to the Warden than to Hawke, despite the former being silent and the latter voiced, because it doesn't really enter into the equation.

VA, perspective (1st vs. 3rd) etc... are cosmetic factors who can affect immersion, but relating to a PC (i.e. roleplaying) is more linked to customization (backgrounds, CC, gender and races) and storytelling itself (personal implication, choices, relationships, control). DAO offers more than DA2. So even though the scope of DA2 is narrower and more centered on people than events, DAO feels and is experienced as much more personal (all this, again, for me).

I, too, enjoyed the Warden much more than Hawke for the same reasons that you mentioned. I was addressing those who liked Hawke and DA2's story much more than Origins. Those people, I have come to believe, just cannot relate to a character who doesn't have a VA. I'd say on paper, objectively, you could make the case easily that the story with Hawke isn't anymore personal than with the Warden. But for the type of people who cannot relate to a silent character, this story is vastly superior.

Which is a shame, because I feel in many cases Hawke's story is vastly INferior to the Warden's, for the very reason of immersion that you listed above. I felt like I was watching Hawke. I felt like I was playing the Warden. 

If Bioware could make it so that immersion is a much less difficult process for DA3 while also keeping the voiced protagonist, I'd be happy. But the verdict is still very much out on that.

[Get Magna Carter]

To me, Origins was a more personal story.
You started off with the origin from which you saw the character before the adventuring.
And this was referenced and followed up on during the game continuing the personal experience aspect of the story.

Hawke, however, did not have the origin to define his/her pre-adventure life and during the game had the feeling of being a pre-defined character only with a hidden definition so I could not define my own personality (as I had done with my warden) and did not have a definition to work with and so was left with a cipher rather than a person doing things for reason I did not know or understand.
The fragmented experiences of the game did not have the feel of a story and Hawke was too undefined to be a person.

[humes spork]

Megakoresh wrote...

In Origins it was that annoying feeling of "Predetermined destiny". You are out to save the world. That is your purpose from the start. You are not pursuing anything personal. In fact the entire POINT of "Origin quests" is to COMPLETELY wipe out any person interests you might have had. It's more like your personal interests are pursuing your ultimate purpose. You are not dragged into the events while living your own life and forced to make choices you aren't interested in. You are simply a hollow and utterly unhuman person who exists with a singular purpose.

...you never played a human noble origin into Awakening, have you.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sutekh wrote...
OK. I have to ask because it confuses me. What do you call "first person roleplaying" vs. "third person"?

First person roleplaying = You're the character. You're inside the story and world. You view things limited by what you can see. The roleplaying aspect, solely focus on your inner self ( like emotions, thoughts, preference etc.. You're less concern with how other people react to your reaction ),  instead of externals like other people reaction, Varric's chest hair, Bethany's breast etc... You view yourself as the character rather than the world as the character. 

Third person roleplaying = You're not the character but rather a puppet master controlling the character. You're outside the story, sitting on your comfortable sofa in front of  your TV and  directing  the character inside the story. You're sensitive to world's reaction ( It's annoys you if people don't respond as you expected as you view the world as the character while your own character only play minor part of it - You only watch them from behind screen ) . Because of this, Element of Out of Character (OOC) such as auto-dialogue doesn't exist in your roleplay.  Your emotional connection with your character has less importance to your roleplaying as oppose to first person's roleplaying but you pay more attention to other characters emotions, reaction and character development.

To make it simple:
First person roleplaying = You pretend yourself as the Warden. 
Third person roleplaying = You control other people such as Jo Wyatt to pretend to be Lady Hawke while you yourself watch and listen to Varric's fairy tale behind the scene. DA 2's exactly acknowldge that style of roleplaying with third person unreliable narrator. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 février 2013 - 08:19 .