182 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

What's not to like about Varric?

What's to like? I just didn't find him that interesting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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

That's my point. The supposedly story-related reasons for the loss of a specific sibling just don't exist, especially for a mage Hawke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Things happen the character can't control. I simply disagree that this requires that the player not control it.

Luckily, DA2 had mods for this. Yet another reason why mods are important, and I very much hope extensive modding is possible in Inquisition (just as I hope that they are not necessary).

[pallascedar]

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

 

There's also no story based need for Fenris or Merrill. Or for Aveline really.

 

Carver's story is interesting for its own reasons. I loved Carver. Yes, he was a whiny jerk, but he was also fiercely loyal to his family and deeply committed to attempting to create goodness and order out of a world that thoroughly bewildered him. I'm pretty glad that the game forced him on me during some playthroughs, because it's hard to get over how much more initially dis-likable he is compared to Bethany, but when I did I came to appreciate him immensely as a character. It was nice to roleplay as a sibling. My real life sister can be a real jerk, but I love her anyhow. I can RP that with Carver.

 

Also, I hardly think the Carver/Bethany thing is a choice being forced on anyone. It's not a choice, one of your siblings dies, and depending on the world you create it's a different sibling.

[AshenEndymion]

There's also no story based need for Fenris or Merrill. Or for Aveline really.

 
There is a story based need for Merrill.  It's small, but it's present in the game.  Merrill releases Flemeth from the amulet.  Without Merrill, Hawke doesn't honor the deal with Flemeth.  Sure, someone else in the clan could do it, but to say that would be like saying "There is no story based need for Isabella because someone else could have stolen the book from the Qunari."
 
One could also argue Merrill's final quest that possibly results in the clan dying is also a "story based need"... But I won't argue it, because I'm not sure I believe it myself.

[Burricho]

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.

How does the fact that it is controlled arbitrarily by class selection make it more immersive? It makes it less, as it makes zero sense that hawke's class determines who lives or dies. If you want to make it more 'immersive' have who dies be random each playthrough.

[PhroXenGold]

How does the fact that it is controlled arbitrarily by class selection make it more immersive? It makes it less, as it makes zero sense that hawke's class determines who lives or dies. If you want to make it more 'immersive' have who dies be random each playthrough.

 

From an in game point of veiw, it might as well be random. Hawke doesn't know that his other sibling would've died if he's been a mage.

[frankf43]

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.

 

She's the whole point of act two with the Qunari. She stole the book that they are after. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

From an in game point of veiw, it might as well be random. Hawke doesn't know that his other sibling would've died if he's been a mage.

But that would be equally true if the player got to choose.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's also no story based need for Fenris or Merrill. Or for Aveline really.

Carver's story is interesting for its own reasons. I loved Carver. Yes, he was a whiny jerk, but he was also fiercely loyal to his family and deeply committed to attempting to create goodness and order out of a world that thoroughly bewildered him. I'm pretty glad that the game forced him on me during some playthroughs, because it's hard to get over how much more initially dis-likable he is compared to Bethany, but when I did I came to appreciate him immensely as a character. It was nice to roleplay as a sibling. My real life sister can be a real jerk, but I love her anyhow. I can RP that with Carver.

I'm not claiming he's valueless. He, like any companion, provides roleplaying opportunities.

I'm glad you enjoyed him.

[Chashan]

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.[...]

 

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.

 

As someone else pointed out, this type of "balance"-reasoning defeats the entire point of party choice being present, with which it is at the player's discretion whether they want to roll an all-mage/all-rogue/all-warrior party or anything in-between. Having an actual choice as to which sibling is to die, one can certainly make that having party-composition in mind. Or due to preference of either on a like/dislike-scale. Either way, what choosing in the matter would do, if anything, is add to replayability.

 

 

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.

 

In which case, either Bethany or Carver being dead right after the fake-prologue, killed off-screen during the desertion/the escape would have made more narrative sense to me, and set a mood more befitting that tone besides. As is, the entire thing is decided via cutscene-logic based on hardly sound reasoning, neither in meta nor in-game terms.

 

Things happen the character can't control. I simply disagree that this requires that the player not control it.

Luckily, DA2 had mods for this. Yet another reason why mods are important, and I very much hope extensive modding is possible in Inquisition (just as I hope that they are not necessary).

 

Funnily enough, one can get through the game as a mage with Beth' alive with Sophie's Choice toggled at the right moments and Hawke still being recognized as a mage at the same time. I certainly share that hope for Inquisition to have that much malleability when it comes to mods.

[harry dread]

Almost every big story element in dragon age 2 is going to happen no matter if hawke was there or not, and in my mind that's the point. Hawke isn't the centre of the story as the warden was, Hawke is reacting as things happen.
The whole meredith and orsino bit at the end was always going to happen, it was always going to be bad, and nothing you can do will change it. And that's kinda the point.

[PhroXenGold]

But that would be equally true if the player got to choose.

 

Of course. But that would defeat the point of the scene which is to demonstrate that you don't have choice. And in the game, from Hawke's point of view, you don't have one. You only have a "choice" in an OOC metagaming sense.

[Reaverwind]

Almost every big story element in dragon age 2 is going to happen no matter if hawke was there or not, and in my mind that's the point. Hawke isn't the centre of the story as the warden was, Hawke is reacting as things happen.
The whole meredith and orsino bit at the end was always going to happen, it was always going to be bad, and nothing you can do will change it. And that's kinda the point.

 

And that's precisely the problem with DA2 - Hawke doesn't get to interact with the story in any meaningful way. This is a story better suited to a novel - not an RPG where player agency is supposed to have some importance.

[PhroXenGold]

And that's precisely the problem with DA2 - Hawke doesn't get to interact with the story in any meaningful way. This is a story better suited to a novel - not an RPG where player agency is supposed to have some importance.

 

Why should player agency have importance in an RPG?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Of course. But that would defeat the point of the scene which is to demonstrate that you don't have choice. And in the game, from Hawke's point of view, you don't have one. You only have a "choice" in an OOC metagaming sense.

And that's all the choice I would want, with the ability to have 2 mages at the end of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why should player agency have importance in an RPG?

Otherwise, what is the point of the player?

[PhroXenGold]

Otherwise, what is the point of the player?

 

To experience the story. To enjoy the game. To be immersed in a believable setting where, much like in reality, most people aren't able to majorly influence events. To play the role of someone who doesn't have complete agency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To experience the story. To enjoy the game. To be immersed in a believable setting where, much like in reality, most people aren't able to majorly influence events. To play the role of someone who doesn't have complete agency.

But he has some.

And regardless, player agency and character agency are not the same thing.

[Lady Luminous]

From an in game point of veiw, it might as well be random. Hawke doesn't know that his other sibling would've died if he's been a mage.

 

Yes, but for people who have no interest in playing a mage, it means that I get no chance to get to know Carver. 

 

Which, while I know it's my choice to not roll a mage so it's still technically fair, really sucks!

[AlanC9]

Yes, but for people who have no interest in playing a mage, it means that I get no chance to get to know Carver. 
 
Which, while I know it's my choice to not roll a mage so it's still technically fair, really sucks!

Well, yeah, but any choice with consequences locks you out of some set of consequences if you don't want to play the choice both ways.

[Lady Luminous]

Well, yeah, but any choice with consequences locks you out of some set of consequences if you don't want to play the choice both ways.

 

I just realized I sounded exactly like the people in the romance forums who don't want to play the opposite sex to get the LI they want...

 

My apologies! 

[Grayvisions]

It was never in your hands to begin with, choosing who dies in the sibling situation feels cheap to me.

 

Also Carver was a lot more interesting than Bethany.

 

I disagree. I think that having to choose between two people you love, knowing you can't save them both, is incredibly deep and provocative.

[SirGladiator]

It's always better when the player has the choice, whether you were talking about romances or who lives and dies, all very important and the power shouldn't ever be taken away from the player.  In ME Ashley didn't die if you were a solider and Kaiden didn't die if you weren't, it was based on your choice in the game, that's what made it such a powerful scenario.  It was absolutely terrible that you couldn't choose to save Bethany as a mage, which is why I never played as one until the mod came out allowing you to be both a Mage and save Bethany.  We all know that they're moving in the direction of less choice for the player in terms of the romances, not only moving back in favor of sex-gating, but even inventing a new form of gating, race-gating, to take even more choice and fun away from the players, but at the very least they should let us keep our favorite characters alive, taking that choice away from us too, like they did in DA2, would be absolutely horrible, and I certainly hope it doesn't happen.

[PhroXenGold]

It's always better when the player has the choice, whether you were talking about romances or who lives and dies, all very important and the power shouldn't ever be taken away from the player.  In ME Ashley didn't die if you were a solider and Kaiden didn't die if you weren't, it was based on your choice in the game, that's what made it such a powerful scenario.  It was absolutely terrible that you couldn't choose to save Bethany as a mage, which is why I never played as one until the mod came out allowing you to be both a Mage and save Bethany.  We all know that they're moving in the direction of less choice for the player in terms of the romances, not only moving back in favor of sex-gating, but even inventing a new form of gating, race-gating, to take even more choice and fun away from the players, but at the very least they should let us keep our favorite characters alive, taking that choice away from us too, like they did in DA2, would be absolutely horrible, and I certainly hope it doesn't happen.

 

Now you see, I completely disagree with this. I'm not saying the player should never have to chose or such, indeed the choice on Virmire was a great scene, but giving the player the power to chose at all times trivialises it. It puts you into a position a god, not a character. In reality, people just die most of the time. You don't get to chose, it just happens. To always give choice is simply unbelievable. And to be honest, Virmire wasn't about the character dying, it was about the choice. It was about having to make a painful decision, not about having to face up to death.

 

Same with romances. People have their own tastes and preferences. Not everyone in the world is bisexual, not everyone automatically finds everyone else attractive. A world where everyone will sleep with the lead character regardless is laughably unrealistic. Frankly, I feel that DA:I is too "free love". Most people I know have sexual tastes far more restrictive than any of the characters, even down to things like not wanting to date people with certain hair colours.

 

But then, maybe I'm in a minority. I want a deep, immersive, believable world, not a power fantasy where everything I want to happen does. I want to roleplay a character not a god. I want the game to kick me in the balls. I want it to make me upset because a character I like died without me being able to influence it. Because that is realistic. It's immersive. And it's moments like that that stay with you. Take, for example, FFVII. Yes, the game is pretty crap (6 and 9 are vastly superior), but that one scene - and if you've played it you'll know exactly what one I mean - is still  one of the greatest in gaming. Why? Because there's nothing you can do about it. It displays the helplessness of your character. And in doing so it immerses you in the world. It makes you feel.