111 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

My main concerns are actually technical. If they appear physically. Not only do I use mods for appearances (like hairs and such), but rather than play through ALL of DAO and DAA again, if I wanted to see what happens in DAII if X was done and Y was killed etc, I'd use Gibbed to make an importable save. The save has no head morph data, obviously.

If there was a physical appearance, they'd have to cover them up fully with armor and equipment, since many games couldn't import morph data. (And I don't think morph data is even imported, since Gibbed saves still quality for DAII.)

[maliluka]

Like some people I use mods so how my Hawke and or Warden appear in DAI would interest me greatly. Yes the easiest way to import them of course would just use helmets to cover their faces ( which I worked so hard on). Wanting to know what happened to them concerns me a lot more than wanting to have control of them for a short amount of time (ie.. my noble who became queen, you would think she was doing "Queenly" things instead of poof be gone)

[Spectre slayer]

They have not ruled them physically showing up in the game but as a few people mentioned they will be NPC'S who and I quote" Have control over their appearance and nothing more than that."

The thing most of you don't seem to understand is that the warden and hawke are NOT ours anymore since once the content for the games stops they get taken completely out of our hands, also they need to resolve the plot hole they created in DA2 since EVERY warden, and hawk has disappeared without exception regardless of them being a consort or viacount.

Though how they decide to handle them or how well or badly they are used does concern me but there's next to nothing we can do about it sorry.

[Beerfish]

I would be shocked if they returned in physical form. I would guess we will hear about what they have done or what happened to them.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So yeah, I'm just as worried as jtav. I want the Warden and Hawke to appear in a manner that befits how I played them, but I'll see them gone forever rather than derailed. Above all, I don't want them to be simplistic. For instance, the mage/templar conflict is not simple and has no simple solutions, and most of my protagonists would recognize that. I fear the likes of "The Citadel? The fight's here."

To be fair, ME3's prologue had vastly inferior writing to the rest of the game, to an almost breathtaking extent.

I'm not terribly worried about Hawke, because assuming the appearance is short enough, I don't think that they can do that much damage to the portrayal.

It only takes one "The Citadel? The fight's here" or "I'm glad you did the right thing." (diplomatic Hawke to Isabela after she comes back with the Tome of Koslun), but admittedly both DA games consistently respect the player's connection to the protagonist more than ME ever did, even before ME3. I don't think DAI's writers will intentionally do something detrimental to any particular player's Hawkes and Wardens. I'm more worried about accidents resulting from "associative dissonance", the fact that the writer may implicitly associate certain things with a phrase, while the player associates something else, as was likely the reason for the DA2 quote above.

What's wrong with "I'm glad you did the right thing?" Isn't that an option you can choose?

No, the paraphrase is "I'm glad you're back." Which is, apparently in the eyes of some writer, essentially the same as "I'm glad you did the right thing."  Of course, if you're Malien or Darian Hawke (my main Hawkes), you're glad she's back for very different reasons and you don't care at all about the morality of giving an extremist religion their holy book back, except that you think it'd be better in the hands of Tevinter.

It's exactly this kind of associative dissonance I'm afraid of when it comes to Hawke returning, especially since people like me, who tend to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to ethics, are always its first victims.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 octobre 2013 - 02:26 .

[Xilizhra]

No, the paraphrase is "I'm glad you're back." Which is, apparently in the eyes of some writer, essentially the same as "I'm glad you did the right thing." Of course, if you're Malien or Darian Hawke (my main Hawkes), you're glad she's back for very different reasons and you don't care at all about the morality of giving an extremist religion their holy book back, except that you think it'd be better in the hands of Tevinter.

The "right thing" is just trying to stop the war, it has nothing to do with what's good for the qunari.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
No, the paraphrase is "I'm glad you're back." Which is, apparently in the eyes of some writer, essentially the same as "I'm glad you did the right thing."  

But it's more than that. By that point in DA2, I think it's plainly obvious that the diplomatic personality has a certain morality attached to it (lawful good boyscout). 

t's exactly this kind of associative dissonance I'm afraid of when it comes to Hawke returning, especially since people like me, who tend to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to ethics, are always its first victims.

But the game does tell you what ethical value attaches to what dialogue option. The little leaf or stem or whatever option is the "good guy:" option, which is different from the polite option which is that weird blue thing. 

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, the paraphrase is "I'm glad you're back." Which is, apparently in the eyes of some writer, essentially the same as "I'm glad you did the right thing." Of course, if you're Malien or Darian Hawke (my main Hawkes), you're glad she's back for very different reasons and you don't care at all about the morality of giving an extremist religion their holy book back, except that you think it'd be better in the hands of Tevinter.

The "right thing" is just trying to stop the war, it has nothing to do with what's good for the qunari.

What the writer meant by it is irrelevant. The important point is that it's most emphatically not essentially the same as "I'm glad you're back", that I didn't want to make a statement about morality at all and ever since avoid this option like the plague when I replay these Hawkes. Assuming that the spoken line was written first, the writer who wrote the paraphrase either failed to put the moral angle into the paraphrase or - that would be worse - assumed it's obvious. 

So...what happens when a writer for DAI makes that kind of assumption about the motivations of a Hawke who chose the diplomatic option at that encounter in DA2?

[Barquiel]

Ryzaki wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I am just worried that they will end like the Jedi Exile...

I'm more worried they'll end up like Revan.

I rather they just be dead than come back completely bonkers.

Being killed over and over by poorly dressed mid-level MMO raiders is definitely not a great fate either. But I always liked the Exile as a character more than Revan...I guess that's why her fate bothered me the most.

I suppose we should be glad there is no Dragon Age MMO

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
No, the paraphrase is "I'm glad you're back." Which is, apparently in the eyes of some writer, essentially the same as "I'm glad you did the right thing."  

But it's more than that. By that point in DA2, I think it's plainly obvious that the diplomatic personality has a certain morality attached to it (lawful good boyscout).

That's not the point. The paraphrase is drastically misleading. Also, no, that's not at all obvious for players who rarely choose the diplomatic option and just wanted to say something appreciative about Isabela's return.

t's exactly this kind of associative dissonance I'm afraid of when it comes to Hawke returning, especially since people like me, who tend to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to ethics, are always its first victims.

But the game does tell you what ethical value attaches to what dialogue option. The little leaf or stem or whatever option is the "good guy:" option, which is different from the polite option which is that weird blue thing. 

The leaf is the conciliatory option, which is actually part of what I wanted to say. "No hard feelings". Heavy-handed moralizing is not implied, even more so since it's condescending and not at all conducive to a friendly encounter. As I said, associating things with different meanings with each other just because they often appear together can result in heavy dissonances.

[StElmo]

I'm not worried. I never consider myself "the" character when playing a character, I see myself as a kind of existential being, experiencing their story by proxy - thats not to say I hate choice, I LOVE choice, but I don't have a problem with losing control after "my part" in the story has been played.

Also, I doubt DA:I would forget the actions/therefore personality done in previous games for your hawke or warden. If it happens, it will be mostly a logical progression of your choices from the previous games (with DA:Keep that is)

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That's not the point. The paraphrase is drastically misleading. Also, no, that's not at all obvious for players who rarely choose the diplomatic option and just wanted to say something appreciative about Isabela's return.  

The paraphrase is misleading. I'm not saying otherwise. 

What I am saying is that if you've used the option before, you (as the player) would have a clear idea of what moral theory is tied to it. You can certainly complain it didn't tell you what words would be said properly - that's exactly right. But if you've used it before it told you exactly what moral theory accompanied it. 

If you rarely chose the option, then yes, you'd have no way of knowing what moral theory was tied to it and that's a problem. It's a failing in the system which was never designed with the idea of telling you what moral theory was behind the dialogue, or indeed, that you would get to pick dialogue based on moral theories at all.

The leaf is the conciliatory option, which is actually part of what I wanted to say.  

The leaf isn't concialotory. It's often submissive, but it's just as often the "let's save everyone and hug puppies!" dialogue line.

"No hard feelings". Heavy-handed moralizing is not implied, even more so since it's condescending and not at all conducive to a friendly encounter. As I said, associating things with different meanings with each other just because they often appear together can result in heavy dissonances. 

Heavy-handed moralizing is, however, exactly what that personality is about, which you see if you pick it consistently. You're entirely right that you have no way of knowing that if you don't pick it. The game fails here. 

I'm just pointing out the way you pick dialogue isn't workable in DA2 because the dialogue system just plain isn't designed with that approach in mind.

[Ieldra]

StElmo wrote...
I'm not worried. I never consider myself "the" character when playing a character, I see myself as a kind of existential being, experiencing their story by proxy - thats not to say I hate choice, I LOVE choice, but I don't have a problem with losing control after "my part" in the story has been played.

Also, I doubt DA:I would forget the actions/therefore personality done in previous games for your hawke or warden. If it happens, it will be mostly a logical progression of your choices from the previous games (with DA:Keep that is)

Is it  a logical conclusion that you're pro-mage if you sided with Orsino in DA2? I think not. My pro-Templar Hawke refused to side with Meredith because of the fundamental injustice of the Annulment, killing innocent mages in the circle, where no "abomination events" had occurred and where Anders' attack most notably did not originate.

[StElmo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

StElmo wrote...
I'm not worried. I never consider myself "the" character when playing a character, I see myself as a kind of existential being, experiencing their story by proxy - thats not to say I hate choice, I LOVE choice, but I don't have a problem with losing control after "my part" in the story has been played.

Also, I doubt DA:I would forget the actions/therefore personality done in previous games for your hawke or warden. If it happens, it will be mostly a logical progression of your choices from the previous games (with DA:Keep that is)

Is it  a logical conclusion that you're pro-mage if you sided with Orsino in DA2? I think not. My pro-Templar Hawke refused to side with Meredith because of the fundamental injustice of the Annulment, killing innocent mages in the circle, where no "abomination events" had occurred and where Anders' attack most notably did not originate.

I'm confused? is half of that RP on your part or does that happen in game?

[Ieldra]

@In Exile:
I don't think it's a failing of the dialogue system. It's a failing of the paraphrase writer. You see, this problem could've been avoided if the paraphrase told me I'm going to say something pertaining to morality. Surely that's not too much to expect from a system designed to give me "the gist of it". Now if DAI's writers recognize this as a problem, there is some hope that it won't happen again, but if they're writing on the implied assumption that the connection is obvious, then we're going to see lines by NPCs created from hidden assumptions, and that could adversely affect how our Hawkes appear in DAI.

[Legbiter]

They'll be mentioned, that's it.

[Ieldra]

StElmo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

StElmo wrote...
I'm not worried. I never consider myself "the" character when playing a character, I see myself as a kind of existential being, experiencing their story by proxy - thats not to say I hate choice, I LOVE choice, but I don't have a problem with losing control after "my part" in the story has been played.

Also, I doubt DA:I would forget the actions/therefore personality done in previous games for your hawke or warden. If it happens, it will be mostly a logical progression of your choices from the previous games (with DA:Keep that is)

Is it  a logical conclusion that you're pro-mage if you sided with Orsino in DA2? I think not. My pro-Templar Hawke refused to side with Meredith because of the fundamental injustice of the Annulment, killing innocent mages in the circle, where no "abomination events" had occurred and where Anders' attack most notably did not originate.

I'm confused? is half of that RP on your part or does that happen in game?

Er...what? Meredith calls for the Annulment of the Circle. That happens in the game. You can go along with it or you can choose to defend the mages, right? Now imagine you're a Hawke who sees merit in the circle system and thinks along Cullen's lines, but you can't support the fundamental injustice in the Annulment. You can't actually say any of that of course, but don't tell me you don't put some imagination into why your Hawke makes her decisions. I think that is a reasonable stance. So, my question: is it an inescapable logical conclusion that any sane Hawke who sides with Orsino is pro-mage, so that DAI's writers are justified in writing a Hawke who sided with Orsino as pro-mage? Well? I say no. I'm just saying that things are too complicated for any simple, apparently "logical" development of Hawke or the Warden in DAI based on earlier decisions. It's just like in ME3, if Shepard chose to abandon the Council in ME1, the asari councillor says he did that to protect human interests. Well, I don't blame her for assuming that, but I don't have an opportunity to correct her, which means the story itself (i.e. the writers) made the same wrong assumption, which results in derailment for all Shepards whose players made that decision for different reasons. That's what jtav and I fear may happen to our Hawkes or Wardens.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 octobre 2013 - 03:15 .

[StElmo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

StElmo wrote...
I'm not worried. I never consider myself "the" character when playing a character, I see myself as a kind of existential being, experiencing their story by proxy - thats not to say I hate choice, I LOVE choice, but I don't have a problem with losing control after "my part" in the story has been played.

Also, I doubt DA:I would forget the actions/therefore personality done in previous games for your hawke or warden. If it happens, it will be mostly a logical progression of your choices from the previous games (with DA:Keep that is)

Is it  a logical conclusion that you're pro-mage if you sided with Orsino in DA2? I think not. My pro-Templar Hawke refused to side with Meredith because of the fundamental injustice of the Annulment, killing innocent mages in the circle, where no "abomination events" had occurred and where Anders' attack most notably did not originate.

I'm confused? is half of that RP on your part or does that happen in game?

Er...what? Meredith calls for the Annulment of the Circle. That happens in the game. You can go along with it or you can choose to defend the mages, right? Now imagine you're a Hawke who sees merit in the circle system and thinks along Cullen's lines, but you can't support the fundamental injustice in the Annulment. You can't actually say any of that of course, but don't tell me you don't put some imagination into why your Hawke makes her decisions. I think that is a reasonable stance. So, my question: is it an inescapable logical conclusion that any sane Hawke who sides with Orsino is pro-mage, so that DAI's writers are justified in writing a Hawke who sided with Orsino as pro-mage? Well? I say no. I'm just saying that things are too complicated for any simple, apparently "logical" development of Hawke or the Warden in DAI based on earlier decisions. It's just like in ME3, if Shepard chose to abandon the Council in ME1, the asari councillor says he did that to protect human interests. Well, I don't blame her for assuming that, but I don't have an opportunity to correct her, which means the story itself (i.e. the writers) made the same wrong assumption, which results in derailment for all Shepards whose players made that decision for different reasons. That's what jtav and I fear may happen to our Hawkes or Wardens.

I wouldn't worry about it, Hawke never comes accross as pro-anything other than doing what's best for her family. So I don't think it will be an issue.

The whole point of hawke is she plays the hand she is dealt.

Modifié par StElmo, 02 octobre 2013 - 03:18 .

[Eterna]

Ryzaki wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Chari wrote...

What personalities? You mean Mr.Pacifist, Mr.Terrible-joker or Mr.SPARTA?
There are only three of them XD Much easier to translate than the variety of choices of DA:O

To be honest though, what's the problem? Neither WArden or Hawke will return in DA:I, mentioned at most. It'd take too mcuh risk and resources to import them, pick new VA for Warden etc etc etc

Pretty much this.

But even IF they appear, I bet it will be a really short cameo.

Yeah this. Hawke's pretty on rails.

Hawke is only on rails if you pick the same dialogue options in every interaction.

Pro RP tip: You don't have to pick the sarcastic option every time. 

[wright1978]

krul2k wrote...

PPL seem to be forgetting when DAO and DA2 are complete, The Warden and Hawke are no longer there's,granted the decisions they make and the results of those actions can an prob will be carried over(hence the save import) but that is it, they are NPC's now, tools to used if the story an circumstance allows for it, you had your fun of controlling them for a set period, now they are free individuals outwith your control and influence and can think an act for themselves

Sorry but any appearance should be in character & since player characterisation of them can vary so massively, having them appear & not act completely out of character with the existing prior chracterisation when they were your protaganist is  impossible.

[Chari]

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Chari wrote...

What personalities? You mean Mr.Pacifist, Mr.Terrible-joker or Mr.SPARTA?
There are only three of them XD Much easier to translate than the variety of choices of DA:O

To be honest though, what's the problem? Neither WArden or Hawke will return in DA:I, mentioned at most. It'd take too mcuh risk and resources to import them, pick new VA for Warden etc etc etc

Pretty much this.

But even IF they appear, I bet it will be a really short cameo.

Yeah this. Hawke's pretty on rails.

Hawke is only on rails if you pick the same dialogue options in every interaction.

Pro RP tip: You don't have to pick the sarcastic option every time. 

Nope, no matter what you do, eventually the personality is picked. It can be changed, but still, there are three archetypes

[Fardreamer]

Yep, the game just chooses whatever personality you based most of your selections on. If you clicked sarcastic 10 times and diplomatic 9 times, he would have a sarcastic personality. But if you then picked diplomatic 2 more times, he would change to that personality.

[Eterna]

Fardreamer wrote...

Yep, the game just chooses whatever personality you based most of your selections on. If you clicked sarcastic 10 times and diplomatic 9 times, he would have a sarcastic personality. But if you then picked diplomatic 2 more times, he would change to that personality.

The point is you don't have to be all sarcastic all the time. You can combine the different personalties depending on the situation.