183 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

Granted it took some time to warm up to Carver, and Bethany was easily my favorite too! In DA2, despite any perceived problems with the game I enjoyed it, but I felt most offended and put off by being forced to battle both Meredith & Orsino. Turning both into a final boss rendered Hawke's decision over who to side with quite arbitrary. The ultimate battle should have been with Meredith as the bad guy based upon her corruption by the idol - OR - Orsino as the bad buy based upon the revelation of his culpability in Quentin's research [and thus Leandra's death].

 

Not both! T'was a dumb decision.

 

Fighting Meredith despite siding with the Templars did make some sense, as she was pretty much bat **** crazy by the end. Orsino as a mage though...egh...I'm pretty sure I remember a Dev quote saying that was purely to give another boss fight so that both choices had the same amount...

[Reaverwind]

Fighting Meredith despite siding with the Templars did make some sense, as she was pretty much bat **** crazy by the end. Orsino as a mage though...egh...I'm pretty sure I remember a Dev quote saying that was purely to give another boss fight so that both choices had the same amount...

 

And Bioware undermined the story with that garbage. It was a cheap move to add an extra boss fight. If Meredith needed to die, it should have been due to her falling in battle.

[themikefest]

I like to have the decision of what companions to recruit. In DA2 I had to recruit Anders and Merril. Fortunately I don't have to deal with them until the end.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's a decision made for the NPCs... the NPCs should never, ever, be the puppets of the PC. They should be as fully realized and independent as possible.

That doesn't prevent them from being puppets of the player, which is what the OP seems to be asking.

Prior to DA2's release, we were told that it was important, for story reasons, that exactly one of the Hawke siblings was a mage.

And I can see why it was important that at least one be mage, I never did figure out why it was important that one of them not be a mage.

As it was, my mage Hawke hated Carver, so the two never spoke, and ultimately Carver may as well have not been in the game at all.

[PhroXenGold]

As it was, my mage Hawke hated Carver, so the two never spoke, and ultimately Carver may as well have not been in the game at all.

 

I agree with your post in general - the "story reasons" for the specific sibling surviving in each case was pretty poor. Frankly, I'd've been happy with a purely gameplay justification - it works better having a warrior if you're a mage and vice-versa. Specifically though, with regards to this last line, personally I like things like that. I want there to be characters I hate - provided, that is, I hate them because of their personality and actions being not to my liking and not simply because of bad writing. Again, this makes the world feel more believable, after all, I sure as hell don't like everyone I've met in real life.

[Reaverwind]

That doesn't prevent them from being puppets of the player, which is what the OP seems to be asking.

Prior to DA2's release, we were told that it was important, for story reasons, that exactly one of the Hawke siblings was a mage.

And I can see why it was important that at least one be mage, I never did figure out why it was important that one of them not be a mage.

As it was, my mage Hawke hated Carver, so the two never spoke, and ultimately Carver may as well have not been in the game at all.

 

Iirc was supposed to be the motivation for Hawke to get involved with the Circle-templar mess. Problem is, it didn't work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Iirc was supposed to be the motivation for Hawke to get involved with the Circle-templar mess. Problem is, it didn't work.

That can't be it, because Carver can die in Act I. Or become a Grey Warden and leave.

The only way Carver gets involved in the conflict is if you ignore his preferences and leave him behind. That's hardly evidence of engagement.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree with your post in general - the "story reasons" for the specific sibling surviving in each case was pretty poor. Frankly, I'd've been happy with a purely gameplay justification - it works better having a warrior if you're a mage and vice-versa.

I wouldn't have liked that, either. That something works better is not a reason to force it on people.

[PhroXenGold]

I wouldn't have liked that, either. That something works better is not a reason to force it on people.

 

I think in a game, using gameplay reasons to justify things is OK. It's not perfect, but I could live with a response from the devs saying something along the lines of "we wanted one mage and one-non mage in the Hawke family because it leads to the best balance of gameplay and allows us to design encounters knowing the player will always have access to magic". Not that it's an ideal explanation, but it's an honest one and a logical one, which is a lot better than claiming story reasons which don't actually make sense.

 

edit: Just to add to this, remember, from an in game point of view, from Hawke's point of view, nothing is being forced upon them. They don't know about the alternative. The only reason that you know there is an alternative is by applying knowledge of DA2 as a game.

[Ina]

That can't be it, because Carver can die in Act I. Or become a Grey Warden and leave.

The only way Carver gets involved in the conflict is if you ignore his preferences and leave him behind. That's hardly evidence of engagement.

 

Yes you're right the trouble was that it only mattered if carver/bethany were left behind and if they became grey wardens the story justification aspect falls flat on its face. Perhaps they should have just made it so that beth/carver always go to circle/templars no matter what. 

[Reaverwind]

I think in a game, using gameplay reasons to justify things is OK. It's not perfect, but I could live with a response from the devs saying something along the lines of "we wanted one mage and one-non mage in the Hawke family because it leads to the best balance of gameplay and allows us to design encounters knowing the player will always have access to magic". Not that it's an ideal explanation, but it's an honest one and a logical one, which is a lot better than claiming story reasons which don't actually make sense.

 

edit: Just to add to this, remember, from an in game point of view, from Hawke's point of view, nothing is being forced upon them. They don't know about the alternative. The only reason that you know there is an alternative is by applying knowledge of DA2 as a game.

 

I don't appreciate that kind of hand-holding. I don't need my single-player games "balanced". In a game that allows party choice, encounters should be designed so that they can be defeated via a variety of approaches. Encounter challenge does not need to be even. Otherwise, Bioware might as well throw party choice out the window.

[PhroXenGold]

 

I don't appreciate that kind of hand-holding. I don't need my single-player games "balanced". In a game that allows party choice, encounters should be designed so that they can be defeated via a variety of approaches. Encounter challenge does not need to be even. Otherwise, Bioware might as well throw party choice out the window.

 

Should you be able to do encounters without a mage? Certainly. However, when designing for the average player, it is far easier and thus sensible to design around a fixed baseline - in this case, assuming the player has access to magic. Give the player the option to approach the encounters differently - which Bioware do, you don't have to cart around your sibling (barring the immediate aftermath of the other's death, which would make no sense otherwise) - if they want to challenge themselves, or try different options, but keep that consistent baseline for those that aren't interested in that.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Which sibling a big ogre kills isn't exactly a "decision" tbh.

[Ina]

Should you be able to do encounters without a mage? Certainly. However, when designing for the average player, it is far easier and thus sensible to design around a fixed baseline - in this case, assuming the player has access to magic. Give the player the option to approach the encounters differently - which Bioware do, you don't have to cart around your sibling (barring the immediate aftermath of the other's death, which would make no sense otherwise) - if they want to challenge themselves, or try different options, but keep that consistent baseline for those that aren't interested in that.

 

Possibly it can be accomplished by tying it to difficulty level, but that's likely more resources than BW cares to spend.

[Reaverwind]

Should you be able to do encounters without a mage? Certainly. However, when designing for the average player, it is far easier and thus sensible to design around a fixed baseline - in this case, assuming the player has access to magic. Give the player the option to approach the encounters differently - which Bioware do, you don't have to cart around your sibling (barring the immediate aftermath of the other's death, which would make no sense otherwise) - if they want to challenge themselves, or try different options, but keep that consistent baseline for those that aren't interested in that.

 

Designing for the average player is already covered via difficulty levels.

[GloriousDame]

I disagree, OP. Some things *should* be out of the players control, especially if the should happen as a consequence to a choice you made (in this case, a class), if only because our PCs are not omnipotent.

As for Carver, I liked him very much. He brought more complexity to the family dynamics, and conflict and subtance to the story. On one hand, I can understand why he is so apprehensive and dissatisfied because he was the afterthought of the Hawkes children (The oldest Hawke being their first "miracle" and taking on a protective role whatever class s/he was, Bethany the sweet, sensitive little girl who shouldn't have had to endure something she sometimes saw as a curse and as such she took a bulk of the attention, and then there was Carver). I can totally understand him being resentful over his other siblings. And on the other hand, he could be such an annoying brat. On later playthroughs of DA2 I found myself choosing to play as mage, just so that I could have Carver join the Templars (on one particular convo, he says that Hawke's always been looking out for the family, and that this -joining the Templars- was his own way of doing so). I always felt bad for Bethany because neither the Circle nor the Wardens are ever her choice (yes, she's happier in the Circle because she doesn't have to look over her shoulder constantly, but it is still never her choice), and I enjoyed seeing Carver joining the Templars on his own.

[Uccio]

I love that you don't have control over which sibling lives. It makes the world feel so much more believable and immersive when events happen like that which are beyond my control.

It fellt forced. Best outcome would have been if the game randomly kills the sibling leaving pc's character out of the decision progress.

[Lady Luminous]

Why not randomize the outcome then, rather than arbitrarily making Hawke's mage-/non-magedom the deciding factor? Latter doesn't really sound too convincing to me.

 

Besides, choosing between the two in the heat of the moment could have been realistically handled had BW wanted to. Have both siblings throw themselves at the Ogre, and whomever of those Hawke jumps to for aid lives while the other gets crushed by the Ogre. Reasonable as there would simply not be enough time to save both.

Generally speaking, I would certainly appreciate BW rather going that route in that type of situation.

 

 

Yes, this I would be okay with. It just feels really logical but too formulaic to have the class choice be the defining factor. 

 

I'd be totally happy with jumping to save one of them and then getting in an epic fight with an ogre!

[Lady Luminous]

Stop using meta knowledge. Hawke doesn't know that if she'd been born a mage Carver would've lived 

 

Of course that scene could've been written to have Hawke chose, but that would defeat the point IMO. Part of that reason for that scene is to demostrate that you are powerless. You can't just pick and chose what you want to happen. And that's why I think it's a good scene - yes, there should have been more character development and interactions before it, but the basic principle, that you do not have any control over who dies, is perfect. Because it's realistic. And that makes it into a immersive, believable RPG instead of a childish power fantasy where everthing you want to happen does.

 

 

That's the problem though with replayability, you do have that meta-knowledge and so once you know that your class choice makes a difference it stops feeling organic. 

[Lady Luminous]

I like to have the decision of what companions to recruit. In DA2 I had to recruit Anders and Merril. Fortunately I don't have to deal with them until the end.

 

DA:O Locked companions onto you though, like Oghren in the deep roads. And I don't think you can get rid of Alistair in certain quests either. 

[Lady Luminous]

The problem with this is what if Both Hawke siblings are mages and Bethany gets left behind? Why would Cullen only lock up Bethany and not Hawke?

 

Well the rest of the game ignores your mage-iness anyways, so why not?  

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think in a game, using gameplay reasons to justify things is OK. It's not perfect, but I could live with a response from the devs saying something along the lines of "we wanted one mage and one-non mage in the Hawke family because it leads to the best balance of gameplay and allows us to design encounters knowing the player will always have access to magic". Not that it's an ideal explanation, but it's an honest one and a logical one, which is a lot better than claiming story reasons which don't actually make sense.

True, and then I would have no qualms at all about modding the game to let me have two mages. Because that's what I wanted, and I think it would have worked even better in the story.

edit: Just to add to this, remember, from an in game point of view, from Hawke's point of view, nothing is being forced upon them. They don't know about the alternative. The only reason that you know there is an alternative is by applying knowledge of DA2 as a game.

Of course. But as the player, I'll be more engaged in Hawke's world if I find it interesting, and a whiny git like Carver isn't interesting.

I wonder if BioWare assumed that we'd give Carver the benefit of the doubt because he was family. I suspect I judged him more harshly as a result, not less.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem with this is what if Both Hawke siblings are mages and Bethany gets left behind? Why would Cullen only lock up Bethany and not Hawke?

Because Hawke isn't there to be caught. Because Bethany gets noticed while Hawke is away. That's not a hard thing to write around.