223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

That's how Bio writes all their characters. Take a look at the structure of the DA:O conversations and you'll see the equivalent of the three personality types recurring all the tine.

Really, they've been doing this since BG, although the Bhaalspawn didn't have as many chances to crack jokes.

[Abyss108]

That's how Bio writes all their characters. Take a look at the structure of the DA:O conversations and you'll see the equivalent of the three personality types recurring all the tine.

Really, they've been doing this since BG, although the Bhaalspawn didn't have as many chances to crack jokes.

 

I agree it's a problem in multiple Bioware games (entire Mass Effect series...), but DA2 was particularly bad about it. In other games you can usually mix and match to a certain extent without sounding insane. Also, in origins, you usually had more than 3 options, and Inquisition avoided the problem for me with the emotional dialogue wheel. Hawke has more less flexibility than the other DA games.

[Heimdall]

I agree it's a problem in multiple Bioware games (entire Mass Effect series...), but DA2 was particularly bad about it. In other games you can usually mix and match to a certain extent without sounding insane. Also, in origins, you usually had more than 3 options, and Inquisition avoided the problem for me with the emotional dialogue wheel. Hawke has more less flexibility than the other DA games.

Actually, you'd be surprised.  I started up an origins playthrough last year for the first time in awhile thinking that and I was shocked.  3-4 was the normal number of dialogue options available to the Warden.  More than that was unusual.

[Il Divo]

I agree it's a problem in multiple Bioware games (entire Mass Effect series...), but DA2 was particularly bad about it. In other games you can usually mix and match to a certain extent without sounding insane. Also, in origins, you usually had more than 3 options, and Inquisition avoided the problem for me with the emotional dialogue wheel. Hawke has more less flexibility than the other DA games.

 

Depends on how early we want to go, in terms of the Bioware experience. ME and DA were a bit more dynamic, but anything Jade Empire and earlier typically involved the PC behaving like either a complete sociopath or an angel, usually because of the morality systems.

[Nixou]

Depends on how early we want to go, in terms of the Bioware experience. ME and DA were a bit more dynamic, but anything Jade Empire and earlier typically involved the PC behaving like either a complete sociopath or an angel, usually because of the morality systems.

 

A Stupid psychopath even: Closed Fist and Dark Side paths often demand the protagonist making so blatently, cartoonishly evil decisions that I just stopped suspending my disbelief when their teammate didn't stab them in their sleep.

[Il Divo]

A Stupid psychopath even: Closed Fist and Dark Side paths often demand the protagonist making so blatently, cartoonishly evil decisions that I just stopped suspending my disbelief when their teammate didn't stab them in their sleep.

 

Agreed. KotOR and Jade Empire traditionally are some of my favorite games, but going back to that time period?

 

Modern Bioware games still have a lot of problems, but old school Bioware games always seemed to restrict the player to over the top personality types. My first experience with Baldur's Gate half a decade ago really brought that fact to life for me, since it seemed to permeate all through Bioware games.   
 

[Ghost Gal]

I don't agree with you, but I did give you free though. I just thought of koTOR and decided to mention it. Becuase Revan becomes a villain In the end, while Hawke sucked in DAI.

 

You make a good point.

 

I personally love every PC I've played, but just because a PC is brought back doesn't mean we're going to like what the devs decide to do with him/her.

 

BioWare especially likes to take everything we loved about that PC and tear it to shreds whenever they bring them back. "You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain (Revan)... or an unredeemed screw up (Hawke)... or get a really dissatisfying ending (Shepard)..." Just, no. Not worth it. End on a good note and leave it alone.

 

Which is why Dragon Age 2 is my favorite game in the series, story wise: for once, we didn't have an overpowered sue able to singlehandedly alter the march of history.

 

And yet, everyone still treats Hawke and talks about Hawke like s/he is an overpowered sue able to singlehandedly alter the march of history, even though s/he doesn't have any of the competence or accomplishments to warrant that treatment or reputation.

 

Say what you will about the Warden and the Inquisition, they freaking earn their reputation through deeds and actions, not solely word-of-mouth that makes them seem greater than they actually are. In fact, most characters start off skeptical of the Warden's and Inquisitor's abilities (especially if you're not a human noble), and they only start to treat them like big important people after they start accomplishing big and important things. With Hawke, from the end of the year-long off-screen prologue everyone acts like s/he's this big important person who can "get things done," yet all we're ever shown over the course of seven years is a glorified errand boy/girl at best, a colossal screw up who makes everything worse at worst. 

 

If the PC is going to be treated as this big important person no matter what, I'd rather the character actually earn their reputation, not get it handed to them despite being mediocre.

 

No, Hawke sucked because she only had 3 preset personalities, and because every line she spoke sounded like a parody.

 

Ha!

[Arvaarad]

Actually, you'd be surprised. I started up an origins playthrough last year for the first time in awhile thinking that and I was shocked. 3-4 was the normal number of dialogue options available to the Warden. More than that was unusual.

Yeah, I think the difference is purely UI. In DA:O, the UI didn't separate "tonally-neutral investigate options that don't advance the tree" from "reaction options that advance the tree". So people mentally lump the investigate options in with the reactions, which makes the reactions seem more numerous than they are.

[Nixou]

You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain (Revan)... or an unredeemed screw up (Hawke)... or get a really dissatisfying ending (Shepard)...

 

 

In Shepard case's it's more "You die a hero, and then you die a hero... again"

 

***

 

And yet, everyone still treats Hawke and talks about Hawke like s/he is an overpowered sue able to singlehandedly alter the march of history,

 

 

The Warden is an overpowered Sue able to singlehandedly alter the march of history... In fact, I suspect that things like Anders screwing the pooch, the fifth Blight being revealed to have been an accidental consequence of the Architect's experiments and perhaps not a true Blight with a Darkspawn horde at full power, and Ferelden having yet to completely heal from its ordeal in Inquisitions are attempts by the writers to mitigate the Warden's sueness (sure: the HoF slayed the Archdemon and is quite obviously above dragons in the food chain: but at least now it has been made clear that they didn't fix everything, far from it in fact) because they realized that it didn't mesh well with the story they intend to make.

 

Hawke on the other hand is a formidable fighter who ends up facing centuries of cumulated prejudice and hatred and just can't stop history's inertia, no matter how fearsome in battle s/he is: that make the character and their story much more believable and relatable than the Warden's.

[berelinde]

Actually, you'd be surprised.  I started up an origins playthrough last year for the first time in awhile thinking that and I was shocked.  3-4 was the normal number of dialogue options available to the Warden.  More than that was unusual.

 

 

Yeah, I think the difference is purely UI. In DA:O, the UI didn't separate "tonally-neutral investigate options that don't advance the tree" from "reaction options that advance the tree". So people mentally lump the investigate options in with the reactions, which makes the reactions seem more numerous than they are.

It's certainly accurate to say that part of the difference is that the UI didn't separate the "investigate" branch from the responses that advance the conversation, but the silent protagonist contributed to the impression. I am NOT advocating for a silent protagonist! But when the player is forced to read the responses as opposed to hearing them spoken, he or she is going to be reading them with whatever voice and inflection he or she imagines. They're going to apply layers of tone and meaning that were never present in the literal text. In DA2 (and in DAI), the voice actor acted the lines, so instead of interpreting the written word, the player was picking up clues from the acting. The written word is a notoriously poor vehicle for emotional expression. How many times has offense been given or taken on the forums over something that was never intended as an insult? On the other hand, the voice actors are given a list of lines and they aren't always provided the context. My point isn't to put one forth as superior to the other. It's possible to have misinterpretations either way. But the silent protagonist model removes a level of interpretation, and the player may feel more personally invested in their dialogue.

 

Of course, that may not work in the player's favor. I cannot count the number of times in Origins where I would read a line and interpreted it one way only to be surprised when the listener reacted as if I insulted their mother. (And there are times when I'd pick a paraphrase only to be astonished at what came out of my character's mouth. Boneless women, Hawke? Really? No wonder Emeric was disgusted with me.)

 

Anyway, my point is that I think the silent protagonist made the player feel as if the dialogue had more weight, whether or not it was true.

[AlanC9]

Hawke on the other hand is a formidable fighter who ends up facing centuries of cumulated prejudice and hatred and just can't stop history's inertia, no matter how fearsome in battle s/he is: that make the character and their story much more believable and relatable than the Warden's.

I've often wondered if this isn't the real problem with DA2, rather than the stuff people complain about.

[AlanC9]

How many times has offense been given or taken on the forums over something that was never intended as an insult? On the other hand, the voice actors are given a list of lines and they aren't always provided the context.

I think they almost never get context, in fact. Individual lines have VO directions -- you can see them in the DA:O toolset --but they're recorded as individual lines, not as conversations in context. There's a New Yorker profile of Jennifer Hale where she infamously either can't remember or never knew that Shepard wasn't still working with Cerberus over the course of ME3; I believe that interview's available on their website.

[berelinde]

I think they almost never get context, in fact. Individual lines have VO directions -- you can see them in the DA:O toolset --but they're recorded as individual lines, not as conversations in context. There's a New Yorker profile of Jennifer Hale where she infamously either can't remember or never knew that Shepard wasn't still working with Cerberus over the course of ME3; I believe that interview's available on their website.

I've seen the VO instructions in the toolset as a consequence of modding. You could describe them as "minimal" if you were feeling generous. "Absent" might be closer to the truth. I don't follow the Mass Effect series, but I would not be surprised if the actor didn't know the details of the character they voiced. For every actor like Freddie Prinze, Jr, we have a dozen who have never played the game.

[Iakus]

I've often wondered if this isn't the real problem with DA2, rather than the stuff people complain about.

My problem was Hawke was part owner of the Bone Pit, yet I can't do anything with it besides clear out the occasional monster infestation.  He owned a manor I couldn't explore or decorate, and few people gave a rat's *ss if I slaughter dozens of thugs in the street.

 

Oh, and Hawke is supposedly fabulously wealthy, and almost none of his companions owned a change of clothes 

[vbibbi]

The Dark Ritual is important because it helps defining your Warden's personality.

The thing is, for all their vaunted expertise, Bioware sucks at moral dilemmas: either they'll give the player third options copout (Don't know who to choose between the Werewolves or Elves? Fear not you can save both! Don't know whether to sacrifice Isolde or Connor? No problem: you can save both of them!) or make the benevolent choice much more beneficial (to abandon the CIty Elves or save them and accrue much needed evidences against Loghain? To ignore the multiple pleas for aid and fetch quests or gain sweet loot and XPs by doing the people's bidding?).

 

As a result, it doesn't matter if your character is selfish or selfless: since the most beneficiary way to play is virtually always to make the benevolent choices, any Warden endowed with a modicum of foresight and political acumen will for the most part make the same decision as a goody-two-shoes Warden -even if they happen to be a sadistic brute who toyed with Caladrius like a cat with a mouse- because that's where they interest lies.

Agreed on the weak moral choices. This is more prevalent in ME, where it's clearly Paragon or Renegade, but DAO is very guilty of this basic morality which usually has an escape clause. It would have been much darker if there was no Circle to help Connor, or if we went to get them, the village was destroyed in our absence. Or No good decision with the elves and werewolves. That's why I appreciate the Anvil of the Void and the dwarven king; as a Grey Warden I think my PCs would preserve it to make more golems, while that is morally seen as the "evil" option. And Bhelen ends up being a better king. Those are interesting moral choices, more because it's a rare case of Bioware's "evil" outcomes having better conclusions.

 

I think DAI improved on the moral choices a bit, in that none of the options we had were clearly "good" and "evil" as much as "support X Y or Z". The explanation of the factions to choose from (I'm looking at you, WEWH) and a better understanding of what we're deciding (conscripting or exiling Wardens needed more depth as to the risks, since Cory never ends up bothering if we keep the Wardens here) could have been improved, but at least the choices were more interesting.

 

I'm not arguing for the HoF's death. I'm not even arguing that people shouldn't wish to play that character again. We're all entitled to free thought. (Oops I said ;all' and 'entitled' in the same sentence, that could be fun...)

 

What I am saying is the decision has been made not to go back, and perhaps that decision should be respected. It's possible that they're going to get tired of being asked the same question over again, and giving the same answer, so they'll simply end the debate once and for all with one final answer - HoF fine one day walked into a cave, rocks fell, HoF died. Fin.

 

We don't even know how much further into the Thedas future the next one is going to be set. It's implied at the end of Trespasser it's going to be a number of years. What if it's 50? A possible 80+ yr old HoF weilding a two handed sword, slaying dragons doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense in that instance.

The only reason I would want to play the HOF is if we get to be a bada$$ grandma/pa laying down the law. Would buy.

 

I'm so tempted to mention ME3. I'll refrain, except to mention that game left me with the impression that Bio thinks that they really do give us moral dilemmas, rather than doing what you say here. (Also, DG said that the third option at Rannoch was a mistake, so maybe he's learning?)
 

That's interesting that DG said Rannoch was a mistake...but he didn't work on ME3 at all did he? So who knows if his view is shared with the ME team. But at least the writers are examining the moral choices in past games and trying to improve upon them.

 

In the previous war, the Qunari pushed into the Tevinter mainland and took the entire country, laying siege to Minrathous within two years.  It stayed that way for 55 years.  But through all that time the city never fell and the occupied Tevinter populace never stopped rebelling.  They were eventually able to push the Qunari back to Seheron, though they still had a foothold in Qarinus.  This was all before the New Exalted Marches, so before the other nations were involved in the Tevinter war, and this was a Tevinter totally taken by surprise with no experience fighting Qunari.

 

I think you'd be surprised by Tevinter's resilience.

 

My problem was Hawke was part owner of the Bone Pit, yet I can't do anything with it besides clear out the occasional monster infestation.  He owned a manor I couldn't explore or decorate, and few people gave a rat's *ss if I slaughter dozens of thugs in the street.

 

Oh, and Hawke is supposedly fabulously wealthy, and almost none of his companions owned a change of clothes 

Yes, I would have loved to have seen all of this. In my kneejerk defense of DA2, I think these things most likely would have been implemented with more development time. I read where the Bone Pit's role was significantly reduced from its original concept.

[Iakus]

 

 

That's interesting that DG said Rannoch was a mistake...but he didn't work on ME3 at all did he? So who knows if his view is shared with the ME team. But at least the writers are examining the moral choices in past games and trying to improve upon them.

 

He didn't.  And I think he's wrong in thinking it was a mistake.  I find it's a wonderful "third option" that is dependant on choices made both in ME3 and in ME2.  It's true reactivity to Shepard's behavior.  It's no more a "mistake" than allowing SHepard to get both krogan and salarian support.

[Gothfather]

It's so subjective. I have played all three Dragon Age games and DAI is my favourite. Best characters (Dorian, Iron Bull, Cassandra etc), story, combat, graphics of course, detail and length. I enjoyed the inquisitor protagonist just fine too. My only gripe (which is personal and again subjective) is that Desire Demons were not present in their usual form. They are my favourite enemies and I enjoyed dialogue with them. I am also a sucker for the succubus type monster.

 

So yeah, I love DAI in short

 

^^^This is the fundamental truth, Likes are SUBJECTIVE.^^^ (Bold, font size, italics & underline are mine)

 

There is a small but vocal crowd that feel that their like of DA:O is objective and they refuse to accept that nothing about DA:O and liking it is indicative of having superior taste or refinement. I think DA:O was their best story with their worst protagonist. I though DA2 was their worst game with their best protagonist and i think DA:I has their best game play with their most mediocre story, not bad per say just very bad pacing. When the battle of haven IS the climax of the story at the end of the 1st act it kinda throws off the rest of the story, for me. But these are just SUBJECTIVE opinions and people ARE going to disagree because we don't all like the same things which is okay

[GoldenGail3]

In Shepard case's it's more "You die a hero, and then you die a hero... again"
 
***
 

 
The Warden is an overpowered Sue able to singlehandedly alter the march of history... In fact, I suspect that things like Anders screwing the pooch, the fifth Blight being revealed to have been an accidental consequence of the Architect's experiments and perhaps not a true Blight with a Darkspawn horde at full power, and Ferelden having yet to completely heal from its ordeal in Inquisitions are attempts by the writers to mitigate the Warden's sueness (sure: the HoF slayed the Archdemon and is quite obviously above dragons in the food chain: but at least now it has been made clear that they didn't fix everything, far from it in fact) because they realized that it didn't mesh well with the story they intend to make.
 
Hawke on the other hand is a formidable fighter who ends up facing centuries of cumulated prejudice and hatred and just can't stop history's inertia, no matter how fearsome in battle s/he is: that make the character and their story much more believable and relatable than the Warden's.

WTF? Hawke doesn't even die in there game! The Warden can in there game. Their soul along with the Arcdemon is destroyed. Hawke just shows up and messes everything up. They don't do jack that matters in DA2, which sort it funny how they say Hawke's more 'real' and rebatable' when you think about it. Their companion Anders and Isabela go mess things up. Hawke trusts the wrong people, who lie to there dear faces without remorse as they go destroy Kirkwall. Ha! The Warden is a person that is left in the dust after Ostagar, they have one other GW with them and they go and recruit people for better or for worse, but ain't no companion does what Anders or Isabela does (okay Morrigan does. But at least she's not out to kill people unintentionally/or knowling). And Alistair can do that, but it's oponital. Whilst Anders and Isabela are not oponital, they love chaos. Oh man, they do love to make Hawke's already noble life harder.

Okay, I like Humourous Hawke, that's the only thing I love about DA2, the human only same background each Hawke I hate. And I like human progies. But I hate being stuck as a human though, DAO allowed me to play mutilply races and choice my outcome of life. I get the feeling that people on here really don't like choices and the actions biting you in back. No, this has nothing to do with the Witchers. It has to do with people on here making the devs making losers like Hawke in existence then complaining about it. And about non existence actions having affect.

[Aren]

The biggest difference between the origin stories and what you're talking about is the fact the HoF started off as a nobody. The most "known" of the two were second children of nobles and they still had limited recognition. A huge difference in having the Hero of Ferelden or the Warden Commander show up. That's a lot more lines of dialogue, and they're not going back to non voiced. They've said as much, which is why they won't touch the HoF.

I really really hate Elsa, but I gotta agree with her on this: Let it Go!

Moment i thought that the Aeducan warden was the third of the family not the second.

The Cousland was the second.

Until they don't die they cannot simply disappear from the face of the planet like nobody, that's even more contrived,especially if they are kings or queens and the game took place in their nation.

(i'm looking at you nobles married Couslands players)

For my commoner dwarf sure,he will never put in danger himself after the blight

( he used Loghain to kill the beast,becuase who care to become a hero for humans?)

I didn't even allowed him to rule Amaranthine (The orlesian warden can do that) and risk with the Architect,his dream in life was to become rich not famous and open a nug shop in Orzammar.

He achieved the lands of Loghain,then sold them again to the Ferelden crown at an high price,to buy a villa in the diamond quarters.

[Akiza]

The real problem with this idea is that the Hero of Ferelden and the Orlesian warden are utterly different people, in terms of their role in the world. What happened in DAA just wasn't all that important. NPCs are going to react differently to the two of them.

Sure, they can do a boatload of alternate dialogues, and wqrite the plot so that it doesn't actually matter if the PC is the HoF or not. It's not worth doing.

Nah they can just write some magic contrived stuff to brought the dead warden from the deads,after all they did it already in DAA and explain everything as an improvement of the "lore" those who kill archdemons get their soul banished into the abyss not destroyed like what was tought,or something like that.

new player do not care about old protagonists,that is the reason.

[Secret Rare]

The only way Dragon Age characters get to live a long, happy life is if they stop appearing in sequels. Every time they return, there is a new chance for them to die. THAT is what people need to keep in mind when they ask for the return of the Warden.

 

This is Dragon Age. The most likely "closure" a character will receive is a dramatic death.

 

Incidentally, that is why I hope that the characters I love don't return. It isn't a lack of regard for them. It's the understanding that if folks push hard enough, they will only succeed in getting their favorites killed off.

That's an overall generalization,last time i checked Bioware always offered in Dragon age that as a possibility.

-Did my HoF died? Nope because i spared Loghain and he returned the favor.

(i wasn't going to be a martyr for the man who sold many of my childhood friends,just no and honestly i didn't find any roleplaying reason to want to do that even with the most insane logic.)

None of my characters died because avoided their death was simple ,Daeris didn't died in the expansion too against the magister who i personally found more dangerous than the Archdemon,at least the Architect was clever enough to capture the HoF in the mines.

-Did my Marian Hawke died? Nope because Stroud as a GW was more suitable for a sacrifice since his tainted blood would have lead him eventually to his calling,to die to save his friends was more heroic than die for nothing into the deep roads

(i just hope that Marian will be quiet for sometime because she started too many disasters).

-The Inquisitor doesn't have the possibility to die.

SO honestly i do not understand where those ideas are coming from,and this is not even the first time that i found this thought on the bsn.

So let's allow our protagonists to go to retirement because i'm afraid that my virtual avatar could die? Nah,that is not a good reason.

[Secret Rare]

 

It's fairly certain that the HoF won't be killed offscreen.

Killed ONscreen, on the other hand...   

 

 

 

I know that people got sick to death by the endless comparisons to Witcher 3, but here's an article about the Witcher 3 that's relevant to this discussion:

 

 

The Dark Ritual is important because it helps defining your Warden's personality.

The thing is, for all their vaunted expertise, Bioware sucks at moral dilemmas: either they'll give the player third options copout (Don't know who to choose between the Werewolves or Elves? Fear not you can save both! Don't know whether to sacrifice Isolde or Connor? No problem: you can save both of them!) or make the benevolent choice much more beneficial (to abandon the CIty Elves or save them and accrue much needed evidences against Loghain? To ignore the multiple pleas for aid and fetch quests or gain sweet loot and XPs by doing the people's bidding?).

 

As a result, it doesn't matter if your character is selfish or selfless: since the most beneficiary way to play is virtually always to make the benevolent choices, any Warden endowed with a modicum of foresight and political acumen will for the most part make the same decision as a goody-two-shoes Warden -even if they happen to be a sadistic brute who toyed with Caladrius like a cat with a mouse- because that's where they interest lies.

 

On the other hand, the Dark Ritual's only immediate gain is whether your Warden remain on good term with Morrigan or not. Every other potential consequences is several years down the line: this is a choice that barely affects your party stats (at most you loose one character out of a roster of nine), but which tells a lot about your protagonist's personality and priorities and whether they're putting their duties to the Grey Wardens first or not.

 

***

 

 

Although that would make for an interesting (and welcome) twist (the great invincible hero failing and coming back home empty handed is a conclusion seldom made in fantasy stories), that won't happen, because sending the HoF to their calling is pretty much giving them an offscreen death.

 

-I'm sure that killing the Warden off-screen isn't so difficult,just a codex entry with whatever explanation that can be general enough to suit every Origin,like die due to the taint.

 

The Dark promise/ritual (depending on whom you like to call it) define the Warden personality but in no way is a moral dilemma since exactly like you said Bioware always offer a third cop-out option

 (In this case being inequivocabile the Loghain redemption ending)

that did not cost anything and it will allow you to perform the GW duties without sacrifice anything relevant.

(unless you hate Loghain so much that you want to saw him exiled in Orlais and leave in regret hiding into a cave,only to feed him after 10 years of sorrow to the Nightmare Demon)

I would say that the ritual's immediate gain doesn't imply that the Warden Will necessarily remain on good terms with Morrigan,since at the battle of Denerim are given the option to show great anger in th Warden response dialogue with Morrigan,and eliminate the romance or friendship..

At the same time even if it is refused one could roleplay a Warden that did not find any problem on her leaving at Redcliffe or simply a Warden who didn't care about her absence in Denerim against the Archdemon,or who didn't care about her at all and so remained simply neutral on her.

[GoldenGail3]

That's an overall generalization,last time i checked Bioware always offered in Dragon age that as a possibility.
-Did my HoF died? Nope because i spared Loghain and he returned the favor.
(i wasn't going to be a martyr for the man who sold many of my childhood friends,just no and honestly i didn't find any roleplaying reason to want to do that even with the most insane logic.)
None of my characters died because avoided their death was simple ,Daeris didn't died in the expansion too against the magister who i personally found more dangerous than the Archdemon,at least the Architect was clever enough to capture the HoF in the mines.
-Did my Marian Hawke died? Nope because Stroud as a GW was more suitable for a sacrifice since his tainted blood would have lead him eventually to his calling,to die to save his friends was more heroic than die for nothing into the deep roads
(i just hope that Marian will be quiet for sometime because she started too many disasters).
-The Inquisitor doesn't have the possibility to die.
SO honestly i do not understand where those ideas are coming from,and this is not even the first time that i found this thought on the bsn.
So let's allow our protagonists to go to retirement because i'm afraid that my virtual avatar could die? Nah,that is not a good reason.

You see Revan one time, he's certainily that one progi that comes back as a Villain. He does. So leaving the HOF alone is good. Very good. It'll be good for me to not see the HOF coming back as a Villian or a low life Hawke (Hawke's cameo sucked. I image people will be even more angry about HOF's cameo then others). So yeah, we should let the HOF stay as in the background, it'll be better for everyone if we did this. Thusly, it has nothing to with the HOF's death, it has to do with the fact about they'll f--- up there camoe horribly.

[vbibbi]

HOF's cameo makes me think of that Simpsons episode where they have a dreamed up fake future where Lisa is president and Bart is a slacker. Maggie is a teenager and every time she opens her mouth to say something she's interrupted. If this happens I will be happy to have a HOF cameo

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Everything stems from the taint as far as villains go. The red lyrium, corypheus, the archdemon etc, are all threats that stem from the corruption of the blight and the ideas introduced in origins. 

 

I see the entirety of thedas as the protagonist, and their struggle to resist this corruption as the main conflict. 

 

This is why I'm worried about DA4, and if they make Solas an antagonist. It will get away from the central theme of the games. It's like if one mass effect in the trilogy just had no mention of reapers whatsoever. 

 

Which I would love. I think the Grey Wardens and the darkspawn shouldn't have ever been in DA:I they were pointless.