301 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

KaiserShep wrote...

Ookay then...

Is that to say that I'm beating a dead horse or something? Not sure what you're getting at.

Everything you said about the ending of da2 has been said to death and most, inculding me ,agree on it.

[leaguer of one]

Gregolian wrote...

I always viewed Hawke as one of the more selfish people in all of RPGs. Look into it, the entire first act yes he may do things that help people but ultimately everything he does is to gain gold and standing to use with Bartrand to go on the expedition.

After that, yes people ask him to help solve their problems but outside of maybe some of the companion quests... is there any real reason to do them OTHER than getting gold? The guy already is now in Hightown, returned essentially to a "noble" rank among other things.

Hawke doesn't do anything unless their is a benefit to them in this game. Yes, The Warden may have been just a glorified killer but other than dealing with Howe/Loghain is there anything you do that is really for your own personal gain like Hawke does?

I don't see how's that being selfish. People normal do thing to try and get ahead. The difference is if he steps over innicence to do it.

[BlackInquisitor]

Gregolian wrote...

I always viewed Hawke as one of the more selfish people in all of RPGs. Look into it, the entire first act yes he may do things that help people but ultimately everything he does is to gain gold and standing to use with Bartrand to go on the expedition.

After that, yes people ask him to help solve their problems but outside of maybe some of the companion quests... is there any real reason to do them OTHER than getting gold? The guy already is now in Hightown, returned essentially to a "noble" rank among other things.

Hawke doesn't do anything unless their is a benefit to them in this game. Yes, The Warden may have been just a glorified killer but other than dealing with Howe/Loghain is there anything you do that is really for your own personal gain like Hawke does?

I don't really get this. He needed the gold to fund Bartrand's expedition to have a chances for a better life for his mom. Then when the second act come around people come to his help because he already got a reputation and standing. And what's wrong with acting yourself and for personal gain? At least it gives a more realistic side to the character rather than just your bland face "huh huh i'm gonna do this for everyone huh huh". 

I know RPGs are very self-fulfilling with the protagonist part but still, man....

[Gregolian]

BlackInquisitor wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

I always viewed Hawke as one of the more selfish people in all of RPGs. Look into it, the entire first act yes he may do things that help people but ultimately everything he does is to gain gold and standing to use with Bartrand to go on the expedition.

After that, yes people ask him to help solve their problems but outside of maybe some of the companion quests... is there any real reason to do them OTHER than getting gold? The guy already is now in Hightown, returned essentially to a "noble" rank among other things.

Hawke doesn't do anything unless their is a benefit to them in this game. Yes, The Warden may have been just a glorified killer but other than dealing with Howe/Loghain is there anything you do that is really for your own personal gain like Hawke does?

I don't really get this. He needed the gold to fund Bartrand's expedition to have a chances for a better life for his mom. Then when the second act come around people come to his help because he already got a reputation and standing. And what's wrong with acting yourself and for personal gain? At least it gives a more realistic side to the character rather than just your bland face "huh huh i'm gonna do this for everyone huh huh". 

I know RPGs are very self-fulfilling with the protagonist part but still, man....

I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing.

HOWEVER, for a guy that is out for themselves so much...  Hawke sure is very short sighted or tunnel visioned to the point he doesn't keep track of things going on around him.

[Teddie Sage]

Gregolian wrote...

Hawke doesn't do anything unless their is a benefit to them in this game. Yes, The Warden may have been just a glorified killer but other than dealing with Howe/Loghain is there anything you do that is really for your own personal gain like Hawke does?

So wanting a better life for you and your family is selfish? Oh okay.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 07 février 2014 - 11:52 .

[KaiserShep]

Well, in a sense, it is, but in a positive way. I like to think of the whole story as a kind of episodic adventure where sh*t suddenly escalates around it.

[Teddie Sage]

KaiserShep wrote...

Well, in a sense, it is, but in a positive way. I like to think of the whole story as a kind of episodic adventure where sh*t suddenly escalates around it.

That's more how I seen it. My Hawke was a sarcastic compassionate guy who looked after his family and his friends. He only worked his sweat and tears up there to get the money so he could protect his mother and his sister in the first act, then he spent the rest of his days in Kirkwall helping his friends and people in need. That's how I role played him and I don't see him as a selfish human being at all.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 07 février 2014 - 11:58 .

[SgtSteel91]

Teddie Sage wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Well, in a sense, it is, but in a positive way. I like to think of the whole story as a kind of episodic adventure where sh*t suddenly escalates around it.

That's more how I seen it. My Hawke was a sarcastic compassionate guy who looked after his family and his friends. He only worked his sweat and tears up there to get the money so he could protect his mother and his sister in the first act, then he spent the rest of his days in Kirkwall helping his friends and people in need. That's how I role played him and I don't see him as a selfish human being at all.

Same here. I tried to play him like Brother Nier. Trying to be a nice guy to his family and friends and tried to help them when they asked (unless you're asking him to smuggle bombs, Anders). But gets progessively more angry/burnt out as things get worse and worse until he's only staying in Kirkwall because his sister was in the Circle, then fought off all the Templars when the Cricle was Annuled.

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome wrote...
What I'm trying to say, is that the killing part is really irrelevent. Everyone kills, Hawke, Warden and Shepard, all three got atleast a few hundred in their ledgers. It's not like Hawke lost to anyone in the game. What comes later is what matters. 

The system is pretty simple. Choice 1->some killing->consequence 1. Choice 2->some killing->consequence 2. This is what it mostly was, for Warden and Shepard. 

For Hawke, Choice1, Choice 2, Choice 3.... Choice N-> consequence 0(Gaider's god hand appears and pushes Hawke in one direction, takes away something as a price).

That's not right. The breakdown in DA:O was like this: 

Killing => Ostagar => More killing =>Lothering=> [Choice of Treaty: Dalish] => More killing [then Zathrian vs. Wolves]
                                                                               [Choice of Treaty: Mages] => More killing [pick Mages vs. Templars]
                                                                               [Choice of Treaty: Dwarves] => [Flip between Bhelen Harrowmont]                                                                                  => Lots of Deep Roads Killing => [then Branka vs. Caradin] 
                                                                               [Going to Redcliffe] => [Pick between Staying/Leaving] => Killing 
                                                                               => [Connor vs. Isolde vs. Both]  => Killing => Find Haven => Killing                                                                                  => [Pick between Cultists vs. Saving the ashes] 

And that's the DA:O path. There were lots of choice, but they were all offered in the context of killing. And then we had a bunch of epilogue slides that were totally overriden by stuff in DA2 or haven't come up yet. 

In DA2 we followed the same path, but only initially. The difference was that we had a year 2 that Bioware followed up on, and then they did the "All Roads Lead to Rome" thing. But that's more like DA:O having the same thing happen to the Circle regardless of you picking mages vs. templars (e.g. it gets levelled by a meteor or something). 

leaguer of one wrote...
You who is ok with people killing to get what they want is ageinst destroy?

I ... what? That's definetly not a position I've taken. 

[TurretSyndrome]

In Exile wrote...

That's not right. The breakdown in DA:O was like this: 

Killing => Ostagar => More killing =>Lothering=> [Choice of Treaty: Dalish] => More killing [then Zathrian vs. Wolves]
                                                                               [Choice of Treaty: Mages] => More killing [pick Mages vs. Templars]
                                                                               [Choice of Treaty: Dwarves] => [Flip between Bhelen Harrowmont]                                                                                  => Lots of Deep Roads Killing => [then Branka vs. Caradin] 
                                                                               [Going to Redcliffe] => [Pick between Staying/Leaving] => Killing 
                                                                               => [Connor vs. Isolde vs. Both]  => Killing => Find Haven => Killing                                                                                  => [Pick between Cultists vs. Saving the ashes] 

And that's the DA:O path. There were lots of choice, but they were all offered in the context of killing. And then we had a bunch of epilogue slides that were totally overriden by stuff in DA2 or haven't come up yet. 

In DA2 we followed the same path, but only initially. The difference was that we had a year 2 that Bioware followed up on, and then they did the "All Roads Lead to Rome" thing. But that's more like DA:O having the same thing happen to the Circle regardless of you picking mages vs. templars (e.g. it gets levelled by a meteor or something). 

Ofcourse, there's always going to be killing in-between the story, it's a game. Where are you trying to go with this? It's not like DA 2 had  anything else. In DA:O, the fate of the Circle was dependent on you. You could either help the Mages or have them executed. All the major quests in DA:O had very significant choices for you to make, with very significant consequences. 

What exactly was overridden in DA 2? I'm curious, since DA 2 was all about Kirkwall and it had plenty of referrences about stuff that happened in DA:O, but I didn't notice anything that was overridden. If some quests didn't trigger right, it was because the save import system was crap, and it caused heap loads of problems. Everyone is well aware of all that. 

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome wrote...
Ofcourse, there's always going to be killing in-between the story, it's a game. Where are you trying to go with this? It's not like DA 2 had  anything else. In DA:O, the fate of the Circle was dependent on you. You could either help the Mages or have them executed. All the major quests in DA:O had very significant choices for you to make, with very significant consequences.

In DA:O, you killed everythin in the Circle, and after having killed scores of abominations, demons and templars, for some (unexplained) reason the Knight Commander (i) solitics and (ii) respects your opinion about whether or not these mages are actually a danger. 

In DA2 there'd just be a choice imposed after you say whatever your piece would be, but the difference would be essentially Bioware following your choice. 

What exactly was overridden in DA 2? I'm curious, since DA 2 was all about Kirkwall and it had plenty of referrences about stuff that happened in DA:O, but I didn't notice anything that was overridden. If some quests didn't trigger right, it was because the save import system was crap, and it caused heap loads of problems. Everyone is well aware of all that. 

The Mage Boon was totally overriden, for example.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 février 2014 - 05:55 .

[leaguer of one]

In Exile wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...
Ofcourse, there's always going to be killing in-between the story, it's a game. Where are you trying to go with this? It's not like DA 2 had  anything else. In DA:O, the fate of the Circle was dependent on you. You could either help the Mages or have them executed. All the major quests in DA:O had very significant choices for you to make, with very significant consequences.

In DA:O, you killed everythin in the Circle, and after having killed scores of abominations, demons and templars, for some (unexplained) reason the Knight Commander (i) solitics and (ii) respects your opinion about whether or not these mages are actually a danger. 

In DA2 there'd just be a choice imposed after you say whatever your piece would be, but the difference would be essentially Bioware following your choice. 

What exactly was overridden in DA 2? I'm curious, since DA 2 was all about Kirkwall and it had plenty of referrences about stuff that happened in DA:O, but I didn't notice anything that was overridden. If some quests didn't trigger right, it was because the save import system was crap, and it caused heap loads of problems. Everyone is well aware of all that. 

The Mage Boon was totally overriden, for example.

Greagoir and Meredith are 2 different people. One wants to work with and be fair to mages and the other what to impose oder over them and fears them. Your saying it going to have the same results?

The problem is one you can influence and the other you could not. I really don't see a poblem with that.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 08 février 2014 - 06:05 .

[Ieldra]

@leager:
That's not what he meant. The mage boon freed the Circle of Ferelden, and Meredith has no authority there. It was overriden by the Chantry denying the King of Ferelden's authority in matters of magic, and as the result, the mage Warden asking for the Circle's freedom was totally retconned. Not that it isn't plausible, but annoying nonetheless because it denies the player a meaningful consequence of their actions.

[Ieldra]

KaiserShep wrote...
Well, in a sense, it is, but in a positive way. I like to think of the whole story as a kind of episodic adventure where sh*t suddenly escalates around it.

Yes, and that's why all that sh*t doesn't reflect badly on Hawke. I think Hawke's story worked rather well as a "rise to power" story. It's just that the way it was implemented felt constricting at times, with the journal going so far as to tell you when to speak with your companions.

[TheKomandorShepard]

It would be stupid if mage boon was done rly you thought that chantry would agree... having character that decisions seriously affect world is one thing (the warden) and having character that decisions absolutely control world is another thing.     

[TurretSyndrome]

In Exile wrote...

In DA:O, you killed everythin in the Circle, and after having killed scores of abominations, demons and templars, for some (unexplained) reason the Knight Commander (i) solitics and (ii) respects your opinion about whether or not these mages are actually a danger. 

In DA2 there'd just be a choice imposed after you say whatever your piece would be, but the difference would be essentially Bioware following your choice.

The Mage Boon was totally overriden, for example.

Firstly, who you see on the screen in these games, are not the only characters present in the universe. Mind boggling, I know. The way they made it, it only had a certain number of them, ones who have long lines of dialogue to ones who just make a comment or two, this was also the case with DA 2. This is how the games were designed, and is something one has to get used to.

This is why, as I said in my previous comments, you can't really associate the mechanics of the game to the story told in it. You can sweep the entire Circle tower, kill every NPC you ever find, and the game and it's characters will still say there are a few of them left. There were about 5 to 6 Templars remaining in the tower literally, but that was the number you were shown in the game. There were actually more of them "off screen". Same goes for the Mages.

Gregoir takes your advice because of what you did for him. Heck, you can even let him make the decision, making him a legit character who can think for himself in the game, while allowing us to influence his decision if we wanted. That kind of depth in decision making in games, I rarely see.

But DA 2 also had this kind of stuff. Remember the Templar recruit who was kidnapped by the Blood Mages, who we later rescue? We can influence Cullen's decision whether the boy gets to keep his job. That was something similar to DA:O's Circle quest, but such actions were far and few in-between, and neither helping the kid nor getting him kicked out of the Order, changed anything about him joining the rebels and kidnapping Hawke's sibling/friend/lover at the end. 

Atleast in DA:O, saving the mages gave us an entirely new option to deal with the demon possessed child. I still remember how awesome it felt to be lucky to have done the Circle quest, and then the redcliffe quest all in the right order, choosing the right options for it, on my very first try. I mean, if I had visited Redcliffe first, which the game and Alistair were contantly harranging me about, or chose to kill the Mages, or let Irving die in the Tower, visit the boy's room without knowing, if I had done even a single one of these things, I'd have lost the chance to pick that option. That is what I loved about Origins, the subtle warnings the game gave you, the different methods to solve a crisis, that was what I sorely missed in DA 2.

All the time you were bombarded with huge bright yellow quest markers telling you what to do, at every turn, and there wasn't any quest that you could do a whole lot differently either, atleast not the ones that mattered. The story was barely influenced by the different choices you made, 95% of the time, it was just changes in dialogue you got.

Bioware rarely respected our choices in DA 2. Most of the time, we were being hand holded into doing something. Not only that, we did things that were completely unrelated to what we had to do during certain acts, just so Bioware could use those quests as excuses and bring us into the middle of the conflict at the end.

What does taking Flemeth's amulet to Sundermount, finding Feynriel, rescuing Templar Recruit Keran, helping Ser Thrask, helping Petrice, have anything do to with earning money to the start the expedition? You don't even get to make contracts with each of these characters at least, so that it can give us the illusion that we are also doing it for the money. Even worse, the game conveniently places the quest "Friends in Low Places" and breaks whatever semblence of illusion you had that you were helping the aforementioned people partly/mostly/only for the money.

Finally the Mage Boon. Did a little bit of research on that. Apparently, it was turned down by the Chantry, although some posts say that it's yet another import bug. 

Anyway, this entire post was just to say that Hawke really did not "rise to power" as Bioware advertised he would, he was just more a Bioware's pawn, than the player's own character. His choices rarely mattered and when they did, it was temporary and it would all lead to that one consequence where he mostly fails.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 08 février 2014 - 08:11 .

[Ieldra]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
It would be stupid if mage boon was done rly you thought that chantry would agree... having character that decisions seriously affect world is one thing (the warden) and having character that decisions absolutely control world is another thing.

I said it was plausible, right? The problem is more that it shouldn't have been offered in the first place if the King of Ferelden doesn't have the authority. In game terms, we were led to believe we could make the Circle change, and at the time when it was offered, you may have thought "Wow, you can do that?" but nothing indicates the offer wasn't honest, or made in ignorance. Thus, to the player this comes across as depriving them of a meaningful outcome retroactively. 

[Gear2nd]

I kind of think it's funny when pple call out Hawke's ineptness at solving problems. As a matter of fact, I think it's even more hilarious how RPG's have ridiculously bloated gamers' expectations for decision making in games. Honestly, I enjoyed DA2 and I thought it was bold of how Bioware told the story. Honestly, I think Bioware kinda' burst pple's metagame bubbles when they took the power out of the player's hands and I LOVED THAT.

Imo Hawke was more like a tragic bystander, honestly Hawke couldn't save anyone even if he/she wanted to. Hawke was practically a nobody...he had no real status, no real power, and no real sway, by all rights Hawke should have been either executed, thrown in prison, or hauled in for interrogation for all the stunts he/she pulled, which includes aiding an apostate abomination/renegade warden, a maleficar, and a known pirate.

I think pple tend to forget that just because you can see something happening doesn't mean you can always stop it or control the outcome. I think the luxury of allowing players to dictate a story to how they feel has spoiled the franchise and RPG's in general, and I feel that it sometimes limits what the writer/developer can do because everyone's worried about their own canon. Sometimes plots in a game has to work like fate, it's going to happen and it has to happen.

Sorry for the rant ^-^

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome wrote...
Firstly, who you see on the screen in these games, are not the only characters present in the universe. Mind boggling, I know. The way they made it, it only had a certain number of them, ones who have long lines of dialogue to ones who just make a comment or two, this was also the case with DA 2. This is how the games were designed, and is something one has to get used to. 

This is why, as I said in my previous comments, you can't really associate the mechanics of the game to the story told in it. You can sweep the entire Circle tower, kill every NPC you ever find, and the game and it's characters will still say there are a few of them left. There were about 5 to 6 Templars remaining in the tower literally, but that was the number you were shown in the game. There were actually more of them "off screen". Same goes for the Mages.

I don't follow how this has any connection to what I said.

Gregoir takes your advice because of what you did for him. Heck, you can even let him make the decision, making him a legit character who can think for himself in the game, while allowing us to influence his decision if we wanted. That kind of depth in decision making in games, I rarely see.

What you did for him was murder abominations. Influencing his decision at all is absurd, because there's no standing or authority for you to have any say in his decision. You're just some killer who slapped a label to his chest that says Grey Warden, and the only thing vouching for you is a 500 (or something) year old piece of paper that you never even show. 

But DA 2 also had this kind of stuff. Remember the Templar recruit who was kidnapped by the Blood Mages, who we later rescue? We can influence Cullen's decision whether the boy gets to keep his job. That was something similar to DA:O's Circle quest, but such actions were far and few in-between, and neither helping the kid nor getting him kicked out of the Order, changed anything about him joining the rebels and kidnapping Hawke's sibling/friend/lover at the end.  

Actually, these actions were as frequent in DA2 as they were in DA:O, they were just constantly overriden in DA2. For example, whether or not you let the Starkhaven mages go is one. Or what you do with Feynriel (each time). Or how you solve several of the Act 2 Companion quests. 

That is what I loved about Origins, the subtle warnings the game gave you, the different methods to solve a crisis, that was what I sorely missed in DA 2.  

You mean, the super contrived no consequence option were timed stopped? I agree that DA2 had no third option, but I wouldn't use DA:O's third option as an example of good design or plotting based on your experience, because it working is really predicated on plot making. 

A good contrast is the DA2 quest about Hawke's mother. You run off and about the entire city, and you get there too late. Why? Writer's fiat. Why did you get to Redcliffe before Connor nuked the entire town off the map? Writer's fiat. 

It's not about the character, because the character just kills a bunch of things and builds a mountain out of their skulls. It's blind luck, dependent on absolutely nothing related to you. 

All the time you were bombarded with huge bright yellow quest markers telling you what to do, at every turn, and there wasn't any quest that you could do a whole lot differently either, atleast not the ones that mattered. The story was barely influenced by the different choices you made, 95% of the time, it was just changes in dialogue you got.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, becaue (a) quest markers were optional and present in both games and ( the story in DA:O was only marginally influenced by any choice, and DA:O got away with that little influence because it never had to show any significant consequence to your actions. 

If you want, I can give you a list of Act 1 quests (and then later Act 2 quests) that could have major consequences but don't simply because Bioware bothered to have an Act 2 or 3 as a follow up.

It's fair to say that DA:O created the illusion of choice by having consequences open-ended, but just not right to say that there were actual different consequences. 

What does taking Flemeth's amulet to Sundermount, finding Feynriel, rescuing Templar Recruit Keran, helping Ser Thrask, helping Petrice, have anything do to with earning money to the start the expedition? You don't even get to make contracts with each of these characters at least, so that it can give us the illusion that we are also doing it for the money. Even worse, the game conveniently places the quest "Friends in Low Places" and breaks whatever semblence of illusion you had that you were helping the aforementioned people partly/mostly/only for the money.

Those quests are just things that happent to earn money. They're no more or less contrived than a Dalish tribe just happening to be in Ferelden and Alistair just happening to hear about it.

This last bit isn't directed toward you, but I wonder how much Bioware really regrets trying to copy BG2 for Act I? I can imagine how gleeful they were about how fans would probably love the callback, only to realize that fans would hate exactly the things about BG2 that they praise when redone in other games.

Anyway, this entire post was just to say that Hawke really did not "rise to power" as Bioware advertised he would, he was just more a Bioware's pawn, than the player's own character. His choices rarely mattered and when they did, it was temporary and it would all lead to that one consequence where he mostly fails.

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying the other Bioware protagonists are only succesful because of writer's fiat, since their only quality is their ability to murder, just like Hawke. The misfortune for Hawke is that killing lots of things doesn't magically translate into good results. 

[TurretSyndrome]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I said it was plausible, right? The problem is more that it shouldn't have been offered in the first place if the King of Ferelden doesn't have the authority. In game terms, we were led to believe we could make the Circle change, and at the time when it was offered, you may have thought "Wow, you can do that?" but nothing indicates the offer wasn't honest, or made in ignorance. Thus, to the player this comes across as depriving them of a meaningful outcome retroactively. 

To me, it's actually alright if the game(s)/franchise doesn't honor some things like the boons in DA:O. It keeps the world real. Sure, Alistair promised to free the Ferelden mages but sometimes promises like that cannot be fulfilled. The state that his country was in, he obviously could not challenge the Chantry and free the mages regardless of their answer. 

Having said that, what I do have a problem with is when such things happen at an annoying high frequency. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

Ieldra2 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
It would be stupid if mage boon was done rly you thought that chantry would agree... having character that decisions seriously affect world is one thing (the warden) and having character that decisions absolutely control world is another thing.

I said it was plausible, right? The problem is more that it shouldn't have been offered in the first place if the King of Ferelden doesn't have the authority. In game terms, we were led to believe we could make the Circle change, and at the time when it was offered, you may have thought "Wow, you can do that?" but nothing indicates the offer wasn't honest, or made in ignorance. Thus, to the player this comes across as depriving them of a meaningful outcome retroactively. 

I don't agree it should be possible to choose simple even for rp reasons even if decison won't go exactly in way that we want (because our character doesn't control universe).In da 2 that decision is present and game know that you made it and characters know that as well king tried to do that and well i guess he will try to do more (in dalish boon he said he will won't give up because he ows that his friend).

Simple this decison not only adds personality to our pc by choosing that but also affect world around even if result is different that you expected. It would be same saying that we should't be allowed give orphan in lothering money because it is meaningless...   

[TurretSyndrome]

In Exile wrote...

I don't follow how this has any connection to what I said.

I said that since you mentioned "killing scores of abominations, templars and mages". Even though we were killing so many of them, according to the game, we didn't kill that many. Still, you're right, it's got no connection to what you said.

What you did for him was murder abominations. Influencing his decision at all is absurd, because there's no standing or authority for you to have any say in his decision. You're just some killer who slapped a label to his chest that says Grey Warden, and the only thing vouching for you is a 500 (or something) year old piece of paper that you never even show. 

You misunderstand. What I meant was that he opted to listen to our opinion since we helped him out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, becaue (a) quest markers were optional and present in both games and ( the story in DA:O was only marginally influenced by any choice, and DA:O got away with that little influence because it never had to show any significant consequence to your actions. 

If you want, I can give you a list of Act 1 quests (and then later Act 2 quests) that could have major consequences but don't simply because Bioware bothered to have an Act 2 or 3 as a follow up.

It's fair to say that DA:O created the illusion of choice by having consequences open-ended, but just not right to say that there were actual different consequences. 

No, I meant that in DA 2 it felt like you had no will of your own to do what you want. Quests that were unrelated to Bartrand's expedition were slapped on to the Main Quest tab and you had to do them regardless of whether you actually had the money to start the expedition or not. They only served as excuses to further the story and connect them.

There were significant consequences to what you did in DA:O. Sure, you could never decide not to kill the Archdemon, or become a Grey Warden(you had the option to refuse), or gather the armies. You were forced to do all that because the story could not exist with these key actions. But while you did all that, you could have variations in how you achieved this goal. For example, you could defile the ashes, that was a significant choice, you could kill all the elves, you could keep the anvil and get the dwarves to create golems for you. These are all the choices which not only affected Ferelden for the long run but changed how you approached the problem of the blight. 

In the same way if we assume that coming to the point of picking between Mages and templars is the goal in Dragon Age 2, a lot of things had the possibility to be handled differently, but they couldn't. Starkhaven mage always hates us, Keran always betrays us etc There were things which could have let us influence them without affecting the narrative itself but we couldn't. There was just too much narrative influence and too little player freedom. 

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying the other Bioware protagonists are only succesful because of writer's fiat, since their only quality is their ability to murder, just like Hawke. The misfortune for Hawke is that killing lots of things doesn't magically translate into good results. 

I could argue that any RPG character is basically a killing machine that talks every now and then. But the point is, we did more than just kill people in these games, we made choices, and the level at which those choices were honoured set these characters and the experience of the games apart.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 08 février 2014 - 09:03 .

[BobZilla84]

Dragon Age 2 had little replay value but if we had been able to choose which sibling was lost in the beginning regardless of the players class and being able to save Hawkes Mother then maybe the game would have been better but as of what we got was a message that basically directed gamers to buy Inquistion.

[Ashelsu]

I just figured at some point Hawke was recruited either by Orlesians or by Tevinters to eliminate Kirkwall power figures. At that Hawke was very sucessful. Viscount and his heir, Grand Cleric, Knight Commander and First Enchanter all dead in three years, Kirkwall circle is destroyed. Brilliant.

[KaiserShep]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Well, in a sense, it is, but in a positive way. I like to think of the whole story as a kind of episodic adventure where sh*t suddenly escalates around it.

Yes, and that's why all that sh*t doesn't reflect badly on Hawke. I think Hawke's story worked rather well as a "rise to power" story. It's just that the way it was implemented felt constricting at times, with the journal going so far as to tell you when to speak with your companions.

Yeah I think the quest updates should have been handled better. Strangely, the game had a system that allowed this to be implemented rather easily. You could either have the companion show up at Gamlen's house or Hawke's estate, or simply have that companion send a letter like everyone else does.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 08 février 2014 - 12:44 .