Technically not a MacGuffin, since being able to recognize Ilos really is important to the plot. We should reserve "MacGuffin" for cases where nobody cares what the thing specifically does.The Beacon/Cipher never made Shepard special. Apart from being treated as a frothing at the mouth loon by the Council, and the one plot allowance to learning the Prothean language, the beacon is a MacGuffin, as is the Cipher.
Technically not a MacGuffin, since being able to recognize Ilos really is important to the plot. We should reserve "MacGuffin" for cases where nobody cares what the thing specifically does.
But yeah, Shepard's just a walking decoder ring,
Fair point. Conduit is closer to one, except it actually does something.
It's actually worse. At least in DAI there really is something special about the Herald, even if it's only the accidental attachment of the Anchor.
Yeah, if there's ever a Bioware character that is treated as a Mary Sue-esque personification of awesomeness, it's Shepard, not the Inquisitor.
With Hawke they went a bit too far in the opposite direction and made them someone who loses no matter what. Exalted March adding half of the roster dying would probably have been hilarious overkill. Poor Hawke has suffered enough.
- Every single time you have to make a "hard" choice, you are given a way out. Werewolves vs Elves - make peace between them, Conner or Isolde - just go to the circle, someone has to die to defeat the archdeacon - just have a baby. Every choice has a way for you to get through with no loss.
All right, I have a problem with this assessment of Origins.
If I remember correctly, making peace with the elves and werewolves requires some specific choices that not everyone will make.
The situation with Connor really shouldn't be as simple as going to the Circle and bringing back mages and lyrium. (It isn't. You have to do the entirety of Broken Circle and not kill the mages.) Why does the desire demon not continue rampaging through the town? I would accept this third option if the town of Redcliffe died for it. I agree that this one is stupid.
And oh boy. That. You are correct that it is a third option. You are completely wrong saying it is easy or there is no loss. We're potentially talking about a king's bastard here(either the Warden's or Alistair's). And, given the events of the game, it should be pretty obvious that eventually there could be another civil war over succession. Morrigan swears she won't do that, but is there any reason to believe her after she's already bided her time and hidden critical information up to this point? (Yes, I know we see in Inquisition that she really honestly meant she'd raise the kid elsewhere with no ambition for the throne, but the Warden can't know that all the way back in Origins.) Or alternatively, your Warden is romancing someone else, but truly believes in being faithful. Or you do romance Morrigan, but kind of don't want Cthulhu for a baby. This one is as difficult as choices get: your/a loved one's life vs. complete mystery/potential eight Blight/possible succession crisis/cheating/take your pick.
All right, I have a problem with this assessment of Origins.
If I remember correctly, making peace with the elves and werewolves requires some specific choices that not everyone will make.
The situation with Connor really shouldn't be as simple as going to the Circle and bringing back mages and lyrium. (It isn't. You have to do the entirety of Broken Circle and not kill the mages.) Why does the desire demon not continue rampaging through the town? I would accept this third option if the town of Redcliffe died for it. I agree that this one is stupid.
And oh boy. That. You are correct that it is a third option. You are completely wrong saying it is easy or there is no loss. We're potentially talking about a king's bastard here(either the Warden's or Alistair's). And, given the events of the game, it should be pretty obvious that eventually there could be another civil war over succession. Morrigan swears she won't do that, but is there any reason to believe her after she's already bided her time and hidden critical information up to this point? (Yes, I know we see in Inquisition that she really honestly meant she'd raise the kid elsewhere with no ambition for the throne, but the Warden can't know that all the way back in Origins.) Or alternatively, your Warden is romancing someone else, but truly believes in being faithful. Or you do romance Morrigan, but kind of don't want Cthulhu for a baby. This one is as difficult as choices get: your/a loved one's life vs. complete mystery/potential eight Blight/possible succession crisis/cheating/take your pick.
The situation with the Elves doesn't require anything other than just generally talking to people.
I don't class the choice with Morrigan as having any great loss because the consequences are so far off if they even exist (which, as we have seen, they don't). There could be succession trouble? That's in a few decades and has nothing to do with you - you are a warden, you aren't supposed to be involved in politics. Morrigan tells you there will be no ill effects, and thinking there will be requires you to doubt someone who has helped you the entire game. Either way, there is no reason to think any consequence will affect you personally. And as I said - we now know there was absolutely no consequence to you.
The situation with the Elves doesn't require anything other than just generally talking to people.
I don't class the choice with Morrigan as having any great loss because the consequences are so far off if they even exist (which, as we have seen, they don't). There could be succession trouble? That's in a few decades and has nothing to do with you - you are a warden, you aren't supposed to be involved in politics. Morrigan tells you there will be no ill effects, and thinking there will be requires you to doubt someone who has helped you the entire game. Either way, there is no reason to think any consequence will affect you personally. And as I said - we now know there was absolutely no consequence to you.
Well, technically the Elf/Werewolf solution required the player not be a homicidal psychopath, so I guess not every player is going to be able to find it.
The OGB solution, though, is a more complicated one where I still don't personally know if it is a cheap solution or not. In a lot of ways it feels like, but I've never actually done in the game, partially because it feels like such a cheap solution, but also because it does put some stress on how much do you trust Morrigan. I guess, for me, another thing that affects it greatly is that I never found Morrigan such an interesting character that I really had wrestle with the decision, hence it just felt like a cheap out in it.
That's just how Varric tells the tale.Yeah, if there's ever a Bioware character that is treated as a Mary Sue-esque personification of awesomeness, it's Shepard, not the Inquisitor.
With Hawke they went a bit too far in the opposite direction and made them someone who loses no matter what. Exalted March adding half of the roster dying would probably have been hilarious overkill. Poor Hawke has suffered enough.
Yeah, if there's ever a Bioware character that is treated as a Mary Sue-esque personification of awesomeness, it's Shepard, not the Inquisitor.
With Hawke they went a bit too far in the opposite direction and made them someone who loses no matter what. Exalted March adding half of the roster dying would probably have been hilarious overkill. Poor Hawke has suffered enough.
Hawke is a clever deconstruction. In DA:O, the HOF is just awesome at murder. But awesome at murder leads to great plot outcomes. You murder your way through the deeproads, show up with a Crown, and all the dwarves are all "Oh, random crown made by an apparently millenia dead paragon? We'll immediately break our political deadlock and pick the person you want, random grave-robbing Warden."
The only difference between DA:O and DA2 is that murdering everyone in your way doesn't work out great for Hawke. And DA:I just goes back to the usual killing everyone works out great.
Well, technically the Elf/Werewolf solution required the player not be a homicidal psychopath, so I guess not every player is going to be able to find it.
The OGB solution, though, is a more complicated one where I still don't personally know if it is a cheap solution or not. In a lot of ways it feels like, but I've never actually done in the game, partially because it feels like such a cheap solution, but also because it does put some stress on how much do you trust Morrigan. I guess, for me, another thing that affects it greatly is that I never found Morrigan such an interesting character that I really had wrestle with the decision, hence it just felt like a cheap out in it.
My problem is that I have no reason to trust anyone else more than Morrigan either- the GWs are proven idiots and liars, and every proper mentor of that organization has lied about just everything possible (the Joining, its consequences, the importance of GWs, the way to kill ADs).
Hawke is a clever deconstruction. In DA:O, the HOF is just awesome at murder. But awesome at murder leads to great plot outcomes. You murder your way through the deeproads, show up with a Crown, and all the dwarves are all "Oh, random crown made by an apparently millenia dead paragon? We'll immediately break our political deadlock and pick the person you want, random grave-robbing Warden."
The only difference between DA:O and DA2 is that murdering everyone in your way doesn't work out great for Hawke. And DA:I just goes back to the usual killing everyone works out great.
I actually think the difference between the approaches is a deeper one, which also slightly makes me worry about the potential Qunari invasion in DA4. It is also the reason I find so many of the argument about the Warden and Inquisitor being somehow more active than Hawke a baffling one.
In both DAO and DAI, when the PC arrives on the scene, everything has basically happened. The power players have already emerged and staked claims, the inherent problems is clearly defined and there are well defined paths to solution. Then the PC just comes in, talks to major players who give that easy solution to the problem and everything is solved just as the PC desires. The issue, for me, is that this approach simplifies the problem to a ridiculous degree and doesn't really allow much insight in to why things happened the way they did. This is what makes it difficult to take the Orlesian Civil War seriously because it was solved in one night by some random stranger who just happened to wander around the halls at a party and who had no connection or acts really tying them to the events at hand.
However, I can't really fault BW with this as when they really did try to build up a complex problem that wasn't solved by just mindlessly slaughtering everything or having a character magically appear with a perfect solution, they faced a lot of complaints about how Hawke felt ineffectual in a situation with no easy answers or solutions. This is why I fear their approach with the Tevinter/Qunari conflict will follow along the same lines with everyone constantly going out of their way to tell the PC how awesome and special they are as they come in at the last gasps of the invasion.
Varric has to be one of the most egregious (albeit well-nuanced) forms of shameless self-insert I have ever seen. The fact that Varric did THIS in Inquisition
(SPOILERS FOR TRESPASSER)
I both hate and love Varric. He's a cool character. Almost too cool though. Too nonchalant. And he ****blocked the player. Which isn't cool. Also, his personal quest line is the most poorly implemented quest I have ever seen in a video game ever.
"lololo, you have to do my level 32 quest and forego the actual story for about 10 hours just to get me to stay friends with you!"
I actually think the difference between the approaches is a deeper one, which also slightly makes me worry about the potential Qunari invasion in DA4. It is also the reason I find so many of the argument about the Warden and Inquisitor being somehow more active than Hawke a baffling one.
In both DAO and DAI, when the PC arrives on the scene, everything has basically happened. The power players have already emerged and staked claims, the inherent problems is clearly defined and there are well defined paths to solution. Then the PC just comes in, talks to major players who give that easy solution to the problem and everything is solved just as the PC desires. The issue, for me, is that this approach simplifies the problem to a ridiculous degree and doesn't really allow much insight in to why things happened the way they did. This is what makes it difficult to take the Orlesian Civil War seriously because it was solved in one night by some random stranger who just happened to wander around the halls at a party and who had no connection or acts really tying them to the events at hand.
However, I can't really fault BW with this as when they really did try to build up a complex problem that wasn't solved by just mindlessly slaughtering everything or having a character magically appear with a perfect solution, they faced a lot of complaints about how Hawke felt ineffectual in a situation with no easy answers or solutions. This is why I fear their approach with the Tevinter/Qunari conflict will follow along the same lines with everyone constantly going out of their way to tell the PC how awesome and special they are as they come in at the last gasps of the invasion.
I think your post is insightful, but I would disagree that the issues were not well-defined in DA2 - I think (limits to the development of DA2 aside) - we did have the two major conflicts of the game set up by the end of Act II and III in the way they would be set up in DA:O/DA:I. The difference was that there was no magic persuade button to prevent the tragedy from really taking place - the Meredith/Orisino showdown being the best example, as Hawke had no auto-win persuade option whereby Meredith would stand down and Orisono would act reasonably.
Seriously, I don't think it's a coincidence Varric hates Cass so much in DA:I. And trust me it's probably not due to the plot or overarching narrative.
I'm not touching the other stuff. Varric hates Cassandra because she kidnapped and interrogated him. That's a perfectly good reason to hate anyone.
I'm not touching the other stuff. Varric hates Cassandra because she kidnapped and interrogated him. That's a perfectly good reason to hate anyone.
That's because Gaider wrote that part. The part where Cass verbally waterboards Varric didn't come into existence out of an idea vacuum.
I think your post is insightful, but I would disagree that the issues were not well-defined in DA2 - I think (limits to the development of DA2 aside) - we did have the two major conflicts of the game set up by the end of Act II and III in the way they would be set up in DA:O/DA:I. The difference was that there was no magic persuade button to prevent the tragedy from really taking place - the Meredith/Orisino showdown being the best example, as Hawke had no auto-win persuade option whereby Meredith would stand down and Orisono would act reasonably.
My failure in explanation. My argument wasn't that we didn't have clearly defined conflicts in DA2, we did, but rather that the approach of DA2 allowed more insight how those conflicts came to be and had Hawke be a part in that build-up for the events.
In Act 2, we had the Qunari invasion, but the game had also shown the increasing tension between the Qunari and Kirkwall fueled by fanatical believers. In DAO/DAI, the PC would have just waltzed in to the conquered city and killed everything insight to liberate it.
In Act 3, even with it being as rushed as it was, the game had consistenly built the Templars as the power in Kirkwall and their harsh treatment of mages, but also shown the constant misuses of magic in Kirkwall. In addition to those, we had witnessed the internal struggle of the man who would be responsible for the greatest terrorist act in Thedas history and been allowed to see why he thought what was to happen had to happen. In DAO, we had the Circle Tower, where just some random power hungry dude gave in to demons, nervous templars wanted to wipe it out and every villain was pretty much a demon. DAI, pretty much the same.
DA2 is not a perfect game, no matter how much I love it, but it did a lot more to flesh out those conflicts and thus making them less black-and-white for me than DAO/DAI did. However, that required it be a game about why something happened, which in turn requires that thing to happen. The problem was that when looking at DAO and DAI, they do resolve things more, but that is because the things has already happened and been reduced to some journal notes.
And, by the way, I cannot defend the Orsino decision in anyway, that was just horrific narrative design, especially since it was essentially a last minute decision to just add a boss fight there. It did hurt the story a lot, as Orsino had been bult as the anti-Anders, the mage who also fought for his people, but who had not been broken by that fight.
Varric has to be one of the most egregious (albeit well-nuanced) forms of shameless self-insert I have ever seen.
I'm confused. How is Varric like Mary Kirby, his lead writer? (I mean, other than being funny and awesome.)
I'm confused. How is Varric like Mary Kirby, his lead writer? (I mean, other than being funny and awesome.)
Okay, I was definitely mistaken on Varric being written by Gaider. Still feels like an insert of something or other.....mumble mumble.
Okay, I was definitely mistaken on Varric being written by Gaider. Still feels like an insert of something or other.....mumble mumble.
Or maybe because the simple fact that a character being a fun guy who happens to be a bit of a trickster doesn't automatically makes them a self-insert who shoves the Gay Agendatm down our throats.
Food for thought.
Hawke is a clever deconstruction. In DA:O, the HOF is just awesome at murder. But awesome at murder leads to great plot outcomes. You murder your way through the deeproads, show up with a Crown, and all the dwarves are all "Oh, random crown made by an apparently millenia dead paragon? We'll immediately break our political deadlock and pick the person you want, random grave-robbing Warden."
The only difference between DA:O and DA2 is that murdering everyone in your way doesn't work out great for Hawke. And DA:I just goes back to the usual killing everyone works out great.
Origins and Inquisition can be justified by portraying times of deep crisis: Darkspwn are invading, Green demons-summoning floating doors are appearing through the lands, and the protagonist is pretty the only one walking toward the threats instead of running from it, and not only that, but they are seen not only surviving the horrors, but getting the upper hand.
So in a way it makes sense that desperate people may cling to anyone even remotely looking able to fix that mess.
Hawke is in a different case: it takes seven years of resentment slowly building up bellow the surface until the final crisis happens: outside of peak crises, being "awesome at murders" doesn't suffice to make people willing to forsake their old prejudices, and once the mage-templar conflict has begun, people are still prone to remember that Hawke was here before the chaos erupted and failed to prevent it.
If anything, Trespasser shows that once the crisis has ended, people are quick to fall back to their old habits: No more breach, no more "Let's follow the lead of the Guy/Elf/Qunari/Apostate with the glowing green hand because we'll be raped, skinned and killed by angry demons if we don't" deferential attitude toward the Inquisitor.
***
This is what makes it difficult to take the Orlesian Civil War seriously because it was solved in one night by some random stranger who just happened to wander around the halls at a party and who had no connection or acts really tying them to the events at hand.
I blame the developers making too many parts of the game optional: Resolving the Exalted Plain quests concerning the two Orlesian armies besieged by undead and demons should have been made mandatory for unlocking access to the bal, and should also have unlocked specific conversations with teammates back at Skyhold. That would have given the civil war arc much more impact.
***
Or maybe because the simple fact that a character being a fun guy who happens to be a bit of a trickster doesn't automatically makes them a self-insert who shoves the Gay Agendatm down our throats.
There's clearly no secret Gay Agenda Conspiracy regarding Varric... But let's be real, here: any fun, witty guy who's obviously ten times smarter that pretty much everyone else, and a nigh invincible badass, and who gets to hang around powerful and famous people, and also writes bestselling books on the side for fun IS a self-insert. 
Hawke is a clever deconstruction. In DA:O, the HOF is just awesome at murder. But awesome at murder leads to great plot outcomes. You murder your way through the deeproads, show up with a Crown, and all the dwarves are all "Oh, random crown made by an apparently millenia dead paragon? We'll immediately break our political deadlock and pick the person you want, random grave-robbing Warden."
The only difference between DA:O and DA2 is that murdering everyone in your way doesn't work out great for Hawke. And DA:I just goes back to the usual killing everyone works out great.
Given that none of the three games offers an alternative to the constant murder approach, I see no reason to favour the one that punishes us for it.
Better to create some angst and feeling of loss by having companions not make it than to kill off the hero in the final episode ala ME3.
Also DA2 is a very underrated game overall imo. They made a couple of huge errors that are well documented but for me I simply enjoyed the game alot, I liked most of the plot and I liked most of the companions.
Given that none of the three games offers an alternative to the constant murder approach, I see no reason to favour the one that punishes us for it.
Hawke is a clever deconstruction. In DA:O, the HOF is just awesome at murder. But awesome at murder leads to great plot outcomes. You murder your way through the deeproads, show up with a Crown, and all the dwarves are all "Oh, random crown made by an apparently millenia dead paragon? We'll immediately break our political deadlock and pick the person you want, random grave-robbing Warden."
The only difference between DA:O and DA2 is that murdering everyone in your way doesn't work out great for Hawke. And DA:I just goes back to the usual killing everyone works out great.
I had that problem in DA2..but it was the companion dialogues that made me want to kill them. The development focus seemed to be on all sorts of things other than gameplay.
Another DLC could have meant another few laps through that same map.
Retour en haut