214 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Sure Hawke can accomplish many things if by many you mean killing some random bandits or blood mages - I don't consider that useful or intriguing in any way.  But since he can't affect anything meaningful in the game world, I don't really see the motivation for playing a game built around this type of character.  Is the next step down to play an innkeeper and have him watch as important people come through his bar and the game's story progresses along around him?

 

I'd be up for that.. *raises hand*

[Zu Long]

I'd be up for that.. *raises hand*

 

Then you're in luck. There's a game called "Papers, Please." It tells the story entirely from the perspective of a random border inspector, whose only job is to allow in or refuse people's visas. Not my kind of game, but if you enjoy that kind of thing, it's available on Steam.

[TKavatar]

Then you're in luck. There's a game called "Papers, Please." It tells the story entirely from the perspective of a random border inspector, whose only job is to allow in or refuse people's visas. Not my kind of game, but if you enjoy that kind of thing, it's available on Steam.

It's an awesome little game FYI.

Glory to Arstotzka!

[Zu Long]

It's an awesome little game FYI.

Glory to Arstotzka!

 

So I've been told. Like I said, just not my thing, but it was an honest recommendation for someone who really wants to play as a non-entity.

[In Exile]

Sure Hawke can accomplish many things if by many you mean killing some random bandits or blood mages - I don't consider that useful or intriguing in any way. But since he can't affect anything meaningful in the game world, I don't really see the motivation for playing a game built around this type of character. Is the next step down to play an innkeeper and have him watch as important people come through his bar and the game's story progresses along around him?

But those are the same things the Warden achieves. Except at the end of your parade of murder there's someone who literally hands you a crown and says "Go pick the King of Orzammar'. You didn't do anything to earn that. You ran errands for one of the contenders, your murdered your way across the Deep Roads, and in the end through no particular contribution of your own the person who is actually respected in Orzammar - the Paragon - says that you should make a choice because they don't care.

That's no different than the fact that Hawke has a chance to pick if the Arisok lives or dies. Its a fluke the choice comes up - because Isabella returns.

[Zu Long]

But those are the same things the Warden achieves. Except at the end of your parade of murder there's someone who literally hands you a crown and says "Go pick the King of Orzammar'. You didn't do anything to earn that. You ran errands for one of the contenders, your murdered your way across the Deep Roads, and in the end through no particular contribution of your own the person who is actually respected in Orzammar - the Paragon - says that you should make a choice because they don't care.

That's no different than the fact that Hawke has a chance to pick if the Arisok lives or dies. Its a fluke the choice comes up - because Isabella returns.

 

I don't know that I agree with any of that. The reason they tell you to pick the King is precisely BECAUSE you murdered your way across the deep roads and then helped one of them out. As a Grey Warden, you're the only one anybody thought had a chance, and the reason you do it is because you need a dwarven king to go to war. And it's not like the Dwarves don't want to help. Ultimately a blight is bad for everyone, even if it gives the Dwarves a slight reprieve from Darkspawn killing. They just can't do it without a King, and the succession has to be decided.

 

You spend the first part of your time in Orzammar proving how good you are at killing things, and then they send you on a quest whose primary requirement is being good at killing things. And you're only in Orzammar in the first place because you're a Grey Warden and you have the treaty the Dwarves agreed to. It's not random, It all flows pretty well from one thing to another.

 

Also, Isabel coming back isn't a fluke, it require's Hawke to have made enough of an impression on her to make her come back. That's not really a fluke, it happens for a reason, and it can very easily NOT happen. Isabella didn't come back in my first run through because I didn't put her in my party enough.

[In Exile]

I don't know that I agree with any of that. The reason they tell you to pick the King is precisely BECAUSE you murdered your way across the deep roads and then helped one of them out. As a Grey Warden, you're the only one anybody thought had a chance, and the reason you do it is because you need a dwarven king to go to war. And it's not like the Dwarves don't want to help. Ultimately a blight is bad for everyone, even if it gives the Dwarves a slight reprieve from Darkspawn killing. They just can't do it without a King, and the succession has to be decided.

You spend the first part of your time in Orzammar proving how good you are at killing things, and then they send you on a quest whose primary requirement is being good at killing things. And you're only in Orzammar in the first place because you're a Grey Warden and you have the treaty the Dwarves agreed to.

Also, Isabel coming back isn't a fluke, it require's Hawke to have made enough of an impression on her to make her come back. That's not really a fluke, it happens for a reason, and it can very easily NOT happen. Isabella didn't come back in my first run through because I didn't put her in my party enough.

I'm not saying that the fact that the Warden is awesome at killing is something that we should criticise. Nor was it my intent to say that the Warden didn't earn the choice I'm the sense that it wasn't the result of killing prowess.

Rather my point was that the Warden gt the choice because of proficiency for taking lives, and not because of any other quality or trait.

[Zu Long]

I'm not saying that the fact that the Warden is awesome at killing is something that we should criticise. Nor was it my intent to say that the Warden didn't earn the choice I'm the sense that it wasn't the result of killing prowess.

Rather my point was that the Warden gt the choice because of proficiency for taking lives, and not because of any other quality or trait.

 

Well, there was also having the treaty, which you only gain because Flemeth seems to like you. Which one could argue, I suppose, was indeed because you were so good at killing things- it was the reason she liked Hawke, after all.

 

In any case, I'm just going to point back to my pet theory that the big difference between the Warden and Hawke is one of focus, and now that I think about it, information gathering. The Warden actually goes through quite a bit of trouble in certain parts of the game figuring out who needs killing, whereas Hawke is mostly reactive. It could be said that part of it is also initiative, being proactive as opposed to reactive that causes the Warden to emerge victorious while Hawke does not.

[In Exile]

Well, there was also having the treaty, which you only gain because Flemeth seems to like you. Which one could argue, I suppose, was indeed because you were so good at killing things- it was the reason she liked Hawke, after all.

In any case, I'm just going to point back to my pet theory that the big difference between the Warden and Hawke is one of focus, and now that I think about it, information gathering. The Warden actually goes through quite a bit of trouble in certain parts of the game figuring out who needs killing, whereas Hawke is mostly reactive. It could be said that part of it is also initiative, being proactive as opposed to reactive that causes the Warden to emerge victorious while Hawke does not.

Where is the Warden at all contemplative about who to kill? Alistair points you to where the treaties are, and then you're pretty much told exactly who to kill. You can sometimes refuse to kill the person you're asked to kill but that's about it as I can recall. DA2 is worse because you can't even refuse to kill someone most times.

[Il Divo]

I'm okay with it, though I think some games do it a bit better in some respects than others.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

What's special about the rules governing Hawke?

Look at the damage and hit point progression of Hawke compared to that of the Arishok, or any NPC.

As for the second point, there's nothing special about Hawke except the success and the skill which brought that success. So at the beginning of act 1 Hawke's not special, and at the beginning of act 3 Hawke is pretty special with more special on the way. I'm not presupposing success, merely looking further down the timeline. A Hawke who isn't proficient in combat doesn't exist in act 3 since any such Hawke is simply dead. Just as a non-proficient Warden would be by the end of DAO. So what's the problem, again?

Because of the difference in rules, it isn't necessary for Hawke to be proficient in combat in order to be special. He is special innately, regardless of what he does.

The Warden, however, is special by virtue of his success and excellence, both of which arise from player input. As you say, both a Warden and a Hawke who aren't good at combat will die, but the difference is that Hawke remains exceptional even when he isn't competent, while the Warden's competence is the thing that makes him exceptional. If the Warden isn't competent, then he isn't necessarily exceptional.

[Sidney]

I'm arguing in a thread about characters that are special snowflakes that the time we played a character who was more or less an ordinary guy who inevitably fails to resolve any of the presented conflicts resulted in a game with no player agency.  If we play another game with a character who is overall not at all special, I'd like to have some ability to affect the game world.  If every choice you make in an RPG is futile, then there's not really much room for roleplay.

No futility isn't the problem. I could put you in the role of someone living though the Blakc Death. Nothing you might do could stop the plague nor save a single soul but are you a looter, will you lock yourself away, will you try and minister to the sick. All those are role playing conditions. Hawke makes choices. The fact that those choices succeed or or not say nothing about the character of the man which is what role playing is about.

Heck even in DAO you had choices that did nothing, choose Bhelen and he gets overthrown but that still says someone about your Warden and his persona.

[SwobyJ]

Then you're in luck. There's a game called "Papers, Please." It tells the story entirely from the perspective of a random border inspector, whose only job is to allow in or refuse people's visas. Not my kind of game, but if you enjoy that kind of thing, it's available on Steam.

 

I don't love that game. It's not really RPG. I need a stronger narrative about it and a bigger ability to change it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Where is the Warden at all contemplative about who to kill? Alistair points you to where the treaties are, and then you're pretty much told exactly who to kill. You can sometimes refuse to kill the person you're asked to kill but that's about it as I can recall. DA2 is worse because you can't even refuse to kill someone most times.

Off-screen.  Something that is much more difficult to do with Hawke because of how the dialogue system works.

[AlanC9]

Look at the damage and hit point progression of Hawke compared to that of the Arishok, or any NPC.
Because of the difference in rules, it isn't necessary for Hawke to be proficient in combat in order to be special. He is special innately, regardless of what he does.

The Warden, however, is special by virtue of his success and excellence, both of which arise from player input. As you say, both a Warden and a Hawke who aren't good at combat will die, but the difference is that Hawke remains exceptional even when he isn't competent, while the Warden's competence is the thing that makes him exceptional. If the Warden isn't competent, then he isn't necessarily exceptional.

 

 

Huh? Looks to me like Aveline et al. follow the same rules Hawke does. The rules aren't the same for both sides, but they're not different for Hawke, they're different for anyone on Hawke's side. And I'm not at all sure those asymmetrical rules favor Hawke's side. The enemy side gets more HP, for instance.

[Stelae]

I don't mind the Special Snowflake Syndrome per se; if you're the hero of a story about a Hero-with-a-capital-h, you want to stand out from the crowd. 

 

I'm less forgiving of Plot Armour, where things that affect everyone else in the world slide right off your back, because it'd be inconvenient when they didn't. 

 

But neither of these things torques me off as much as lightsabers which act like baseball bats.

[Darth Krytie]

I don't mind the Special Snowflake Syndrome per se; if you're the hero of a story about a Hero-with-a-capital-h, you want to stand out from the crowd. 

 

I'm less forgiving of Plot Armour, where things that affect everyone else in the world slide right off your back, because it'd be inconvenient when they didn't. 

 

But neither of these things torques me off as much as lightsabers which act like baseball bats.

 

Instead of cutting people in two? lol

[Sylvius the Mad]

Huh? Looks to me like Aveline et al. follow the same rules Hawke does. The rules aren't the same for both sides, but they're not different for Hawke, they're different for anyone on Hawke's side. And I'm not at all sure those asymmetrical rules favor Hawke's side. The enemy side gets more HP, for instance.

And they're far less vulnerable to friendly fire.

I'm not claiming Hawke is better, merely exceptional. And I don't know whether Hawke ever has the opportunity to fight one of his companions, but if he does I'm confident the rules contimue to treat him differently from his opponent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't mind the Special Snowflake Syndrome per se; if you're the hero of a story about a Hero-with-a-capital-h, you want to stand out from the crowd. 

I'm not willing to acknowledge "the story" at all. The story doesn't exist. There is merely a series of discrete events, each of which needs to make sense on its own.

[Stelae]

Instead of cutting people in two? lol

Well, indeed.  Why does my personal SW headcanon have to include "well, of course, this was in the early days, when a lightsaber was actually more of a bludgeoning weapon, before the invention of sharp photons ... "

[Stelae]

I'm not willing to acknowledge "the story" at all. The story doesn't exist. There is merely a series of discrete events, each of which needs to make sense on its own.

Absolutely.  But the character to whom those events are happening is one people have talked about so much it has become a tale.  One of the reasons I really liked the Framing narrative and the unreliable narrator in DA2 was that it was an intelligent approach to actually having a S3 hero without turning them into Beowulf or Luke Skywalker with the serial numbers rubbed off. 

[Fredward]

I'm thinking that not having SSS might work in certain settings and academically I kinda like the idea of truly being in a kinda observer capacity but in games like DA (and most games in general) you're exceptional by default. It's why the story is being told after all. Of course you get levels of SSS where you have a story about a completely normal person who just so happens to get shoved into a series of spectacular events (these are nice if pulled off right but they often veer into deep SSS territory with discoveries like "YOU'RE ACTUALLY A MAGICAL POWERFUL MAGE OF RAINBOWS AND WONDER! And also a Prince and sole heir to the throne of Calabartoopbroop") and then you get the one where the person is special from the get go through virtue of backstory, they're exceptional but not magically so and then lastly you get the one where faith/destiny/fairies have decreed that the character is destined for X event and they are often Mary Sues, reluctant heroes (I don't want to be an awesome demigod creature that everyone idolizes but I have to be! ~angst~) and have plot armor a yard thick. They're also more often than not the only person who can stop Calamity Y because destiny.

 

I don't like the last one much at all. The Inquisitor's ability to close Tears are making me think Bioware has gone off in that direction but I'm hoping they won't be quite as cliche as all that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

tbh, if you're not special, then when the hell does everyone trust you to get the job done?

 

Why do you trust peopel to do this? A doctor to operate you? A policeman to protect you? A fireman to put out a fire?

 

Because they proven themselves and because it's their job.
 

You don't have to be "special" for people to trust you.

You have to be reliable. And available.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Also, being dependable and capable or above average does NOT make one a Special Snowflake or Mary Sue.

 

Mary Sues are idealized characters, often having a billion unique/special things about them.

Special Snowflakes are usually unique in some aspect (as in, no one else is like them)

 

But for both the deciding factor is how they are presented and how others react to them or treat them.

When others worship the ground they walk on or can't stop talking about how awesome they are, when EVERYTHING revolves around them (often in convoluted ways), and all of that feels forced or un-logical.

 

Best example I can think of would be Ichigo from Bleach. He is both a Super Special Snowflake and a MASSIVE Mary Sue.

 

A character who starts as a "normal" human, but we find out he's half Shinigami. And a half hollow. And a vizard. And a Quincy. And probably a half fullbrnig or something..

He goes from 0 to super-master-swordsman that can match 500-year old Shinigami who were trained by the finest swordsmen...in weeks. Months tops.

Also, he gains power levels at light speed. Powerful Shinigami train for hunderds of years to unlock their Bankai. He does it in THREE DAYS.

And everyone is fascinated by him (especially the baddie of the week), and he kidnaps every plot threat to somehow be tied to him, despite it having no logical connection.

 

 

Warden and Hawke don't really qualify. They might get praised a bit too much and pulled in to deal with stuff they really shouldn't, but all of that is "light" compared to real Mary Sues/SSS.

 

 

****

 

Tinxa is right about one thing - too many titles, accomplishments and skills/powers on a single character, and even the most mundane one will turn into a SSS/Mary Sue.

 

A good example might be Caphias Cain - a normal human commissar that tries ot avoid conflict as much as possible, but keeps running into it. He gets by with stupid amounts of luck, his with and great sword skills.

And it's all fine and dandy in one book. Or two. But as more and more books roll out, he defeats hive tyrants, chaos space marines, genestealer pariahs, demons, etc.., etc..

He ends up having a list of deeds that would put a Space Marine Chapter Master to shame.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I have no problem with special snow flakes as long as they are done well. Anyone who likes comic books buys into the idea of special snow flakes.  There is not one single superhero  that does not have some special ability that is unique to them in their universe.

 

Given the number of superheroes in Marvel an DC, I'm gonna say a big no to that.

 

you got legions of heroes who share the same power sets.