182 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Of the sibling had remained with Hawke after act 2, it would have been a completely different story what they wanted to tell, so I don't necessarily consider it dropping the ball, but rather wanting them to tell a different story than they did.

 

As for which sibling survived, in the first act the story they were telling required the siblings to be in different positions. One sibling had to be the one drawing the attention to the family and forcing them to act secretly while the other had to react to that situation. If Hawke isn't a mage, what was Carver supposed to do? Complain about the burden of their dead sister? If Bethany had survived and Hawke was a mage, why would Bethany feel so much guilt about being a burden on their family? Not only would such a choice require them to write completely different narratives, but it would also remove the family dynamic they had planned.

 

Pretty sure Arishok incident would've gone along just fine with Bethany/Carver in Hawke's party instead of dead/circle/warden. Same with Act 3. Hell at least then Meredith would always be able to actually threaten Hawke instead of the awkward "Why are you threatening me when I'm not a mage and my sibling's warden/dead? And more importantly why do I care?" you get during that scene in some scenarios. If Bethany was always with Hawke act 3 forcing you to run around doing Meredith's street cleaning could've been justified for all Hawkes instead of yet another but thou must situation.

 

There would be modifications of course but I'm not seeing the main core of the plot being lost seeing as your sibling could've died at the end of act 1 and the game keeps on trucking along. The family dynamic that goes out the window when they die in the deep roads? And shows up for a whooping 2 or three conversations without dlc? Yeah I'm not seeing the strong value over that most of the time invisible family dynamic vs a constant presence (which could show the dynamic anyway ).

 

You see Circle Bethany a whooping 1 time in act 2. And then again in act 3. You can't even have a decent conversation with her about your mother's death because other crap is going down. Same with Carver.

 

The warden version you maybe able to see 2 times in act 2 if you played Awakening.

 

Yay. 2 really short conversations that mostly are a "how are you doing" bit.

 

The DLC fleshes them out a bit more with the banters yes. But that's DLC.

[Hizoku]

In regards to DA2, yeah i would have been ok with being able to choose which sibling would die and which would live because the entire game was Varric telling a story to Cassandra.

 

But as for whether or not I'm ok with such choices in DAI, I don't care either way.. more control is always good in an rpg, but i won't get pissy about it if certain things are decided for us.

[Hiemoth]

Pretty sure Arishok incident would've gone along just fine with Bethany/Carver in Hawke's party instead of dead/circle/warden. Same with Act 3. Hell at least then Meredith would always be able to actually threaten Hawke instead of the awkward "Why are you threatening me when I'm not a mage and my sibling's warden/dead? And more importantly why do I care?" you get during that scene in some scenarios. If Bethany was always with Hawke act 3 forcing you to run around doing Meredith's street cleaning could've been justified for all Hawkes instead of yet another but thou must situation.

 

There would be modifications of course but I'm not seeing the main core of the plot being lost seeing as your sibling could've died at the end of act 1 and the game keeps on trucking along. The family dynamic that goes out the window when they die in the deep roads? And shows up for a whooping 2 or three conversations without dlc? Yeah I'm not seeing the strong value over that most of the time invisible family dynamic vs a constant presence (which could show the dynamic anyway ).

 

You see Circle Bethany a whooping 1 time in act 2. And then again in act 3. You can't even have a decent conversation with her about your mother's death because other crap is going down. Same with Carver.

 

The warden version you maybe able to see 2 times in act 2 if you played Awakening.

 

Yay. 2 really short conversations that mostly are a "how are you doing" bit.

 

The DLC fleshes them out a bit more with the banters yes. But that's DLC.

 

And if Leandra had survived "All that Remains", the Arishok still attacks. Actually, no matter what decision you do concerning Varric's brother, the Mage-Templar war still starts. Due to the fact that those storylines, while being a part of a larger narrative arc, are separate events in that greater story.

 

The reason for the loss of the sibling is not for a narrative lead in to the Arishok event, but rather as a story beat how each achievement for Hawke is marred by a personal loss and how the character deals with that. The loss of the second sibling is also an important beat for the relationship with Leandra. For your second argument how you don't have a lot of interactions with those siblings is a completely separate issue as that is a resource question in a game that was rushed, which especially hurt the third Act. Yet, no matter what choice was made concerning the end of Act 1, if you were suddenly constantly running and having long conversations with your siblings in Act 2, it would heavily reduce the impact the sense of loss due to the ending of Act 1.

 

As for your opinion on the invisible family dynamic vs constant pressure, that is kind of an impossible question as that goes to subjective tastes and again, and this cannot be stressed enough, was not the story they wanted to tell in DA2. You don't have to like the story they told, as those things are also subjective, but it was their story to tell.

[Ryzaki]

And if Leandra had survived "All that Remains", the Arishok still attacks. Actually, no matter what decision you do concerning Varric's brother, the Mage-Templar war still starts. Due to the fact that those storylines, while being a part of a larger narrative arc, are separate events in that greater story.

 

The reason for the loss of the sibling is not for a narrative lead in to the Arishok event, but rather as a story beat how each achievement for Hawke is marred by a personal loss and how the character deals with that. The loss of the second sibling is also an important beat for the relationship with Leandra. For your second argument how you don't have a lot of interactions with those siblings is a completely separate issue as that is a resource question in a game that was rushed, which especially hurt the third Act. Yet, no matter what choice was made concerning the end of Act 1, if you were suddenly constantly running and having long conversations with your siblings in Act 2, it would heavily reduce the impact the sense of loss due to the ending of Act 1.

 

As for your opinion on the invisible family dynamic vs constant pressure, that is kind of an impossible question as that goes to subjective tastes and again, and this cannot be stressed enough, was not the story they wanted to tell in DA2. You don't have to like the story they told, as those things are also subjective, but it was their story to tell.

 

True. And I felt it was drama for the sake of drama and just served to highlight how ineffectual Hawke was. Which is their story to be told true. (of course then comes the issue of them trying to obscure this in the marketing but that's neither here nor there).

 

I see where you're coming from. I just don't see the story they told as particularly valuable especially not way they did so. There gets to be a point where the amount of loss get to be excessive and frankly pointless other than more tragedy for the sake of it and DA2 crossed that mark.

 

I never argued it wasn't. Merely that I'd preferred something actually tangible over "aww Hawke's failed yet again. Because you would've forgotten from the other times. Somehow." to the extent that I'm wondering why he hasn't left when he's fully capable of and there's nothing in that city that he came there with. 

[Reaverwind]

True. And I felt it was drama for the sake of drama and just served to highlight how ineffectual Hawke was. Which is their story to be told true. (of course then comes the issue of them trying to obscure this in the marketing but that's neither here nor there).

 

I see where you're coming from. I just don't see the story they told as particularly valuable especially not way they did so. There gets to be a point where the amount of loss get to be excessive and frankly pointless other than more tragedy for the sake of it and DA2 crossed that mark.

 

I never argued it wasn't. Merely that I'd preferred something actually tangible over "aww Hawke's failed yet again. Because you would've forgotten from the other times. Somehow." to the extent that I'm wondering why he hasn't left when he's fully capable of and there's nothing in that city that he came there with. 

 

That's a major problem I see with DA2 - the family story is weak, and the connection to the over-arching plot(s) is weaker.

[Uccio]

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?

Hawke stays in the deep roads one day longer while Cullen takes his sister away. Problem solved.

[davidselite737]

I just wished we had Zaeed Massani or Robin Sachs in DAI , we miss you brother, cya soon 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Considering how boring Bethany is and whiny Carver is, I'm fine with that one decision being out of our hand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Man, people are sleeping on Carver. Get him into Friendship and make him a Grey Warden. He becomes your best friend after Varric.

I never liked Varric, either, to be honest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Considering how boring Bethany is and whiny Carver is, I'm fine with that one decision being out of our hand.

Apparently I like boring. Bethany was my favourite companion.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

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.

 

Because it's important for the story that either Bethany or Carver survive depending on the particular Hawke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because it's important for the story that either Bethany or Carver survive depending on the particular Hawke.

Except it isn't. There's no story-based need for Carver at any point.

[Johnny Shepard]

The reason we could not chose was for the balance. You are stuck with your sibling most of act one and having 2 mages or no mage before you recruit the rest just doesn't make sense. I hate it too but I get the reason. I just don't get why they had to make Carver in to such a mean bastard. Nobody liked him and he hated everybody. I can understand him being angry at Hawke but why did he hate the whole damn world? Someone say something nice to him and he tells them to f# ¤k off. Latest playthrough I was trying to get him to Friendship and it's a pain to be nice to him when he's never nice to you.

Bethany and Carver probably was suppose to be in through the whole game but was cut for time. There are suppose to be a unused model for him being a City Guard so he probably would have been able to join them.

 

Anyway, look at it like this. As a Mage, Hawke needs a knight to help him in battle when they get to near so Carver sticks whit him and Bethany stays behind to protect mom. But a Rouge/Warrior Hawke doesn't doesn't need a knight, he is a knight for his sister who needs to use her abilities to fight in the frontline so Carver is the one standing back and protecting mom. That's how I do to feel that it makes more sense than it just being about how you chose to play.

[Ryzaki]

They could've justified the Carver/Beth thing by starting both Hawke and Beth off with a healing spell. A darkspawn or the ogre's thrown rock hits Hawke/Carver hard. Bethany/Hawke runs to Hawke/Carver and starts mending teh wound. Other sibling then gets bashed.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Except it isn't. There's no story-based need for Carver at any point.

 

Carver's story is that he's jealous of a Mage Hawke because of all the attention Maclom needed to give him growing up. He can't do that with a Rogue or Warrior Hawke.

 

I don't think Hawke should have had a choice in which sibling he or she saves. That's a reflection in the story of what I think is supposed to be tragedy of the Blight, that people can't save who they want.

[omnitremere]

I never liked Varric, either, to be honest.

 

What's not to like about Varric?

[The Baconer]

You know what's even more offensive? Being forced to have Mind Blast as your first spell if you're a mage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Carver's story is that he's jealous of a Mage Hawke because of all the attention Maclom needed to give him growing up. He can't do that with a Rogue or Warrior Hawke.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, Carver's story needs Mage Hawke, but nothing about Hawke's story - regardless of class - requires Carver.

I don't think Hawke should have had a choice in which sibling he or she saves. That's a reflection in the story of what I think is supposed to be tragedy of the Blight, that people can't save who they want.

I don't think Hawke should have the control. I think the player should.

That's a very different thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You know what's even more offensive? Being forced to have Mind Blast as your first spell if you're a mage.

Absolutely. They shouldn't pre-assign any abilities.

I didn't like being forced to take Arcane Blast in DAO, either (in fact, I modded that out).

[AshenEndymion]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, Carver's story needs Mage Hawke, but nothing about Hawke's story - regardless of class - requires Carver.

 

But isn't the same true of Bethany?

 

I mean, wouldn't it be more accurate to say nothing about Hawke's story requires siblings, period.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, Carver's story needs Mage Hawke, but nothing about Hawke's story - regardless of class - requires Carver.
I don't think Hawke should have the control. I think the player should.

That's a very different thing.

 

Well by that logic, Hawke doesn't need either sibling at all. Or anyone except Anders, Isabela and Varric.

 

The player can control which sibling dies by picking their class, but aside from that the Player's experience in the game is supposed to be the experience of being Hawke, so no they aren't very different things.

[AshenEndymion]

Well by that logic, Hawke doesn't need either sibling at all. Or anyone except Anders, Isabela and Varric.

 

I'd say Anders, Merrill, and Varric.

 

Isabella is as required as Aveline.  Having her adds flavor and information, but she's not required for the story to move along, because she's an optional party member to begin with.

[Johnny Shepard]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, Carver's story needs Mage Hawke, but nothing about Hawke's story - regardless of class - requires Carver.
I don't think Hawke should have the control. I think the player should.

That's a very different thing.

It is in  player control. You make the choice when you chose class. But if you could just chose who lives and dies as the player (not character) then it would take away the sadness of loosing one you like and take away the RPG in that sometimes **** happens that you can't control.

[Hiemoth]

True. And I felt it was drama for the sake of drama and just served to highlight how ineffectual Hawke was. Which is their story to be told true. (of course then comes the issue of them trying to obscure this in the marketing but that's neither here nor there).

 

I see where you're coming from. I just don't see the story they told as particularly valuable especially not way they did so. There gets to be a point where the amount of loss get to be excessive and frankly pointless other than more tragedy for the sake of it and DA2 crossed that mark.

 

I never argued it wasn't. Merely that I'd preferred something actually tangible over "aww Hawke's failed yet again. Because you would've forgotten from the other times. Somehow." to the extent that I'm wondering why he hasn't left when he's fully capable of and there's nothing in that city that he came there with. 

 

And that is a fair criticism. I don't agree with, but I will freely admit that those fall under subject matters and I can easily see how one could experience the story of DA2 in that way. Also, the marketing was questionable, although I feel it was due to the rushing. They were talking about things they would have liked to have to done, and came really close to doing, but stuff that still wasn't in the game itself.

 

As for the sibling connection, I kind of got a feeling that they were intending to expand on it in Act 3, but it fell victim to the rush. You know, I hate discussing what games could have been with additional development, because it is never a guarantee that the game would be better, and the product is the product you have. Yet with DA2, when I play it or talk about, I just find myself wishing that they would have at least a year more to spend on the game as I think I can see all they wanted to do and came close to doing. But such thoughts are wasted and we must just hope that with DAI they are able to give us an experience we both can enjoy.

[aTigerslunch]

I kept Anders at home almost all the way thru the game, had to pull him out to fight Unbound, having no mage in that fight was rough. Otherwise, I have 3 rogues and one warrior and moving thru fights extremely fast.