132 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

They did, however, clearly take the approval mechanism from KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 and applied it in DA:O. 

edit: Although now that I do think about it, didn't the OC in NWN and HoTU have something similar?

HotU, yes - the mechanic is used to determine whether your final enemy is able to subvert them in the last battle. Unless you acquired their True Names, of course. It's not as explicit to the player as the Obsidian implementation, though.

IIRC the OC equivalent was more like KotOR, where all you do is follow the dislogue trees out to the end, though I think you get an item for your trouble.

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...

TK514 wrote...

When I think character consistency, I think of scenarios like Leliana and Wynn objecting to the Warden tainting the Ashes, or Sebastian leaving should you spare the guy who just murdered Sebastian's surrogate mother figure. These actions are consistent with the characters and their beliefs and personalities.

When Fenris sticks around even if Hawke takes an elven slave, I have problems. There's no way Hawke should be able to convince Fenris or Isabella that slavery is ok.

It's actually *extremely* easy to justify that incident I'm really boggled by how people are confused. Fenris if anyone would know how vulnerable and easy to exploit that girl would be. Hawke maybe a douche (if aggressive) but he/she isn't abusive. The elf girl even as a slave would be treated far better than just wandering off on her own. Fenris himself would kill any Hawke who tried to make him a slave of course but Fenris is fully capable of taking care of himself.

Hawke's not enslaving a perfectly capable of being independant elf. He's taking in a slave girl who knows nothing else who's extremely vulnerable and codependant and giving her a place to sleep, food to eat and has her act like a servant for all intents and purposes (without pay mind).

As Merill said a lone elf is easy prey for anyone.

The acceptable course of action would be to pay her of course. If I recall correctly, you lose quite a lot of approval if you keep her as a slave from Fenris or Isabela, so it's not as if they approve. I think if they did, it would go against a core character trait that should remain consistent unless there is heavy plot justification for a change of mind. Also, I agree that Fenris should show a stronger reaction. I think his writers put too much emphasis on the anti-mage stance rather than the anti-slavery one there should have been.

This example shows that if characters are as simplistic as DA2 characters tend to be, it becomes rather difficult to play up variations. Leliana and Alistair were much more complex so both their variants come across as natural.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The acceptable course of action would be to pay her of course. If I recall correctly, you lose quite a lot of approval if you keep her as a slave from Fenris or Isabela, so it's not as if they approve. I think if they did, it would go against a core character trait that should remain consistent unless there is heavy plot justification for a change of mind. Also, I agree that Fenris should show a stronger reaction. I think his writers put too much emphasis on the anti-mage stance rather than the anti-slavery one there should have been.

This example shows that if characters are as simplistic as DA2 characters tend to be, it becomes rather difficult to play up variations. Leliana and Alistair were much more complex so both their variants come across as natural.

*you being general you

It's not the only acceptable course of action though. She could face far worse fates than being a well fed and kept servant in Hawke's household. Hawke does not abuse her as you can't.

And yeah I can see them not approving of you not making her a servant (That said I actually don't think Isabela approves of you helping her *period*). You don't lose approval you gain 15 rivalry (the exact same amount you get for just being a mage.)

As for simplisty *shrugs* DAO characters had limits as well (Where Alistair goes along with killing Leliana and Wynne. Sure I can justify that as going along with the Warden for the greater good but you can use a similar justification (Fenris needing Hawke's help for Danarius) as him going along.

Though yeah more variation would've been nice.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 juillet 2013 - 02:31 .

[Plaintiff]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

It's a bit like having a conversation and the question is: Do you prefer cats or dogs?

''DOGS? Me too, love them hairy little fellows, always ready to play''

''CATS? OMG me too, I had a cat when I was little, they are soo much better than dogs.''

I simply hate it when NPCs change their entire personality based on what the player likes. It turns your party into a big circus filled with yes-men and women whose only goal is the please the Hero. This goes beyond them just opening their legs because you spammed them a bunch of gifts. I'm supposed to react to the world, the world is not supposed to tailor itself to me.

You can love dogs and still love or even prefer cats. Plenty of people do. That's not inconsistency.

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

TK514 wrote...

When I think character consistency, I think of scenarios like Leliana and Wynn objecting to the Warden tainting the Ashes, or Sebastian leaving should you spare the guy who just murdered Sebastian's surrogate mother figure. These actions are consistent with the characters and their beliefs and personalities.

When Fenris sticks around even if Hawke takes an elven slave, I have problems. There's no way Hawke should be able to convince Fenris or Isabella that slavery is ok.

It's actually *extremely* easy to justify that incident I'm really boggled by how people are confused. Fenris if anyone would know how vulnerable and easy to exploit that girl would be. Hawke maybe a douche (if aggressive) but he/she isn't abusive. The elf girl even as a slave would be treated far better than just wandering off on her own. Fenris himself would kill any Hawke who tried to make him a slave of course but Fenris is fully capable of taking care of himself.

Hawke's not enslaving a perfectly capable of being independant elf. He's taking in a slave girl who knows nothing else who's extremely vulnerable and codependant and giving her a place to sleep, food to eat and has her act like a servant for all intents and purposes (without pay mind).

As Merill said a lone elf is easy prey for anyone.

Well it's worth noting that Fenris doesn't exactly stick his neck out to stop slavery. Being confronted directly by slavers is one of his beserk buttons, but he's not exactly Batman. By all accounts he spends most of his time sulking in his mansion.

It's very believable to me that he would be pissed about Hawke taking Orana as a slave, but not enough to do anything about it.

[nightscrawl]

Ryzaki wrote...

Hawke's not enslaving a perfectly capable of being independant elf. He's taking in a slave girl who knows nothing else who's extremely vulnerable and codependant and giving her a place to sleep, food to eat and has her act like a servant for all intents and purposes (without pay mind).

Are you really using the argument that slavery is OK because said slave can't take care of herself? As in "slavery is good for the slaves because they wouldn't know what to do if they were free" kind of garbage? Do you understand that that is the kind of logic that was actually used during slavery?

I get how you can feel that way about Orana specifically, especially given Fenris's remarks if you just let her go. But you know what would be really helpful? If you paid her to be your servant. That way you are still helping her, and not owning a slave. It's not like Hawke can't afford it. It was common, and still is for some people, to have hired help that lives on the premises; in DA2 specifically Bodahn and Sandal live there also. So really, if Orana is going to be treated the same way whether she is a paid servant or an owned slave, why not just pay her and take the moral high ground?

Plaintiff wrote...

It's very believable to me that he would be pissed about Hawke taking Orana as a slave, but not enough to do anything about it.

I think that part of the reason here is also that Fenris feels he owes Hawke, in addition to all of his other issues.

[Ryzaki]

nightscrawl wrote...
Are you really using the argument that slavery is OK because said slave can't take care of herself? As in "slavery is good for the slaves because they wouldn't know what to do if they were free" kind of garbage? Do you understand that that is the kind of logic that was actually used during slavery?

I get how you can feel that way about Orana specifically, especially given Fenris's remarks if you just let her go. But you know what would be really helpful? If you paid her to be your servant. That way you are still helping her, and not owning a slave. It's not like Hawke can't afford it. It was common, and still is for some people, to have hired help that lives on the premises; in DA2 specifically Bodahn and Sandal live there also. So really, if Orana is going to be treated the same way whether she is a paid servant or an owned slave, why not just pay her and take the moral high ground?

First off it's a video game. Second off Orana is a sole invidiual who really can not take care of herself. Hawke's not suddenly breeding slaves and encouraging a racist culture by that one action with one invidiual who'll probably end up dead if left to her own devices. I mean...she doesn't even go outside after a year if you take her in as a servant. (That said I wonder if she was still in the Chantry if you had her go there when Janders did his lightshow. Lulz).

Yeah and the situation I'm discussion has Hawke *not* do that. And frankly some people don't care about the moral high ground. This discussion was about a Hawke that choose to make her a slave who probably wouldn't give 2 damns about any moral highground. Especially given the only person in Hawke's crew who would have any moral highground to look down their nose at him/her would probably be Bethany. As for paying her it's extra money Hawke's losing. Maybe he/she doesn't wanna lose the extra money *shrugs*.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 juillet 2013 - 03:01 .

[The Uncanny]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Because a good character is one with a strong, well-defined nature.

I think you need to be careful with statements like this.

For a start, how do you define a 'good' character? I think (I hope) that we're capable of appreciating that fictional contrivance is not the same thing as lived experience. But for all that theoretical complexity, the average person is about as interesting as a pair of shoes. The tedious and unthinking call for 'realism' is inherently self-defeating because it is never what people actually mean. Even the most grungy, kitchen sink of dramas is inherently hyperreal. An accurate mirror of lived experience would be excruciating.

The thing is that bad characters can have strong, well-defined natures. A strong, well-defined nature does not mean they will therefore be blessed with verisimilitude, have crackling dialogue or even be very interesting. A character with a strong, well-defined nature can be as dull as paint and twice as forgettable. Which, if that is what you're aiming for, is great. Only... not great.

And good characters can lack strong, well-defined natures. Some of them are good characters precisely because of this. Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov is such a fascinating, compelling character because he is erratic, unpredictable and an inherently untrustworthy protagonist. Do I 'know' Raskolnikov by the end of the novel? No, I would argue that I don't. Does that matter? No, and in many ways that is even the point.

'Consistency' sounds such a simple thing to hang your hat on, but in truth it is overrated. I'm not consistent from one minute to the next (granted, I'm a bad example) and the most consistent feature of people taken on masse is inconsistency. For me, change invites repercussion which invites change. The woman who behaves the same at a tea party as she does when fleeing an errupting volcano is in some form of denial. Whether that be due to lava or tea I leave up to you.