284 réponses à ce sujet

[Angangseh]

Don't know if this has been mention already but, after Leandra dies, there is a quest where Aveline tries to console you and you have the option to tell her that it's her fault that Leandra died. Aveline then asks how it was her fault and there are 3 options: all of which just look like you are venting your anger at her because you can.

It pissed me off that there was no reason to say "It was your fault Aveline, your fault because if you actually did your job properly and investigated the murders like your were supposed to as Guard captain, Quinten could have been found and imprisoned / killed ages ago and my mother would still be alive".

I know this is mainly a writer thing, but in my opinion I think it made Hawke look really stupid and a bad person for saying that it's all Aveline's fault, when actually there as a legitimate reason for Hawke to say that. I mean, come on Hawke, it's not really that hard to think of something as simple as that...

[The_FenixV]

Angangseh wrote...

Don't know if this has been mention already but, after Leandra dies, there is a quest where Aveline tries to console you and you have the option to tell her that it's her fault that Leandra died. Aveline then asks how it was her fault and there are 3 options: all of which just look like you are venting your anger at her because you can.

It pissed me off that there was no reason to say "It was your fault Aveline, your fault because if you actually did your job properly and investigated the murders like your were supposed to as Guard captain, Quinten could have been found and imprisoned / killed ages ago and my mother would still be alive".

I know this is mainly a writer thing, but in my opinion I think it made Hawke look really stupid and a bad person for saying that it's all Aveline's fault, when actually there as a legitimate reason for Hawke to say that. I mean, come on Hawke, it's not really that hard to think of something as simple as that...

I still think it was a good thing that his mom died, it was emotional and I tend to like darker stories than happy reunions or endings. 

[Riknas]

I find it distressing that a story-telling technique used to give the player a chance to anticipate future plot twists is being used as an excuse to gripe about the character that they're playing.

[Tinxa]

Ukki wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

*THey did say there used to be an option to save Leandra (probably at the expense of letting the blood mages go), but it was removed because it wasn't much of an option - people ALWAYS took it. If it remained, perhaps the reason all that blatant stuff was written is to empower you to prevent it, but if so (a) it wouldn't be something 'always taken', because you could stuff up, and ( it should have been removed or modified in any case.

Having either your PC´s mom gutted, skinned and sawn together as zombie bride or saving her is not actually brainer what people would do. But istead of completely removing the option they should have made it a bit more difficult. I´m not talking about one decision where the option to save your mom is to let the bad gu go but a string of option which you had to choose throughout the first act which would result in a option to save her if all was done "right". 

Yeah but anyone who ever played a RPG in their life would do the "right" thing so you have the same outcome OR you would have a situation when a completely irrelevant thing influenced the outcome at which point the players would complain (What!!! How does giving the little girl a pot of daisies in act 1 influence if mom dies. This makes no sense).

I like that the PC fails at some plot points. It makes the character real and not some awesome and invincible Mary Sue all the time.

[LobselVith8]

Riknas wrote...

I find it distressing that a story-telling technique used to give the player a chance to anticipate future plot twists is being used as an excuse to gripe about the character that they're playing. 

Because Hawke doing nothing about Sister Petrice when she openly admits she wants to start a religious war with the Qunari, or ignoring Meredith's dictatorship for three years despite being the Champion of Kirkwall, require Hawke to be incredibly passive, to the point where some of us find his passivity troublesome.

[Riknas]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Riknas wrote...

I find it distressing that a story-telling technique used to give the player a chance to anticipate future plot twists is being used as an excuse to gripe about the character that they're playing. 

Because Hawke doing nothing about Sister Petrice when she openly admits she wants to start a religious war with the Qunari, or ignoring Meredith's dictatorship for three years despite being the Champion of Kirkwall, require Hawke to be incredibly passive, to the point where some of us find his passivity troublesome.

Certainly his passive nature is something we can be troubled by, similar to the horror film characters going into the basement that the murderer happens to be waiting in. However, there is something to be said that killing a high profile individual (let's not get hung up on what qualifies as 'high profile', since Chantry Sister and Templar bodyguard already puts you in a special category) while you're still trying to lay low is a pretty terrible idea, already considering that you foiled her plan pretty thoroughly anyway. And just because they have horrible ideas means we can necessarily act on them.

There are plenty of crazy people with terrible ideas: killing the rich for the sake of the poor, genocide to promote racial purity, telling me to eat tuna casserole cooked by my mother.... And there's not a whole lot we can do about them so long as they don't act on it. Sister Petrice had a plan, which ended terribly. After defanging her like that, there isn't a whole lot we can do. We definitely can't kill them by any means and hope to take the moral (or legal) highground. Mind you, I can still turn off the oven or fake an illness to avoid the casserole, and we can inform the authorities as best we can, but that's about it. Keep in mind, we have also situations where we can inform Cullen or the Arishok (which does apply to Sister Petrice), at which point we are brushed off by whomever the authority figure is for one reason or another.

While the passivity is frustrating, much of it can be explained, and having said that I think we should be hard pressed to actually argue that it translates into stupidity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

I find it distressing that a story-telling technique used to give the player a chance to anticipate future plot twists is being used as an excuse to gripe about the character that they're playing.

This method of creating suspense works well in films, because the viewer doesn't have an investment in the character, nor does the viewer have any expectation of control over that character.

Given how many players play RPG PCs as self-inserts (I don't, but I consider the ability to do so an important measure of RPG quality), this story-telling technique was virtually guaranteed to offend.

[LobselVith8]

Riknas wrote...

Certainly his passive nature is something we can be troubled by, similar to the horror film characters going into the basement that the murderer happens to be waiting in. However, there is something to be said that killing a high profile individual (let's not get hung up on what qualifies as 'high profile', since Chantry Sister and Templar bodyguard already puts you in a special category) while you're still trying to lay low is a pretty terrible idea, already considering that you foiled her plan pretty thoroughly anyway. And just because they have horrible ideas means we can necessarily act on them.

If Hawke was seriously laying low, then he shouldn't have agreed to become partners with Varric for an expedition that plenty of people comment on.

Riknas wrote...

There are plenty of crazy people with terrible ideas: killing the rich for the sake of the poor, genocide to promote racial purity, telling me to eat tuna casserole cooked by my mother.... And there's not a whole lot we can do about them so long as they don't act on it. Sister Petrice had a plan, which ended terribly. After defanging her like that, there isn't a whole lot we can do. We definitely can't kill them by any means and hope to take the moral (or legal) highground. Mind you, I can still turn off the oven or fake an illness to avoid the casserole, and we can inform the authorities as best we can, but that's about it. Keep in mind, we have also situations where we can inform Cullen or the Arishok (which does apply to Sister Petrice), at which point we are brushed off by whomever the authority figure is for one reason or another.

Or we can kill Sister Petrice and Ser Varnell while the two are alone in a hovel, instead of mimicing furniture.

Riknas wrote...

While the passivity is frustrating, much of it can be explained, and having said that I think we should be hard pressed to actually argue that it translates into stupidity. 

I cite the example of Hawke and Tallis taking the list of Qunari spies.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 26 mai 2013 - 01:39 .

[BlueMagitek]

Kill Sister Petrice? We can't even decide if we want to associate with Anders and Merrill and Aveline and Varric and...!

[Riknas]

Sylvius: By all means, let's complain that Hawke was cornered into far too many situations where he observed things rather than acting on them himself. Indeed, I found this to be somewhat disappointing as well, but I'll not attribute it to the character being stupid. Rather, I call it out for what it is: a distinct lack of character driven choices. We want a less restrictive narrative. I hesitate to pin it on the character, because he has multiple interpretations, but if we have to say what we want from Hawke specifically, is we want a character with more initiative.

Lobsel: Detailing Varric's expedition, it's a different thing between the people in (figuratively) underground circles talking about a special event taking place in the (literal) underground. Empress Celine and Knight Commander Meredith were not specifically being informed of the expedition, or keeping their ears pressed directly against the door of the Hanged Man on the off-chance an apostate might sign up for what was originally an entirely dwarvish operation. Even at the beginning, your sibling laments, "Oh great," when Varric goes on to say that the Hawke name is actually spreading around.

Going to the murder point, we're going off the idea that no one would notice a Templar and a Sister going missing. It's far easier for me to take a high paying job in the undeground than it is for me to kill what was essentially a police officer and a nun. Certainly, there will be an investigation, suspicion, and questions asked. Where did she go? What was she doing? What was she trying to do? No doubt her own plan could be revealed by the end of that, but that's not the point. More importantly, unlike deep road schemes, murder of Chantry personell invites direct Templar intervention. No doubt, one could easily guess that Petrice and Varnell would simply flee in the face of an overwhelming attack. Why bother making the situation worse than it needed to be? I'm sure we could argue the potential of what the better thought process is, but a great deal of it would be operating in hindsight, rather than the potential of that moment.

When discussing Mark Of the Assassin, I personally feel like there was a writing breakdown across the board in that DLC; I was terribly disinterested in Felicia Day's web series that acted as the set up for it, and found myself similiarly disastisfied with the actual thing, at least in regards to the story. for Dragon Age and find that what occurred there went beyond Hawke, and that the ending that occurred there went past Hawke's passivity, simply falling flat entirely instead of just Hawke screwing up again.

Once again, I will clarify that this is not the nature of Hawke, but rather the result of a  weakly presented main story that seems to go out of its way to strip Hawke (and subsequently, the player) of any potential to act and be forced to watch events unfold instead.

Attempts at Humor: On the bright side, it's actually really easy to come up with role play reasons as to why you didn't do something. Perhaps your character was tired that day, or hated the idea of being involved with character X in any situation. If you play a female, you could go off the logic that her cycle was in progress, and she happened to be on her period, and lord knows you don't want to do too much when you're dealing with those cramps, right? You could also claim that your character has a strict aversion to committing any actions depending on the lunar calendar, which incidentally was the day that something catastrophic happened. As a character of strict conscience, it's best to abide by the lunar calendar over doing anything hasty.

Modifié par Riknas, 26 mai 2013 - 02:51 .

[LobselVith8]

Riknas wrote...

Lobsel: Detailing Varric's expedition, it's a different thing between the people in (figuratively) underground circles talking about a special event taking place in the (literal) underground. Empress Celine and Knight Commander Meredith were not specifically being informed of the expedition, or keeping their ears pressed directly against the door of the Hanged Man on the off-chance an apostate might sign up for what was originally an entirely dwarvish operation. Even at the beginning, your sibling laments, "Oh great," when Varric goes on to say that the Hawke name is actually spreading around.

I doubt Empress Celene would care about Sister Petrice's death, although I think you meant Grand Cleric Elthina instead. Also, Kirkwall is a hub for murder, to the point where a serial killer goes unnoticed simply because of how bad things are and how many people die in the city. It's basically a Thedas equivalent of Gotham City. I don't think the death of Sister Petrice of Ser Varnell would draw any attention to Hawke when the two could be killed in a hovel, with no other witnesses.

Riknas wrote...

Going to the murder point, we're going off the idea that no one would notice a Templar and a Sister going missing. It's far easier for me to take a high paying job in the undeground than it is for me to kill what was essentially a police officer and a nun. Certainly, there will be an investigation, suspicion, and questions asked. Where did she go? What was she doing? What was she trying to do? No doubt her own plan could be revealed by the end of that, but that's not the point. More importantly, unlike deep road schemes, murder of Chantry personell invites direct templar intervention. No doubt, one could easily guess that Petrice and Varnell would simply flee in the face of an overwhelming attack. Why bother making the situation worse than it needed to be? I'm sure we could argue the potential of what the better thought process is, but a great deal of it would be operating in hindsight, rather than the potential of that moment.

There are reasons to consider for not killing them, and I think you point out many reasons to consider against doing so, but potentially stopping a religious conflict when the main participants are willing to use civilians to incite a war is a potential reason for killing Petrice and Varnell when your protagonist has the chance. Or simply revenge. Point is, I'm not given a reason in-game not to kill Petrice, but I'm prevented from doing so because the Plot prohibits me.

Riknas wrote...

When discussing Mark Of the Assassin, I personally feel like there was a writing breakdown across the board in that DLC; I was terribly disinterested in Felicia Day's web series that acted as the set up for it, and found myself similiarly disastisfied with the actual thing, at least in regards to the story. for Dragon Age and find that what occurred there went beyond Hawke, and that the ending that occurred there went past Hawke's passivity, simply falling flat entirely instead of just Hawke screwing up again.

Once again, I will clarify that this is not the nature of Hawke, but a weakly presented main story that seems to go out of its way to strip Hawke (and subsequently, the player) of any potential to act and be forced to watch events unfold instead.

I think that's the problem for some of us (in relation to Hawke's passivity at certain points in Dragon Age II). It feels like our agency is removed during these important moments, and we find that to be problematic.

Riknas wrote...

On the bright side, it's actually really easy to come up with role play reasons as to why you didn't do something. Perhaps your character was tired that day, or hated the idea of being involved with character X in any situation. If you play a female, you could go off the logic that her cycle was in progress, and she happened to be on her period, and lord knows you don't want to do too much when you're dealing with those cramps, right? You could also argue that your character has a strict aversion to committing any actions depending on the lunar calendar, which incidentally was the day that something catastrophic happened. As a character of strict conscience, it's best to abide by the lunar calendar over doing anything hasty. 

I don't have a problem coming up with a backstory for my protagonist, or imagining why I made certain choices. The issue is when I'm prevented from taking action at moments where I think it would make sense to make a specific choice, which often arose many times in Dragon Age II. Especially the scene with Bethany being taken away by Cullen and one single other templar. I found it frustrating, because Hawke being passive in that scene made me really hate the character. And his passivity in other moments - like doing nothing for three years while Meredith ruled Kirkwall - made me feel disconnected to the character.

[The_FenixV]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't have a problem coming up with a backstory for my protagonist, or imagining why I made certain choices. The issue is when I'm prevented from taking action at moments where I think it would make sense to make a specific choice, which often arose many times in Dragon Age II. Especially the scene with Bethany being taken away by Cullen and one single other templar. I found it frustrating, because Hawke being passive in that scene made me really hate the character. And his passivity in other moments - like doing nothing for three years while Meredith ruled Kirkwall - made me feel disconnected to the character.

So what did you want your Hawke to do? Murder those templars because they are doing what they are supposed to do? If Hawke did that it would make matters worse and they'd have to leave Kirkwall again.

[LobselVith8]

The_FenixV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't have a problem coming up with a backstory for my protagonist, or imagining why I made certain choices. The issue is when I'm prevented from taking action at moments where I think it would make sense to make a specific choice, which often arose many times in Dragon Age II. Especially the scene with Bethany being taken away by Cullen and one single other templar. I found it frustrating, because Hawke being passive in that scene made me really hate the character. And his passivity in other moments - like doing nothing for three years while Meredith ruled Kirkwall - made me feel disconnected to the character.

So what did you want your Hawke to do? Murder those templars because they are doing what they are supposed to do? If Hawke did that it would make matters worse and they'd have to leave Kirkwall again. 

Leave Kirkwall forever? You say that like it's a bad thing.

[The_FenixV]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The_FenixV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't have a problem coming up with a backstory for my protagonist, or imagining why I made certain choices. The issue is when I'm prevented from taking action at moments where I think it would make sense to make a specific choice, which often arose many times in Dragon Age II. Especially the scene with Bethany being taken away by Cullen and one single other templar. I found it frustrating, because Hawke being passive in that scene made me really hate the character. And his passivity in other moments - like doing nothing for three years while Meredith ruled Kirkwall - made me feel disconnected to the character.

So what did you want your Hawke to do? Murder those templars because they are doing what they are supposed to do? If Hawke did that it would make matters worse and they'd have to leave Kirkwall again. 

Leave Kirkwall forever? You say that like it's a bad thing.

Touche, plus you'd have to stop from time to time to murder more templars. Then the divine would probably intefere, Hawke's mom would get killed by a templar instead of a blood mage while on the run... hmmm I gotta admit it could of been interesting. 

[HiroVoid]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The_FenixV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't have a problem coming up with a backstory for my protagonist, or imagining why I made certain choices. The issue is when I'm prevented from taking action at moments where I think it would make sense to make a specific choice, which often arose many times in Dragon Age II. Especially the scene with Bethany being taken away by Cullen and one single other templar. I found it frustrating, because Hawke being passive in that scene made me really hate the character. And his passivity in other moments - like doing nothing for three years while Meredith ruled Kirkwall - made me feel disconnected to the character.

So what did you want your Hawke to do? Murder those templars because they are doing what they are supposed to do? If Hawke did that it would make matters worse and they'd have to leave Kirkwall again. 

Leave Kirkwall forever? You say that like it's a bad thing.

Meh.  Unfortunately, that falls under the same category of why the Warden in DAO can't just head to Orlais to prepare a defense against the blight instead of hoping to find Andraste's ashes and a lot of other impossible stuff.  I will admit though that there are a lot more reasons behind leaving Kirkwall especially at the beginning when you realize the only way you can get in the city in the first place is working off a debt for a year.

[Karlone123]

I don't think they would make the next protaganist a Hawke 2.0, but with more incapability.

[Riknas]

LobselVith8 wrote...
*snip*

Well then, we confirmed the real issue didn't we? We have plenty of reasons why things did not happen. As such, we can't really pin it in on the character, just the restrictive story line. My main point was we spent too much time blaming Hawke rather than the situation/story he/she was given.

Karlone123 wrote...
I don't think they would make the next protaganist a Hawke 2.0, but with more incapability.

Ah, finally someone with a sense of humor. I like that.

Modifié par Riknas, 26 mai 2013 - 03:51 .

[SafetyShattered]

I agree to a certain extent. I don't want the protagonist to be perfect by any means, but i do agree that at some points Hawke was facepalm stupid.

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I would've been personally happy had the game provided a decent reason for 1) why I have to do the quest (if you've garnered enough coin and don't trust her, then the quest isn't necessary other then to advance the story) and 2) why killing her isn't an option.

RPGs struggle very much with the player's desire to be an insane bloodthirsty psychopath. The gameplay often revolves around mass murder, but the game never really addreses the actual problems with the kind of mass murder the player engages in. And suddenly the players are wondering why they can't use mass murder to solve every problem. 

Even RPGs that give you the freedom to actually gleefully engage in mass murder totally fail to adequately create any kind of proportional response to it. 

True. In DAO at least, there were some reasons why this was never really an issue. First, you're mostly fighting monsters or beasts (Abominations, Darkspawn, wolves, etc.). Second, if you kill all of the Dalish Elves, the only people that would care would be other Elves (though the fact you can talk your way out of that, if you ask me, sort of undermines the whole dealing with mass murder thing). 

And with Orzammar and the Circle, you're not really killing -- in the eyes of the former anyway -- citizens and the Circle itself has a legitimate problem that by its own nature justifies the RoA -- though again, the perfect ending for the Circle undermines the whole thing itself.

With DAII though, there should be something to actually present the murders Hawke does as not being acceptable. Sure, the gangs are fair game (especially if Aveline's in the party), but IIRC there were times when Hawke could casually kill anyone he wanted.

Though it seems RPGs (or perhaps just DA) tend to have a disproportionately high number of bandits and gangs for you to kill just so you can be justified in what you do, which sort of eliminates any concept of there being an issue with it. If most of the enemies you fight are criminals that attack you first, then you're not really given much reason to refrain from it because hey... they're bad guys!

So it definitely does seem like RPGs just suck at portraying the ramifications of such actions and all other associated things.

I think that requires her to actually be in your party when that happens, which would explain why I never got that line

It does, but that's my point. If Hawke actually overhears such things (and he turns his head towards Isabela slightly to acknowledge he's hearing her) then of course he should not be surprised at all to learn that Isabela has something to do with the Qunari.

Yet he still is anyway, with the autodialogue asking "Why are the Qunari" here after the fight with them. So you're forced to play an oblivious Hawke even if he's heard more then enough to know what's going on. No choice to be savvy or dim given.

Uh, she reveals it was a book much later. Before that she's just elusive about it, and not in a 'OMG SHE'S TOTALLY HIDING ****' sort of way.

I don't remember companion dialogue containing these contradictions prior to the big reveal.

Actually, she says "There's no way this Javaris stole from the Qunari. That's hard.... I heard." in such a way that one can easily detect how she is hiding something. It's said nervously and trying desperately to make a cover story.

This line is one I've heard in-game and is in fact documented on the wiki.

Furthermore...

Anders: So, this relic you lost... how is it you don't know what it is?
Isabela: It was in a box.
Anders: And you didn't open it? You managed to resist the urge?
Isabela: It was locked. It was a locked box!
Anders: Hasn't stopped you before.
Isabela: What do you want me to say?
Anders: Nothing. I just found it curious, that's all.

And then...

Varric: You have got to tell me what was in that box, Ravaini.
Isabela: Which box? I've opened so many...
Varric: Well, those too. But later. Right now: that Qunari relic.
Isabela: I'll make you a deal: I'll tell you what was in that box if you tell me how Bianca got her name.
Varric: Fine, forget I asked. Evil woman.

Okay, Varric flat out states the relic's ties in party banter. And yet, not only is Hawke going "Wait a minute" in Act 2... even Varric is surprised. Yet he knew all along!

Requires you to actually talk to the bartender, and which rumor is told is random. I never got this either.

Again, the point is not that it is hard to hear in-game, but that if you do hear it Hawke should not be surprised, especially if he heard the aforementioned "Qunari powder's sting" line at some point and the "Stealing from the Qunari is hard... I heard" line.

FWIW, there are two bartenders in game. The Blooming Rose one who gives his own rumors and the Hanged Man's one.

If you have heard it, then you should have the option of not being surprised. Since only two ships -- Isabela's and the Arishok's -- were caught in the storm and destroyed, and Isabela says she's felt the Qunari's sting, it is obvious to piece together.

It might have been nice if they put in a variable determining whether or not your Hawke actually heard all this evidence, but I chalk that up to laziness, hence why it seems all this intel you happen across is conditional (Isabela has to be in your party, you need to keep harrassing the bartender, etc.)

It is conditional, but that's the point. If you meet the requisites, you should be able to express knowledge or surprise depending on how you want to roleplay your Hawke. Not be forced to express only surprise.

Dependent on how you play it, Gascard is killed after Emeric is jumped and presumed to have been the killer. Unless I remember something incorrectly. The guard also didn't seem to take Emeric's suspicions seriously.

Gascard doesn't die if you don't incriminate him, and you may have cause to warn mom about it then... though I do not recall him specifically targeting 'influential' women, just the ones who happened to have the same features as his wife. I don't see any reason for Hawke to be absolutely convinced his mother is going to be targeted any more than the next, therefore shouldn't be surprised when she is.

Gascard's the one who tells you the killer's full M.O -- in rather keen detail for a man unaffiliated with the Guard, who is also an apostate noble, which you don't have to be Genre Savvy to take note of as being suspicious. Perhaps influential was not used, I cannot recall. I do know that Gascard said Quentin (though Gascard never gave up the killer's name) targeted single, healthy women with few social ties.

Leandra fits that to a bill. The Amell name has lost most, if not all, of its supporters in Kirkwall.

So after acquiring that info, if Gascard was not implicated/killed, you should be able to warn your mom. 

Any time crime happened in my old home city and it was rather close to home, I'd bring it up with my mom. Just so she'd be aware. Not that I would feel that was enough if the worst were to have happened, but for a game it would make me feel better about Hawke's efforts.

The fact that it takes Aveline (if she's there when you confront Gascard) until Emeric's death to call for the investigation to be re-opened instead of upon immediately hearing such information, where she has particular comments associated with the information, is rather poor of her. By extension, it's also poor for Hawke because he's unconcerned about the whole thing as well until it directly involves him. 

Yet he has influence with the Viscount, the Guard, and other groups.

It also reflects poorly on the Templars since they were given information, by Emeric, as early as Act 1 relating to magical anomalies in Lowtown. And they share the most blame in this fiasco, something Cullen will even admit.

But I'm getting off track. The point is that you should be able to warn Leandra about the White Lily Killer after confronting Gascard... and yes, if you did not implicate him as being the cause of the crime.

Though to have the options whittled down to "He did it" or "He didn't do it" is actually not a precise set of options. It should be those two and "Well, he knew a lot, so he may have some connection and should be questioned."

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 mai 2013 - 05:12 .

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

@ TEWR-- I would agree that if the 'but thou must' is a must, it should not be a bitter pill to swallow. Like how thou must fight Orsino, that was really the last straw.

I lol'd heartily at this. Well played, sir... well played.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Sylvius: By all means, let's complain that Hawke was cornered into far too many situations where he observed things rather than acting on them himself. Indeed, I found this to be somewhat disappointing as well, but I'll not attribute it to the character being stupid. Rather, I call it out for what it is: a distinct lack of character driven choices. We want a less restrictive narrative. I hesitate to pin it on the character, because he has multiple interpretations, but if we have to say what we want from Hawke specifically, is we want a character with more initiative.

I can't agree with that.

Yes, we want a less restrictive narrative.  Yes, we want more character driven choices.  But that then requires that the character be less well defined, not simply defined differently.

Sometimes I want a character with more initiative, but sometimes I want a character with less.  It depends on the character I've designed.  In DAO, the most rewarding character I played was someone who actively avoided ever making decisions (because he was afraid to do so, though he would never have admitted that).  He wanted other people to take control.  He always deferred to others' judgment when given the option.  And when he found himself alone, with no one else to make decisions for him (in the fade), he found the confidence to make decisions himself, which he then misused horribly because he had virtually no relevant life experience to inform his choices.

That was an excellent roleplaying experience, but I never would have had it if the Warden had been forced to exhibit any personality trait at all - there's effectively no chance BioWare would ever anticipate such a character, so the only way we can get to play one is if BioWare stays out of the way and lets us define our characters ourselves.

[Zeldrik1389]

One thing about Hawke that really really annoy the crap outta me (and still bug me until today) was his reaction when his mother went missing. His mom (the only family he had left, well aside than that annoying uncle) was very likely to be kidnapped by a mass murderer, and his reaction was either "let the guard handle it" or "may be it's not true". And his uncle and his servant HAD TO tell him that he need to go out and search for her. And Hawke was supposed to be battle hardened after all that adventures and fightings. It was just so brainless to me. But I guess I'm just going to blame DA2's terrible writting.

[CrystaJ]

I guess my problem lies more with Bioware's writing and handling of these plots more than Hawke's stupidity. He doesn't strike me as a dumb character. Or she. Whatever.

I can agree that giving Leandra x Hawke a short cut scene related to the white lilies would have been more sufficient, even if it's believable for Hawke to believe the killer was dead after Emeric's death (if you told the templar that he fooled you, thus strongly implicating him). I still say it's a stretch to say Hawke would know exactly how that would unfold if he just had a brain; it's more believable he would be concerned about it, but wouldn't be 100% convinced his mother would be one of the targets. There are a lot of buxom women in Kirkwall, and targeting the mother of the Champion isn't exactly a wise choice. I suspected something would happen just because he's the protagonist and plot threads don't naturally drop that easily; something he wouldn't be aware of.

I went through the game without much Isabela three times, which is why I didn't get all these conditional dialogues. She left my party permanently in two of those three playthroughs and the one she stuck around in it was pretty close to not happening too. Because of that, there was no inconsistencies in my Hawke's reactions, but there are in plenty others who DID use Isabela... which leads me to believe they may have initially planned to have the big reveal unfold differently, and carelessness made them forget to remove all that dialogue they left in regarding the relic prior to adjusting that scene.

I can also agree that Aveline NOT making the guards at least go door-to-door and ask women if they received lilies (and making them aware of their significance) was careless of her if not a little out of character imo. Doubting Emeric isn't a stretch (he does go mostly on hunches, which is what led to the guard embarrassing themselves), but Gascard doesn't really have a reason to lie about flowers (unless you're inclined to disbelieve everything he says just because he's a blood mage) and his investigation lines up with Emeric's information. Hell, she even gets pissed off at him for not reporting it to the guard, so it's obvious she's now aware of it and likely to take action. So... whatever, Bioware. Sometimes I wish I was on your writing team.

I mean, if I WAS on the team, Leandra could still die: Quentin would likely become aware of the Guard catching on to his gimmick and would simply change it, and it's not like it took Leandra much convincing to get her to go with him. I'm not even entirely opposed to having no chance of saving Leandra: he'd have no reason to keep her alive long, and she could very well have been Frankenmom before Hawke even realized what was happening. That would be realistic, even if it pissed people off.

Modifié par CrystaJ, 26 mai 2013 - 11:20 .

[Urazz]

Hazegurl wrote...

Qistina wrote...
Hawke as a MAGE going to the Fade, fighting Blood Mages, handling red lyrium craziness of Bartrand, seeing abominations everywhere..don't tell me Hawke is so dumb don't know about alchemy and spirit possession is a complete two unrelated thing. The main problem is the way the game handling the scene, Anders is a Mage want to fool Hawke the famous Mage in history about spirit possession? And then Hawke is so dumb believing him? Damn, Hawke already killing the possessed Keeper and many more possessed Blood mages because that is the only way and now Anders saying it can be just "boom!" and it's gone, no need ritual, sacrificing but need to sneak into the Chantry

Amen on everything. I caught on right away that Anders was lying to me so why not my mage Hawke? He had Malcolm Hawke, his father, as his teacher. I'm sure daddy covered spirit possession. A mage Hawke should have known that Anders was blowing smoke and that death was the only way out of being poessed. That is why my Hawke ended up arguing with Anders when he refused to reveal why he needed entry into the Chantry and I turned him down. But still, my mage should have been able to spot his lie much sooner than that, like right when he was telling him about gathering the ingredients and why he needed them.

You think Malcolm Hawke had the knowledge of all things about spirit possession and how to split them away from their hosts?  I don't think he did.  He obviously had the basic knowledge about spirits of the fade and taught that to his children but I doubt he had knowledge on how to do that.

Also, alchemy is not magic.  Hawke did not grow up in the circle where he had access to a lot of knowledge to learn about Alchemy and the finer details of magic.  He grew up in a farm in Lothering. So do you expect Hawke to have more knowledge about abominations and spirit possession than Anders who is Circle trained (had access to a library to learn about spirits), is possessed by a spirit, and is 'researching' how to split himself Justice up?

So at the most Hawke has a reasonable excuse to at least not call Anders out on the ingredients for the bomb.  After that you have the choice to believe Anders or not if you want when it comes to the Chantry.

I myself didn't recognize that Anders was making a bomb on the first part of the quest in my first playthrough but did catch on afterwards when he wanted to sneak into the Chantry and didn't help him on that part.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Given how many players play RPG PCs as self-inserts (I don't, but I consider the ability to do so an important measure of RPG quality), this story-telling technique was virtually guaranteed to offend.

But RPGs never let the player actually pre-empt this situation. The only difference with DA2 is that you're story is set over such a number of years it becomes absurd that the PC doesn't take action.