820 réponses à ce sujet

[FiveThreeTen]

This. Bioware making DA:I can be described by this picture.

.

Can't unsee.

 

I do think they may have bitten off more than they could chew, but primarily in the whole open world implementation. Since they more or less sorted out their engine now, I'm now cautiously optimistic that they will devote more ressources in fleshing out what is already there in the future.

On the LIs department, my opinion is more subjective. I personally didn't find any of the romances to my taste so having a great number of them to choose from isn't a guarantee that I will like one. Also romance is not a determinant feature to my enjoyment of a game. My canon Quizz is single but I thoroughly enjoyed playing her.

I do think having two voices to choose from per gender is pretty awesome. Granted, I only used Alix and Curry so far but I will never complain about more PC customization options in a RPG.

 

I misread your previous post, my bad.

That's all good, I sounded a little grumpy myself, it's monday.

[9TailsFox]

Can't unsee.

 

I do think they may have bitten off more than they could chew, but primarily in the whole open world implementation. Since they more or less sorted out their engine now, I'm now cautiously optimistic that they will devote more ressources in fleshing out what is already there in the future.

On the LIs department, my opinion is more subjective. I personally didn't find any of the romances to my taste so having a great number of them to choose from isn't a guarantee that I will like one. Also romance is not a determinant feature to my enjoyment of a game. My canon Quizz is single but I thoroughly enjoyed playing her.

I do think having two voices to choose from per gender is pretty awesome. Granted, I only used Alix and Curry so far but I will never complain about more PC customization options in a RPG.

 

That's all good, I sounded a little grumpy myself, it's monday.

But this is biggest DA problem DA:O have great identity, DA2 and DA:I is just experiments. DA don't know what they want to do, and for what group of people want to do. Making game for everyone is great idea it just have one small problem practically it's impossible.

Yes on LI I agree. Josephine not companion disney romance. Cass meh I guess it was fine but I was what's it? Iron Bull is a joke, Cullen fanservice. Blakwall it's not romance the guy just boring, nice plot twist. Only good romance was Solas. Not even close to DA:O Morrigan and Alistair or even DA2 Isabella and Anders.

[Revan Reborn]

But this is biggest DA problem DA:O have great identity, DA2 and DA:I is just experiments. DA don't know what they want to do, and for what group of people want to do. Making game for everyone is great idea it just have one small problem practically it's impossible.

Yes on LI I agree. Josephine not companion disney romance. Cass meh I guess it was fine but I was what's it? Iron Bull is a joke, Cullen fanservice. Blakwall it's not romance the guy just boring, nice plot twist. Only good romance was Solas. Not even close to DA:O Morrigan and Alistair or even DA2 Isabella and Anders.

I think this is a great point that can't be highlighted enough. Dragon Age has had an identity crisis since the very beginning. Does everybody remember when fans were criticizing DAO for looking too generic and being a LotR/D&D clone? BioWare received tons of hate and you know the first thing they tried to rectify in DAII? Completely change the art style to something more stylized and give Dragon Age its own feel. However, DAII was rushed and too many gameplay mechanics were cut, thus the game suffered. DAI was an attempt to try and take the pros of both games while also adding new experiences, such as Skyrim exploration and having the player lead an organization rather than just a small group of companions.

 

Results? It's a mixed bag. Overall, I felt the ideas behind DAI are a step in the right direction. I just don't believe the execution was necessarily there. Exploration of a more open world is nice, but doing collectibles and repeatable kill quests is hardly engaging. Combat in Dragon Age is still a bit wonky with BioWare trying to combine DAO's combat and DAII's combat together. The game tried so hard to make the player feel like the leader of an organization that I never truly believed it. All the Inquisitor did was spend hours at a war table sending out different advisors for activities and the occasional judgment that was interesting, but more or less a direct copy of Fable 3's system.

 

I also believe a strong protagonist is another area BioWare is suffering in. DAO went the KotOR approach with a silent protagonist as the lead. Unlike in DAO, I think it actually worked quite well in KotOR when you found out you were Revan, an already established character. That completely changed the entire experience. In DAO you are never established, so you are essentially just an avatar traveling a world that doesn't really react to you and you can't really react to it. DAII tried to rectify this issue due to the popularity and success of a strong protagonist with ME1/ME2 but, again, gameplay mechanics were poor. DAI awkwardly tried to combine the best of both worlds, and in my opinion it just wasn't very successful or compelling.

 

I think BioWare needs to make some definitive choices about what they want Dragon Age to be. It's so wishy washy and changes so much with each iteration that it's hard to tell if BioWare really knows where to go with it. This is completely the opposite in Mass Effect where the original started a theme and that idea persisted throughout. The combat certainly changed a lot between ME1 and ME2 (arguably for the better), but it was still largely the same experience. I think Dragon Age needs to find itself and just take a stance rather than trying to please everybody. You either have a focused and precise product that excites or you have an indecisive one that is just decent at best.

[berelinde]

Honestly, I have no idea *what* kind of protagonist we'll have in DA4.

 

We'll never have another silent protagonist, and I'm cool with that. To me, the HoF was kinda insipid. Buuuuuut, after the flak DA2 got, I don't seem them ever returning to a human-only protagonist... and multi-race possibilities doesn't lead to much individuality.

 

So many times during DAI, I wanted to rage over the obvious Andrastian bias. Yeah, you got plenty of opportunities to say that you weren't Andrastian or that you worshipped the elven pantheon... but your elven, dwarven, or qunari protagonist knew literally everything there was to know about the Andrastian faith and literally nothing about their race's traditional religion. I get it. They were trying to hammer home how widespread the Andrastian religion is, that even Dalish from the Free Marches are expert Chantry historians... but it felt artificial. Why is the Dalish inquisitor asking Dorian how the Imperial Chantry compares to "our Chantry"? It wasn't the Dalish Inquisitor's Chantry, that's for sure.

 

I know that the Word Budget is to blame. I know perfectly well that we can't have N completely separate games, one for each of N races. A lot of the dialogues must be shared, and the human Andrastian version is the default. But knowing where to lay the blame does not make the final product seem less generic.

 

I don't know what the answer is. People want the ability to play multiple races, but they want to be able to express the protagonist's personality. It seems like an either/or decision. EITHER we get multiple races OR we have a means of expressing personality. Not both. I'm not sure that compromise is even possible, but I know for a fact that choosing one at the expense of the other will anger a lot of people.

[Revan Reborn]

Honestly, I have no idea *what* kind of protagonist we'll have in DA4.

 

We'll never have another silent protagonist, and I'm cool with that. To me, the HoF was kinda insipid. Buuuuuut, after the flak DA2 got, I don't seem them ever returning to a human-only protagonist... and multi-race possibilities doesn't lead to much individuality.

 

So many times during DAI, I wanted to rage over the obvious Andrastian bias. Yeah, you got plenty of opportunities to say that you weren't Andrastian or that you worshipped the elven pantheon... but your elven, dwarven, or qunari protagonist knew literally everything there was to know about the Andrastian faith and literally nothing about their race's traditional religion. I get it. They were trying to hammer home how widespread the Andrastian religion is, that even Dalish from the Free Marches are expert Chantry historians... but it felt artificial. Why is the Dalish inquisitor asking Dorian how the Imperial Chantry compares to "our Chantry"? It wasn't the Dalish Inquisitor's Chantry, that's for sure.

 

I know that the Word Budget is to blame. I know perfectly well that we can't have N completely separate games, one for each of N races. A lot of the dialogues must be shared, and the human Andrastian version is the default. But knowing where to lay the blame does not make the final product seem less generic.

 

I don't know what the answer is. People want the ability to play multiple races, but they want to be able to express the protagonist's personality. It seems like an either/or decision. EITHER we get multiple races OR we have a means of expressing personality. Not both. I'm not sure that compromise is even possible, but I know for a fact that choosing one at the expense of the other will anger a lot of people.

I don't believe there is a compromise honestly. I think that's a reality many just aren't willing to accept. If we could have the best of both worlds, BioWare would have done it. Whether it's just practical or actually impossible, the results are the same. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose. I think the longer BioWare tries to make compromises on Dragon Age, the longer they will continue to hurt the brand and it will suffer.

 

Again, DAII didn't suffer because of Hawke, contrary to what many will claim. DAII suffered because of a rushed experience with bad gameplay. There were barely any environments to explore. Many features from DAO had to been cut and left a void. You couldn't even equip armor on your companions. DAII had been stripped in so many ways that what was left was a shell of an experience. That's why the game did not perform well.

 

Overall, I felt the story and character development was on point. We had a much better cast of companions this time around (only a few were worthy of note in DAO) and the adventure was much more personal, thus engaging. Had DAII had the time DAO did, I think people's perception of Hawke would be very different today. Either way, I've made my stance clear that I believe BioWare should go with a strong protagonist. Yes, that means multi-race needs to go. That doesn't mean we have to be a human either. That means BioWare picks one race and sticks with it (human, qunari, elf, dwarf, etc.).

[In Exile]

I have to contest that the Warden had more clever, snappy, witty or funny lines then the Inquisitor. Putting aside arguments about imagined delivery, there's very little wit when it comes to DAO dialogue. In that regard the Warden is like Shepard or the Inquisitor.

[FiveThreeTen]

I also believe a strong protagonist is another area BioWare is suffering in. DAO went the KotOR approach with a silent protagonist as the lead. Unlike in DAO, I think it actually worked quite well in KotOR when you found out you were Revan, an already established character. That completely changed the entire experience. In DAO you are never established, so you are essentially just an avatar traveling a world that doesn't really react to you and you can't really react to it. DAII tried to rectify this issue due to the popularity and success of a strong protagonist with ME1/ME2 but, again, gameplay mechanics were poor. DAI awkwardly tried to combine the best of both worlds, and in my opinion it just wasn't very successful or compelling.

Not for everyone. My DAO protagonists never felt like empty avatars. And the world does react to you in many instances. I don't need my character to be adressed as "Hawke", "Shepaaaard" every 5 seconds to feel like the world aknowledges my character.

 

Kotor and Jade Empire also had silent PC with voiced NPCs, and they weren't empty shells (even pre reveal for Revan) for me either.

[dailyminerals]

I'd have to admit to agreeing with the theory behind OP's argument. I see DAI replete with this problem. In a nutshell, the more significant choices you give the player, the less that choice will actually end up mattering. Why? Because Bioware's resources are finite and they won't (more to the point can't) invest any meaningful resources into the myriad different permutations that the storyline can develop into. My choices with Connor from DA Origins? Boiled down to a conversation with some dude on the Redcliff waterfront. Something as significant as who is ruler of Ferelden? A few lines here and there, and little more. The real tragedy here is that it significantly damages the potential to tell a compelling story. Always in the back of the Bioware writer's mind is "how can I write this part of DAI to ensure it meshes with the lowest common denominator that covers all the potential permutations of player choice?" Even as something as significant as the Old God Baby had to be written to an innocuous conclusion just to ensure they could actually develop a coherent plot around that specific story branch later in the series. Honestly, I think the best thing Bioware could do to improve their storytelling is to simply do away with the faux branching story/player choice mechanic. Going forward, if Bioware would write one strong, compelling narrative that doesn't necessitate watering down or weakening to appease every potential player-made canon, I think their games would truly achieve what they promise, but fail (in my opinion) to deliver: a deep, impactful, story-driven experience.

[Revan Reborn]

I'd have to admit to agreeing with the theory behind OP's argument. I see DAI replete with this problem. In a nutshell, the more significant choices you give the player, the less that choice will actually end up mattering. Why? Because Bioware's resources are finite and they won't (more to the point can't) invest any meaningful resources into the myriad different permutations that the storyline can develop into. My choices with Connor from DA Origins? Boiled down to a conversation with some dude on the Redcliff waterfront. Something as significant as who is ruler of Ferelden? A few lines here and there, and little more. The real tragedy here is that it significantly damages the potential to tell a compelling story. Always in the back of the Bioware writer's mind is "how can I write this part of DAI to ensure it meshes with the lowest common denominator that covers all the potential permutations of player choice?" Even as something as significant as the Old God Baby had to be written to an innocuous conclusion just to ensure they could actually develop a coherent plot around that specific story branch later in the series. Honestly, I think the best thing Bioware could do to improve their storytelling is to simply do away with the faux branching story/player choice mechanic. Going forward, if Bioware would write one strong, compelling narrative that doesn't necessitate watering down or weakening to appease every potential player-made canon, I think their games would truly achieve what they promise, but fail (in my opinion) to deliver: a deep, impactful, story-driven experience.

I can't agree with this enough. I love roleplaying games and I certainly play quite a few. However, what makes BioWare games so incredible is the storytelling experience they provide. I just can't justify compromising that just so a few players can headcanon their own personality into the protagonist. I understand why many avidly stand by that principle. I just don't see it being healthy or conducive to the storytelling and future of BioWare games.

[phaonica]

I'd have to admit to agreeing with the theory behind OP's argument. I see DAI replete with this problem. In a nutshell, the more significant choices you give the player, the less that choice will actually end up mattering. Why? Because Bioware's resources are finite and they won't (more to the point can't) invest any meaningful resources into the myriad different permutations that the storyline can develop into. My choices with Connor from DA Origins? Boiled down to a conversation with some dude on the Redcliff waterfront. Something as significant as who is ruler of Ferelden? A few lines here and there, and little more. The real tragedy here is that it significantly damages the potential to tell a compelling story. Always in the back of the Bioware writer's mind is "how can I write this part of DAI to ensure it meshes with the lowest common denominator that covers all the potential permutations of player choice?" Even as something as significant as the Old God Baby had to be written to an innocuous conclusion just to ensure they could actually develop a coherent plot around that specific story branch later in the series. Honestly, I think the best thing Bioware could do to improve their storytelling is to simply do away with the faux branching story/player choice mechanic. Going forward, if Bioware would write one strong, compelling narrative that doesn't necessitate watering down or weakening to appease every potential player-made canon, I think their games would truly achieve what they promise, but fail (in my opinion) to deliver: a deep, impactful, story-driven experience.

 

I completely disagree. Dragon Age is one of the few games available that attempts a choice mechanic and for me that's what makes them stand out. There are plenty of games out there with linear narratives for people who prefer those. I like that Dragon Age attempts something different, even if they're still struggling to balance everything they'd like to accomplish.

[berelinde]

They didn't make the OGB optional to allow players to headcanon personalities, they did it to avoid kicking US Wardens in the sensitive bits. That's a huge decision, and it prevents players who chose it from importing their Wardens into post-game DLC and Awakening. Giving those players a troll-face and saying "Hey, yeah, too bad, bro, Morrigan got somebody else to knock her up" would be a really scummy thing to do. And players do care about these details. I mean, there's an entire thread about how if Anora is queen and the Warden is her consort, she shouldn't be signing her name as Anora Theirin.

 

They've been a lot better recently about making sure that the decisions aren't quite as far reaching, but the consequence is that a lot of players feel that their choice is diluted, that the consequences don't matter.

 

It's a balancing act, and it's hard to tell if they got it right because every player will have a different idea of what "right" is.

 

Me, I don't mind if the big decisions turn out to have less significant impact on the game world than I expect... but I don't want to see those choices negated because somebody wants their Warden's child to be the protagonist of the next game. That isn't about protagonist personality, it's about an internally consistent worldstate.

[N7recruit]

Bioware need their protagonist to have a playable back story & to be personally invested in their own side plot (Eg Family) throughout the game.  

 

DONE. THE PROTAGONIST NOW HAS DEPTH.

 

DA:O did this, DA:I did not. The Warden had more depth than the Inquisitor did, the only thing the inquisitor had going for him/her was their VO & cinematic presentation. If the warden had this he/she would be the GOLD standard for Race Selection protagonists with depth. 

 

If race selection comes back in another game, Origin stories NEED to come back as well in some form or another depending on what fits best for the plot. But having NOTHING like that for the inquisitor leaves them as stale as a wet brick. 

 

Head cannon wiggle room is all & dandy, but it will never be playable & our protag needs to be developed before we get our hands on them. Especially for Story driven RPG's. 

[Phoe77]

Were any of the Wardens really invested in any significant side plot throughout the entire game though?  Most of them had threads from their origin stories picked up at one specific location in the game rather than having them run through the game as a whole.  The Human Noble probably has it best because we get to see Howe a few times in cutscenes, but even his personal side-plot is ignored until you approach the Landsmeet portion of the game.

 

For me personally, it's also not that important to play through the backgrounds of my characters.  Inquisition gives me an idea of what that background was like and then it allows me to flesh out some of the details at later points in the game.  Pillars of Eternity does the same kind of thing, and I find that I appreciate that method more than the origin stories.  

[In Exile]

Were any of the Wardens really invested in any significant side plot throughout the entire game though? Most of them had threads from their origin stories picked up at one specific location in the game rather than having them run through the game as a whole. The Human Noble probably has it best because we get to see Howe a few times in cutscenes, but even his personal side-plot is ignored until you approach the Landsmeet portion of the game.

For me personally, it's also not that important to play through the backgrounds of my characters. Inquisition gives me an idea of what that background was like and then it allows me to flesh out some of the details at later points in the game. Pillars of Eternity does the same kind of thing, and I find that I appreciate that method more than the origin stories.

I would go even further and say that playable backgrounds hamstring the plot by introducing personal themes that won't be followed up with in the MQ and dedicate background related resources in a front loaded fashion that makes the rest of the game seem generic.

[Gothfather]

Let the DAII hate flow. It fuels me. In all seriousness though, DAII is a much better story than many give it credit. I had a much deeper connection to my Hawke than I ever did my Inquisitor or my Warden Commander.

I loved Hawke hated DA2.

 

I found Hawke a more meaningful character in a sea of blah, vs The warden as lifeless in a Sea of awesome. I never realized the failure of the silent protagonist until ME. Playing ME and DA around the same time was jarring. When RPGs were texted based all characterization was left up to the player in how they interpreted the text for themselves and also for the NPCs. yet when the gaming media moved from text to voice characterization of the NPCs was delegated to voice actors. Having a voice allows for more natural interactions, now some characterization of the pc is given to the voice actor. I'm okay with that loss of some control.

 

This trend does mean the player is now a junior partner in the storytelling of games vs an equal partner like in the past. I however am okay with being a more junior partner to good story. I am a very junior partner in a novel, I am not a partner at all in the storytelling process of TV and movies, so I can accept the change to junior partner in games, because a good story doesn't require me to be an equal partner for me to enjoy it. I get more enjoyment out of the game today because I can enjoy more sophisticated stories than most games had in the 80's. Others will not like the loss of partnership.

[KaiserShep]

I would go even further and say that playable backgrounds hamstring the plot by introducing personal themes that won't be followed up with in the MQ and dedicate background related resources in a front loaded fashion that makes the rest of the game seem generic.

 

I think that the human noble in Origins is a good exception to this, though, since you deal directly with a major antagonist from the very beginning.

[Revan Reborn]

I loved Hawke hated DA2.

 

I found Hawke a more meaningful character in a sea of blah, vs The warden as lifeless in a Sea of awesome. I never realized the failure of the silent protagonist until ME. Playing ME and DA around the same time was jarring. When RPGs were texted based all characterization was left up to the player in how they interpreted the text for themselves and also for the NPCs. yet when the gaming media moved from text to voice characterization of the NPCs was delegated to voice actors. Having a voice allows for more natural interactions, now some characterization of the pc is given to the voice actor. I'm okay with that loss of some control.

 

This trend does mean the player is now a junior partner in the storytelling of games vs an equal partner like in the past. I however am okay with being a more junior partner to good story. I am a very junior partner in a novel, I am not a partner at all in the storytelling process of TV and movies, so I can accept the change to junior partner in games, because a good story doesn't require me to be an equal partner for me to enjoy it. I get more enjoyment out of the game today because I can enjoy more sophisticated stories than most games had in the 80's. Others will not like the loss of partnership.

Yep. I find the criticisms of Hawke's character to be unsubstantiated and unconvincing. I boil it down to people hating Hawke merely because they did not like Dragon Age II as a whole. Now if Hawke had been the protagonist in DAO, that would have been something. As you suggested, the silent protagonist made since decades ago due to the limits and small budgets of games. It's not as practical now as games are becoming closer to television and film. By having that disconnect present in the game, you merely break the immersion and impact interaction as well as the story.

 

As far as losing some "control," we never honestly had control to start. What we did have was a shallow story so that we had a sense of "control." That's my issue. I know many are telling us there are "plenty of RPGs with strong protagonists, so play those." Not only is that incredibly entitled and selfish, but I believe it fails to address what is actually wrong with Dragon Age and why it struggles as a franchise.

 

Again, regardless of the franchise, BioWare games are about compelling stories with amazing choices. That is the very foundation of every BioWare experience. Roleplaying is secondary, and as that is the actual case with their games, I believe it should also be reflected in the story. I pay BioWare to provide me with an amazing story in which I can craft and change through my actions. I don't pay them to give me the foundation of a house just so I can imagine what it would look like in my head.

 

Again, while I understand the argument of those in favor of blank templates so they can headcanon their own story, I don't believe this is the appropriate medium for that. I can only speak for myself, but the only reason I even started playing BioWare games was because of their amazing storytelling in Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins, and so on. It was never about me fantasizing about imagining my own crafted character in this confined world. It was about experiencing the story BioWare presented, making my choices within that framework, and seeing it beautifully concluded.

[phaonica]

Yep. I find the criticisms of Hawke's character to be unsubstantiated and unconvincing. I boil it down to people hating Hawke merely because they did not like Dragon Age II as a whole. Now if Hawke had been the protagonist in DAO, that would have been something. As you suggested, the silent protagonist made since decades ago due to the limits and small budgets of games. It's not as practical now as games are becoming closer to television and film. By having that disconnect present in the game, you merely break the immersion and impact interaction as well as the story.

 

As far as losing some "control," we never honestly had control to start. What we did have was a shallow story so that we had a sense of "control." That's my issue. I know many are telling us there are "plenty of RPGs with strong protagonists, so play those." Not only is that incredibly entitled and selfish, but I believe it fails to address what is actually wrong with Dragon Age and why it struggles as a franchise.

 

Again, regardless of the franchise, BioWare games are about compelling stories with amazing choices. That is the very foundation of every BioWare experience. Roleplaying is secondary, and as that is the actual case with their games, I believe it should also be reflected in the story. I pay BioWare to provide me with an amazing story in which I can craft and change through my actions. I don't pay them to give me the foundation of a house just so I can imagine what it would look like in my head.

 

Again, while I understand the argument of those in favor of blank templates so they can headcanon their own story, I don't believe this is the appropriate medium for that. I can only speak for myself, but the only reason I even started playing BioWare games was because of their amazing storytelling in Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins, and so on. It was never about me fantasizing about imagining my own crafted character in this confined world. It was about experiencing the story BioWare presented, making my choices within that framework, and seeing it beautifully concluded.

 

And your telling us that our dislike of Hawke is "unsubstantiated and unconvincing" and telling us that you know why we didn't like Hawke better than we ourselves know is condescending and arrogant. So I guess we're even.

[Revan Reborn]

And your telling us that our dislike of Hawke is "unsubstantiated and unconvincing" and telling us that you know why we didn't like Hawke better than we ourselves know is condescending and arrogant. So I guess we're even.

That's not what I actually said at all. I'm not referencing any group in particular with regard to their dislike of Hawke. I'm merely stating my observation on the BSN forums of many posters who never seem to have any substance to their argument of why they don't like Hawke. Their number one reason is always the same: DAII was a bad game. Okay. That might be true from a certain perspective. However, just because DAII was not the best of games doesn't mean Hawke is just as bad. On the contrary, I believe Hawke rectified many issues DAO had. In DAII we had a strong protagonist with a family connection that was prevalent throughout the entire game. Not just mainly the beginning like DAO. Hawke's family was crucial to the experience and it made me care what happened to them. That is far more convincing than any origin story in DAO or the occasional reference to family members in DAI.

 

You are more than welcome to genuinely not like Hawke because of his/her personality (even though there were three options). What you cannot say is that the character was poorly executed, because he/she was one of the highlights of the game. Had we had another blank template such as the Warden as the lead in DAII, I think it's likely the game would have performed even worse without a meaningful connection. Again, I respect that you prefer to have an avatar rather than an actual main protagonist engaging in the story. I just don't believe BioWare games are an appropriate place for that and I believe DAI is the most recent example of an experience where those kinds of compromises negatively impact the story as a whole.

[In Exile]

I think that the human noble in Origins is a good exception to this, though, since you deal directly with a major antagonist from the very beginning.

 

Only to the most marginal extent possible, since the Howe plot is pretty insubstantial through most of the game. I get that many people feel that Howe is the evil behind Loghain, so to speak, but playing the HN origin (and really the actual game itself) implies that Loghain always plotted with Howe to overthrow Cailan. There's WOG to the contrary, I know, but that opens up a lot of plotholes. 

[leaguer of one]

(to leaguer of one) Well, some humans do it as well out of a variety of reasons mostly pertaining to times of starvation or because the young in question has already died of nothing. 

 

One reason is that they believe ingesting the body will provide some benefit like potency so they cook it into meals like stew and such. Certain tribal cultures believe devouring the heart of a deceased opponent will grant them their strength if I remember correctly but non-tribal cultures indulge in cannibalism as well.

 

The aforementioned infant meals occur, if I remember correctly, in at least one developed country. 

 

Look, Google can and will take you willing or not to frightening corners of the internet... sometimes with even more frightening images. 

[bluonblu]

I do like the idea of a more defined PC. Hawke wasn't a bad idea, he could have been great but the development time was working against him, leaving him flawed and underwhelming. I'd be cool with playing all human (because you know Bioware would do that) in the next game if it meant a character who had more, well, character

 

-D-

 

Could be done either way, really. With DAO we have a good example of how a multiple origins story can be done right. 

 

While I like DAI, I feel they missed out giving a more personal connection to Inky, since we never experience anything from their past. Which is a shame, since they had opportunities: for instance both Cassandra and Josephine ask questions about Inky's past. Why not have a "flash-back" that you can play through? And maybe then have a random encounter with someone from that story who reacts to the choices you made? - Oh well. Maybe I'm over-thinking it. 

[phaonica]

That's not what I actually said at all. I'm not referencing any group in particular with regard to their dislike of Hawke. I'm merely stating my observation on the BSN forums of many posters who never seem to have any substance to their argument of why they don't like Hawke. Their number one reason is always the same: DAII was a bad game. Okay. That might be true from a certain perspective. However, just because DAII was not the best of games doesn't mean Hawke is just as bad. On the contrary, I believe Hawke rectified many issues DAO had. In DAII we had a strong protagonist with a family connection that was prevalent throughout the entire game. Not just mainly the beginning like DAO. Hawke's family was crucial to the experience and it made me care what happened to them. That is far more convincing than any origin story in DAO or the occasional reference to family members in DAI.

 

You are more than welcome to genuinely not like Hawke because of his/her personality (even though there were three options). What you cannot say is that the character was poorly executed, because he/she was one of the highlights of the game. Had we had another blank template such as the Warden as the lead in DAII, I think it's likely the game would have performed even worse without a meaningful connection. Again, I respect that you prefer to have an avatar rather than an actual main protagonist engaging in the story. I just don't believe BioWare games are an appropriate place for that and I believe DAI is the most recent example of an experience where those kinds of compromises negatively impact the story as a whole.

 

By "boiling it down," you basically said that everyone's argument is the same. You said, "Their number one reason is always the same." And that their argument, which is always the same, is "because they did not like Dragon Age II as a whole".

 

How could I possibly genuinely not like Hawke because of his/her personality if our number one reason for not liking Hawke is always the same? The answer to that is because it isn't and never was the only reason anyone ever had to not like Hawke. I remember plenty of people complaining about Hawke's personality when DA2 released.

 

I genuinely do not like Hawke's personality. I actually liked the plot of DA2 for the most part, and I didn't really care about the repeating maps and the combat system, or whatever else people complain about. I didn't like Hawke, specifically. All three options, to me, were different flavors of Hawke either being a jerk or sounding like s/he has no idea what s/he was doing. Clearly, that was not everyone's experience and I'm not going to assume that just because I hated Hawke that the character was executed poorly.

 

You cannot say that because the character was a highlight of your game that the character must have been well designed. If being a highlight for *someone's* game is enough to say that it's well-executed, then that logic is proof that multirace was well-executed in DAI. If I said Hawke was poorly executed because s/he was not one of the highlights of my game, the flawed logic in that would be obvious because just because the character isn't to my taste doesn't mean it was poorly executed. Neither you nor I have the authority to claim what was objectively well or poorly executed. We only have the authority to claim what worked for our own tastes.