227 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

BasilKarlo wrote...
Feel free to throw out some of those applicable characters that mattered to the endgame or that you think will matter to the gameworld going forward.

Why? You'll just ignore it.

Because the game and promotional materials said he did?

They said he rises to power and becomes important. They didn't say how or why or anything else at all.

[StElmo]

Angrywolves wrote...

As usual I disagree with Entropic.
No one likes failure and most people don't relate well to a hero that fails.
Hawke failed because Gaider, in some sort of Greek or Shakespearean moment, must have thought it would be neat to have a hero that failed despite his/ her best efforts.
This however isn't Othello, this is Dragon Age rpg, or at least that's what the fans thought when they bought.
If you're really a Lightning fan, ask yourself how Lightning would have felt about failing.

I'm not entropic, but I actually prefer tragic tales over heroic ones, they resonate with me far more. I hope Lightning Returns has a tragic ending, that would be amazing.

Modifié par StElmo, 24 septembre 2013 - 07:51 .

[Hiemoth]

BasilKarlo wrote...

None of the people whose lives Hawke can save or end are important. Not to the endgame of DA][ and I can't imagine them being important to the gameworld in the future.
And I don't think something as important as the spark of all out war between the Chantry and the mages should have been shoehorned into a "personal" story like DA][. It was hamfisted and only served to give Hawke grandiosity despite doing NOTHING to earn it.

You do realize that by your logic, any decision in Redcliffe Village in DAO is meaningless, as any lives saved or sacrificed there do not affect the endgame of DAO nor are they seemingly important for the future of Thedas? Personally I do not judge the value of the choice based on how important the person impacted is for the future of the gameworld or the end game, so obviously this is something we cannot agree upon.

Secondly, the whole point of DA2 was that Hawke got caught in the middle of those events. As for earning the right, Hawke did earn the money for Deep Road expedition, could possibly earn the respect of the Arishok and was crucial in defeating the invading Qunari and saving Kirkwall. That does seem like a lot of earning. On a similar note, I might ask what did you feel the Warden did to earn being saved from Ostagar and being appointed as the savior of Ferelden?

BasilKarlo wrote...
Does Ostagar ring any bells? How about failing to kill Flemeth?

Ostagar I might give you, although I did not feel it was really any kind of failure on the Warden's part. It was a betrayal, true, and a loss, yet it involved almost nothing personal concerning the Warden. S/he had not met almost any of the other Warden's, I did not feel it challenged him/her on an idealogical level nor was the action in any way related to anything s/he had done. Because of that I do not consider the hardship similar to those presented in DA2, but that is of course a personal opinion.

I, however, do not really understand the point about Flemeth. How did the Warden fail to kill Flemeth? And how was that a personal failure from which to rise from? The Warden can reject Morrigan's proposal to kill Flemeth and be unaffected by it. S/he can make a deal with Flemeth and be unaffected by it. Or s/he can kill Flemeth and be unaffected by the decision. And if the last choice is made, the Warden is unaware about Flemeths backup plan and, even then, is unaffected by it. Thus I do no see how that can be seen as a hardship or something endured.

[crimzontearz]

People should stop bringing bloodlines up

That game, while valid in storytelling, made me want to cleanse it with fire (as a huge fan of WOD)

Modifié par crimzontearz, 24 septembre 2013 - 03:34 .

[Monochrome Wench]

To me DA2 did things right, and things wrong. Putting the protagonist into situations they can't win can be interesting, if handled well. Handling it well I'd see is giving the player the ability to do stuff to lessen the impact of how badly things are going to go. Not handling it well would be springing an unavoidable situation on you that you just can't "win" and can't impact on at all. DA2 did that second one a few too many times and made me get extremely disillusioned.

I do like the idea of seeing another game like DA2 set in a single location over a period of time. Would definitely want a significantly more expanded city compared to Kirkwall though. Extremely uncommon to have detailed cities in a fantasy game that you can explore. Would be great. Lots of roleplay opportunity.

[Silfren]

Angrywolves wrote...

As usual I disagree with Entropic.
No one likes failure and most people don't relate well to a hero that fails.
Hawke failed because Gaider, in some sort of Greek or Shakespearean moment, must have thought it would be neat to have a hero that failed despite his/ her best efforts.
This however isn't Othello, this is Dragon Age rpg, or at least that's what the fans thought when they bought.
If you're really a Lightning fan, ask yourself how Lightning would have felt about failing.

You got a source on this idea that most people don't relate to heroes that fail?  Or a source on the implied idea that there weren't significant numbers of people who liked Hawke's story specifically because it was NOT a Hero Saves The Day tale? Don't try to tell me those people don't exist or are numerically insignificant. 

I think that's a crock, actually.  MOST of us relate VERY well to heroes who fail.  We may enjoy reading about heros who always win, but that's not the same thing at all.  

ETA: Fixed to eliminate confusion as to who I was addressing.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 septembre 2013 - 04:36 .

[Taleroth]

Hiemoth wrote...

That quote is the reason I understood you talking about naval-gazing, as you even specify about Hawke never stopping to think what is happening or why it is happening.

I didn't say Hawke never stops, I said the world would fall apart if he did. I was saying that Dragon Age 2's plot breaks down should one think about it, whether that be you or Hawke.

Dragon Age Origins isn't quite as flawed. If you think about why the blight must be defeated, it's pretty obvious. If you think about Dragon Age 2, then you realize half the reason the Qunari even become a problem is because Sister Petrice had the magic invincibility of cutscenes.

Dragon Age 2 runs on stupid.

The dumbest critical element of Dragon Age: Origins is Loghain's motivation for Ostagar. But that works out fine because you're never in a position to stop him. It's not like you get locked into a room where it's just you and him after you find out he's a raving nutter. But Dragon Age 2 does this multiple times!

Modifié par Taleroth, 24 septembre 2013 - 04:27 .

[StElmo]

Silfren wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

As usual I disagree with Entropic.
No one likes failure and most people don't relate well to a hero that fails.
Hawke failed because Gaider, in some sort of Greek or Shakespearean moment, must have thought it would be neat to have a hero that failed despite his/ her best efforts.
This however isn't Othello, this is Dragon Age rpg, or at least that's what the fans thought when they bought.
If you're really a Lightning fan, ask yourself how Lightning would have felt about failing.

I'm not entropic, but I actually prefer tragic tales over heroic ones, they resonate with me far more. I hope Lightning Returns has a tragic ending, that would be amazing.

You got a source on this idea that most people don't relate to heroes that fail?  Or a source on the implied idea that there weren't significant numbers of people who liked Hawke's story specifically because it was NOT a Hero Saves The Day tale? Don't try to tell me those people don't exist or are numerically insignificant. 

I think that's a crock, actually.  MOST of us relate VERY well to heroes who fail.  We may enjoy reading about heros who always win, but that's not the same thing at all.  

When did I say most people don't relate to heroes that fail? I was talking about my own opinion, thankyou very much. No need to react agressively to someone expressing their opinion.

[Silfren]

StElmo wrote...

Silfren wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

As usual I disagree with Entropic.
No one likes failure and most people don't relate well to a hero that fails.
Hawke failed because Gaider, in some sort of Greek or Shakespearean moment, must have thought it would be neat to have a hero that failed despite his/ her best efforts.
This however isn't Othello, this is Dragon Age rpg, or at least that's what the fans thought when they bought.
If you're really a Lightning fan, ask yourself how Lightning would have felt about failing.

I'm not entropic, but I actually prefer tragic tales over heroic ones, they resonate with me far more. I hope Lightning Returns has a tragic ending, that would be amazing.

You got a source on this idea that most people don't relate to heroes that fail?  Or a source on the implied idea that there weren't significant numbers of people who liked Hawke's story specifically because it was NOT a Hero Saves The Day tale? Don't try to tell me those people don't exist or are numerically insignificant. 

I think that's a crock, actually.  MOST of us relate VERY well to heroes who fail.  We may enjoy reading about heros who always win, but that's not the same thing at all.  

When did I say most people don't relate to heroes that fail? I was talking about my own opinion, thankyou very much. No need to react agressively to someone expressing their opinion.

I can see that I borked the quote, which I've now fixed, but if you bother reading up, you'll see clearly who I was responding to, and it wasn't you.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 septembre 2013 - 04:37 .

[Wulfram]

Stories where the hero fails are one thing, games where they always fail are another. For me, anyway.

Partly because, hey look, I completed the game and thus won. I want to be rewarded for that, not left with the feeling that everything would be better if that Ogre had killed my character in the prologue. Partly because a story about a tragic failure only really interests me if the failure arises from the flaws of the hero, not if it's just a case of them not really having a chance. Or if the failure is setting up the stirring comeback later of course - I was more forgiving of DA2 when I thought it was setting up an expansion pack or sequel with Hawke as lead, because the game could serve quite well as a very extended backstory.

[Taleroth]

Wulfram wrote...

Stories where the hero fails are one thing, games where they always fail are another. For me, anyway.

A good tragic story to me is one where the hero's particular flaw is what leads to their downfall. I'm classic like that.

A "tragic" story where the hero fails just because the world is a terrible place and he's stuck in it is something I would have written when I was a teenager. So I'm comfortable calling it juvenile.

The former isn't very good to do with RPGs, forcing flaws on the player character. I make exception for things like Jade Empire, where the player is then given a chance to turn around and overcome their flaw. But making the flaw persistant and unbeatable is a type of fiat that I find inappropriate for RPGs.

[In Exile]

It's interesting that people see Hawke as failing. I think that says a lot about the kinds of goals that players want out of video games, and that Bioware didn't really think about the game in the correct terms.

[Silfren]

Taleroth wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Stories where the hero fails are one thing, games where they always fail are another. For me, anyway.

A good tragic story to me is one where the hero's particular flaw is what leads to their downfall. I'm classic like that.

A "tragic" story where the hero fails just because the world is a terrible place and he's stuck in it is something I would have written when I was a teenager. So I'm comfortable calling it juvenile.

The former isn't very good to do with RPGs, forcing flaws on the player character. I make exception for things like Jade Empire, where the player is then given a chance to turn around and overcome their flaw. But making the flaw persistant and unbeatable is a type of fiat that I find inappropriate for RPGs.

I'm good with stories where the failure comes from a person's flaws.  But I'm also good with stories where things simply don't work out despite the hero's best efforts.  Granted, those stories can suck if they are not written well, but they are not inherently juvenile, no.  But summing them up as "the world just sucks" is shortsighted.  Tragic story isn't a choice between a Good/Hero's Flaws option and a Bad/It's an Emo World one.  

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

It's interesting that people see Hawke as failing. I think that says a lot about the kinds of goals that players want out of video games, and that Bioware didn't really think about the game in the correct terms.

I think it's possible we'd have seen a different response if there had been adequate time to tell Hawke's story properly....and no, not because then it would have been totally different and Hawke's choices would've matter.  I think the same narrative could have worked very well with sufficient time to fully develop it.

Marketing it the way they did is, in my view, the most damning thing about it.  I'd have not hated DA2 initially so much as I did had I not been expecting something else entirely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It's interesting that people see Hawke as failing. I think that says a lot about the kinds of goals that players want out of video games, and that Bioware didn't really think about the game in the correct terms.

Let's look at DAO for a moment.

With my first Warden, his only real objective in the game was to survive and overcome having been through the Joining.  He didn't accept the death sentence that was the taint, and sought only to escape it.  Had he died killing the archdemon, he would have viewed that as a failure.  As it was, he had a small victory through the Dark Ritual, and was given some hope for an eventual victory through meeting Avernus and seeing his research, but his ultimate goal was left unfinished within the core game.

Those are the sorts of goals I would like in these games.  And I don't need even to be able to achieve them, but I do need to be able to pursue them.

[Hiemoth]

Taleroth wrote...

Hiemoth wrote...

That quote is the reason I understood you talking about naval-gazing, as you even specify about Hawke never stopping to think what is happening or why it is happening.

I didn't say Hawke never stops, I said the world would fall apart if he did. I was saying that Dragon Age 2's plot breaks down should one think about it, whether that be you or Hawke.

Dragon Age Origins isn't quite as flawed. If you think about why the blight must be defeated, it's pretty obvious. If you think about Dragon Age 2, then you realize half the reason the Qunari even become a problem is because Sister Petrice had the magic invincibility of cutscenes.

Dragon Age 2 runs on stupid.

The dumbest critical element of Dragon Age: Origins is Loghain's motivation for Ostagar. But that works out fine because you're never in a position to stop him. It's not like you get locked into a room where it's just you and him after you find out he's a raving nutter. But Dragon Age 2 does this multiple times!

Obviously I disagree with you about DA2 plot breaking down if you stop to think about it.

Actually I think it is in many ways coherent and Hawke can very clear show of understanding Petrice's role in events or that Meredith is going too far. However, the problem isn't those magical cutscene protections, but rather that they are public figures that act within their bounds or cover their traces well. So what if you are in a room alone with Petrice, how does killing her solve anything? Do you feel the city guard or Chantry would at that point just nod that indeed did happen. The only point where Petrice was dealt with was when she stepped too far in the provocation. Even moreso with Meredith. She is the Knight-Commander, it isn't as if Hawke can just kill her, dust of his/her hands and just walk away smiling without any kind of reaction from the major Templar force in the city.

I thought DA2 was a game with many problems and enemies that couldn't be defeated just by killing stuff, despite the common, and at times justified, criticism that every quest in DA2 involved combat. That is a large part why I enjoy the game as much as I do.

[Hiemoth]

In Exile wrote...

It's interesting that people see Hawke as failing. I think that says a lot about the kinds of goals that players want out of video games, and that Bioware didn't really think about the game in the correct terms.

I agree that it is interesting, but I do not necessarily agree that Bioware didn't think of the game in correct terms. They probably realized they were taking a risk and hoped that players would appreciate it, not to mention that it is hard to truly gauge how many players felt that Hawke failed from vocal complaints in the forums. Not that I am dismissing that there is a number of players who felt that way.

 I would not, however, limit this challenge to Bioware. I was just recently thinking about how much the stories in games have changed over the last four, five years and how there is much more narrative ambitions in games these days. Tragedy and loss is an important part in those narratives and so has been much more prominent in game events than before. Just following overall discussion on other games I kind of feel, and admit this to be purely a feeling, that there is at the moment some backlash from fans who just want games that end with everything succeeding and ending well. There is nothing wrong with that, and I think that there will always a place for games like that, but at the same time narrative games seem to be pushing for more ambitious stories.

Silfren wrote...

I think it's possible we'd have seen a different response if there had been adequate time to tell Hawke's story properly....and no, not because then it would have been totally different and Hawke's choices would've matter.  I think the same narrative could have worked very well with sufficient time to fully develop it.

Marketing it the way they did is, in my view, the most damning thing about it.  I'd have not hated DA2 initially so much as I did had I not been expecting something else entirely.

 I agree with you on both viewpoints, although I did not hate DA2 even initially. I do, however, admit that during marketing they made promises that were not delivered. Those promises were within the scope of what Bioware tried to do with DA2, but obviously they did not have the time to either properly or at all implement them in the game.

 And I am in complete agreement over extended development time. Especially the third chapter suffered from the rushing and did not have the proper framework to build the tension between Orsino's and Meredith's sides, as well as those caught in between. It would have also allowed them to create those alternative dungeons, or at least some of them, and have the player choices impact Kirkwall more in a visible way. I still love DA2, probably always will, but in this case I do hope they would have had that extra time to flesh it out more, as I often think while following these kinds of discussions that people don't properly credit how insanly ambitious DA2 was and how much it did achieve despite it's flaws.

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It's interesting that people see Hawke as failing. I think that says a lot about the kinds of goals that players want out of video games, and that Bioware didn't really think about the game in the correct terms.

It IS very interesting.

I think I have to agree with Plaintiff here (something must be wrong): the things that you would argue Hawke "failed" at were typically things out of his control. Like the Qunari, or Meredith/Orsino.

Well, let's look at the main quests in Act 2 and 3.  Act 1 is better, though if you're going to the Deep Roads to get the money to protect Bethany it ends in utter failure one way or another.  Assuming a Hawke who doesn't side with Petrice, and is fairly pro-mage but not Anders radical.

Blackpowder Courtesy:  Failed.  Poison gas kills loads of people
Offered and Lost:  Failed.  The emissaries are dead
Following the Qun:  Failed.  Saemus dies
To Catch a Thief:  Failed.  The book is lost
Demands of the Qun:  Success, but massive casualties.  But it's only necessary because you failed at all your previous tasks

Prime Suspect:  Complicated.  Mostly just sets things up for All That Remains
All That Remains:  Failed.  Dead Mum.

On The Loose needs to be broken down
Huon:  Failed, he kills his wife despite your promise to protect her
Eveline:  Meh.  She dies, but you stop her hurting other people, call it a draw.
Emile: Success!  Variety of outcomes, but whatever it is it's presumably about the best solution your Hawke thinks possible.

Best Served Cold:  Failed.  You're supposed to go unobtrusively observe the mages, instead you march up, kill a bunch of them, then kill some more, then let crazy mage lady kill the only sane templar, and everyone's locked up by the Templars

Last Straw.  Failed.  The Annullment is completed successfully.  OK there's a line in there from Varric about many mages surviving, but it's hard to see how, or indeed how this is supposed to be connected to your actions if it is true - most of the mages get themselves slaughtered before you even seem to engage the templars, the ones you are protecting all spontaneously die so Orsino can go nuts.

Oh, and if you're really just after fortune and glory, well you end up a refugee again basically.

Modifié par Wulfram, 24 septembre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Steppenwolf]

Plaintiff wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
Feel free to throw out some of those applicable characters that mattered to the endgame or that you think will matter to the gameworld going forward.

Why? You'll just ignore it.

Translation: You can't think of any.

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the game and promotional materials said he did?

They said he rises to power and becomes important. They didn't say how or why or anything else at all.

Hawke wasn't important in the end. What Hawke became known to the world for was a lie. Anders was the important one, not Hawke. You can easily argue that Hawke was important to Kirkwall, but that's not how the games was framed. The entire game/narrative is framed by the notion that Hawke changed the world.

[Taleroth]

Hiemoth wrote...

However, the problem isn't those magical cutscene protections, but rather that they are public figures that act within their bounds or cover their traces well. 

No, it's exactly with magical cutscene protection. Hawke is given the option to threaten Petrice right then and there and usually has no qualms about ending people who try to kill him.

Petrice even agrees that Hawke could kill her! She says "I'm sure you would if given the chance, but I'm not going to" or something very close. And her idea of "not going to" is... casually walking right past Hawke to a door that was behind him while they were otherwise in a tiny shed, arm's reach from one another.

That is most certainly not some situation of Hawke considering the legal implications of killing the Sister. He's can be a blasted apostate in Kirkwall. While she is a Sister on a secret mission NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT, let alone knows where she is.

Modifié par Taleroth, 24 septembre 2013 - 10:05 .

[thats1evildude]

My Hawke got fabulously rich, landed a pretty girlfriend, saved a major city at least twice and lived to tell the tale.

I wish I could "fail" like that in real life. 

Modifié par thats1evildude, 24 septembre 2013 - 10:14 .

[ianvillan]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
Feel free to throw out some of those applicable characters that mattered to the endgame or that you think will matter to the gameworld going forward.

Why? You'll just ignore it.

Translation: You can't think of any.

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the game and promotional materials said he did?

They said he rises to power and becomes important. They didn't say how or why or anything else at all.

Hawke wasn't important in the end. What Hawke became known to the world for was a lie. Anders was the important one, not Hawke. You can easily argue that Hawke was important to Kirkwall, but that's not how the games was framed. The entire game/narrative is framed by the notion that Hawke changed the world.

I would say that Hawke succeeded in many areas, Hawke found the Idol which made Meredith go even more crazy and led to the mage/Templar war. Hawke succeeded in defeating the Tevinter magister that had been locked away for centuries and helped him get free. Hawke succeeded in finding a list of Qunari spies in Thedas and returning it to the Qunari. Hawke succeeded in bringing Flemeth back to life so she can do what ever it is she does. 

So Hawke did change the world most of it was for the worst because of stupidity or incompetence but Hawke did change the world. 

Modifié par ianvillan, 24 septembre 2013 - 10:13 .