54 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

That is every single RPG. You're either special because you've get the magic plot macguffin (like in DAO) or because you're so amazing at fighting you might as well be a demi-god (DA2) or both (DAI or ME1). There's no middle ground on that point. This is no less stupid than the endgame fight in DAO, except that instead of risking your life in small fireteams you're doing it in the vanguard of an army.
Bioware's always been a tell and not shown developer. They just pushed down the tell even further - before you were told things by NPCs when talking to them via lore dumps. Now it's the same mechanism as in TES games - plot by way of journal entries.

I don't really think Hawke was considered special, though. I mean, s/he is able to survive lots of combat, but no one in the game world considers them special in Act 1, is just seen as a noble in Act 2, not the most important person in the city. It's only until the short Act 3 that Hawke is so special, and that was earned. And even their status of Champion didn't prevent Meredith from turning on them.

[BansheeOwnage]

That is every single RPG. You're either special because you've get the magic plot macguffin (like in DAO) or because you're so amazing at fighting you might as well be a demi-god (DA2) or both (DAI or ME1). There's no middle ground on that point. This is no less stupid than the endgame fight in DAO, except that instead of risking your life in small fireteams you're doing it in the vanguard of an army.

I disagree about this point. I don't think being an extremely good fighter makes a protagonist a Special Snowflake nor a Chosen One. And I'd love my next Bioware protagonist to be as normal as Hawke.

[In Exile]

I disagree about this point. I don't think being an extremely good fighter makes a protagonist a Special Snowflake nor a Chosen One. And I'd love my next Bioware protagonist to be as normal as Hawke.

You're a special snowflake, and they even play it straight in DA2 when they mock the various antagonists. Varric's logic for siding with Janeka in Legacy is that if things go sideways you can just murder the ever loving hell out of Corypheus anyway.

In fact, being so awesome at fighting - in ways that IRL make Hercules look like a wimp - is even more of a special snowflake than your plot macguffin power.

[vbibbi]

You're a special snowflake, and they even play it straight in DA2 when they mock the various antagonists. Varric's logic for siding with Janeka in Legacy is that if things go sideways you can just murder the ever loving hell out of Corypheus anyway.
In fact, being so awesome at fighting - in ways that IRL make Hercules look like a wimp - is even more of a special snowflake than your plot macguffin power.

Considering Hercules was capable of supernatural feats of athleticism, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Hawke doesn't do anything in the game that would be impossible for another person. If anything, Hawke could be similar to Odysseus, winning against the odds due to cleverness, but still experiencing loss.

And Varric's comment are more mocking video games in general, I think. In every game the PC is able to survive unrealistic odds. So in that way every video game PC is a special snowflake if we're going to be fair.

[BansheeOwnage]

Considering Hercules was capable of supernatural feats of athleticism, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Hawke doesn't do anything in the game that would be impossible for another person. If anything, Hawke could be similar to Odysseus, winning against the odds due to cleverness, but still experiencing loss.

And Varric's comment are more mocking video games in general, I think. In every game the PC is able to survive unrealistic odds. So in that way every video game PC is a special snowflake if we're going to be fair.

And also because every protagonist in a game involving fighting is obscenely good at it. And yet, so are a lot of other characters most of the time. Now that I think about it, a lot of the companions in Bioware games are seen as similarly undefeatable, at least after a while.

[In Exile]

Considering Hercules was capable of supernatural feats of athleticism, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Hawke doesn't do anything in the game that would be impossible for another person. If anything, Hawke could be similar to Odysseus, winning against the odds due to cleverness, but still experiencing loss.

And Varric's comment are more mocking video games in general, I think. In every game the PC is able to survive unrealistic odds. So in that way every video game PC is a special snowflake if we're going to be fair.

Hawke does do things that are supernatural. Winning a 6 on 4 battle is itself an incredible feat IRL, and to do it so consistently is incredible. Hawke regularly kills creatures that should take armies to slay them - like pride demon abominations and dragons. Same with the HOF. Hawke does things that require supernatural athletics even if we ignore the absurd numbers we see in game as an exaggeration on Varric's part.

And yes that's my point - every PC in an RPG is a special snowflake. At least the chosen one plots own up to it.

[BansheeOwnage]

Hawke does do things that are supernatural. Winning a 6 on 4 battle is itself an incredible feat IRL, and to do it so consistently is incredible. Hawke regularly kills creatures that should take armies to slay them - like pride demon abominations and dragons. Same with the HOF. Hawke does things that require supernatural athletics even if we ignore the absurd numbers we see in game as an exaggeration on Varric's part.

And yes that's my point - every PC in an RPG is a special snowflake. At least the chosen one plots own up to it.

But that goes far beyond RPGs, or any games. Is Aragorn a Special Snowflake because he can solo platoons of orcs? Besides which, a game being unrealistic doesn't mean anyone is a Special Snowflake. If Hawke does something that we would see as physically impossible, it's probably because games aren't always realistic, as opposed to anything else, especially when other party members or NPCs do it too.

 

So, is the party itself a Special Snowflake? That still doesn't work of course, because NPCs do crazy things as well. Like human bosses taking a party of 4 Snowflakes to defeat.

 

I agree that defeating dragons basically breaks believablility no matter what though.

[In Exile]

But that goes far beyond RPGs, or any games. Is Aragorn a Special Snowflake because he can solo platoons of orcs? Besides which, a game being unrealistic doesn't mean anyone is a Special Snowflake. If Hawke does something that we would see as physically impossible, it's probably because games aren't always realistic, as opposed to anything else, especially when other party members or NPCs do it too.

 

So, is the party itself a Special Snowflake? That still doesn't work of course, because NPCs do crazy things as well. Like human bosses taking a party of 4 Snowflakes to defeat.

 

I agree that defeating dragons basically breaks believablility no matter what though.

 

Wait, are you seriously asking? 'Cause Aragon is a special snowflake not just because he's an engine of death (although, interestingly, not in the books), but because he's Numenoriam (or however that is spelled). In the movies he is because of his fighting. 

 

Hawke's feats - even if we try and reduce them to sanity - are still unreal. They're unreal even within the game itself, where notionally soldiers are only as capable as they are IRL. Hawke kills hundreds of people single-handedly. 

[vbibbi]

Hawke does do things that are supernatural. Winning a 6 on 4 battle is itself an incredible feat IRL, and to do it so consistently is incredible. Hawke regularly kills creatures that should take armies to slay them - like pride demon abominations and dragons. Same with the HOF. Hawke does things that require supernatural athletics even if we ignore the absurd numbers we see in game as an exaggeration on Varric's part.

And yes that's my point - every PC in an RPG is a special snowflake. At least the chosen one plots own up to it.

I think, as well, that video games are not faithful depictions of how the actual story would occur. A novelization of any video game isn't going to have the PC/protagonist actually kill the number of enemies that we're able to kill in the game. The novelization is also going to have the protagonist take the most direct route to accomplish their goals, whereas in a game we're rewarded for going off track and putting ourselves in harm's way. Game mechanics don't equal realism.

 

Someone pointed out in another thread that in The Witcher books, monsters are becoming more and more rare, and Geralt hardly does any Witcher jobs for the most part. But in the games, there are hundreds of monsters to kill. Because if there weren't, there would be a whole lot less content in the game. And fighting enemies is a large portion of RPGs.

 

Are we to believe that because Hawke bought additional backpacks, s/he is able to carry additional large weapons and armor? A backpack isn't going to be able to carry the increased inventory, we would need a pack mule or a cart. But for gameplay purposes it's easier to just have us buy a backpack. Would every single enemy in a video game fight to the death rather than retreat or surrender? Even wild animals, who would more realistically run away the first chance they got? No, but then we wouldn't get the experience for killing them or would have to chase them down to finish them off. That wouldn't be convenient gameplay.

 

So I don't assume Hawke actually kills all of the enemies we see in the game. I don't believe the HOF kills as many enemies as we see in the game. I don't believe Geralt/the Inquisitor/Shepard/Revan kills etc etc

[blahblahblah]

I think, as well, that video games are not faithful depictions of how the actual story would occur. A novelization of any video game isn't going to have the PC/protagonist actually kill the number of enemies that we're able to kill in the game. The novelization is also going to have the protagonist take the most direct route to accomplish their goals, whereas in a game we're rewarded for going off track and putting ourselves in harm's way. Game mechanics don't equal realism.

 

Someone pointed out in another thread that in The Witcher books, monsters are becoming more and more rare, and Geralt hardly does any Witcher jobs for the most part. But in the games, there are hundreds of monsters to kill. Because if there weren't, there would be a whole lot less content in the game. And fighting enemies is a large portion of RPGs.

 

Are we to believe that because Hawke bought additional backpacks, s/he is able to carry additional large weapons and armor? A backpack isn't going to be able to carry the increased inventory, we would need a pack mule or a cart. But for gameplay purposes it's easier to just have us buy a backpack. Would every single enemy in a video game fight to the death rather than retreat or surrender? Even wild animals, who would more realistically run away the first chance they got? No, but then we wouldn't get the experience for killing them or would have to chase them down to finish them off. That wouldn't be convenient gameplay.

 

So I don't assume Hawke actually kills all of the enemies we see in the game. I don't believe the HOF kills as many enemies as we see in the game. I don't believe Geralt/the Inquisitor/Shepard/Revan kills etc etc

In Exile has a point, RPGs and videogames in general are power fantasies http://tvtropes.org/...in/PowerFantasy.

[Eckswhyzed]

Are we to believe that because Hawke bought additional backpacks, s/he is able to carry additional large weapons and armor? A backpack isn't going to be able to carry the increased inventory, we would need a pack mule or a cart. But for gameplay purposes it's easier to just have us buy a backpack. Would every single enemy in a video game fight to the death rather than retreat or surrender? Even wild animals, who would more realistically run away the first chance they got? No, but then we wouldn't get the experience for killing them or would have to chase them down to finish them off. That wouldn't be convenient gameplay.

So I don't assume Hawke actually kills all of the enemies we see in the game. I don't believe the HOF kills as many enemies as we see in the game. I don't believe Geralt/the Inquisitor/Shepard/Revan kills etc etc

I half-agree with you. Yes, I don't believe Warden/Hawke/Shepard/Inquisitor literally kills enemies one-to-one with the gameplay. The problem then comes from the sheer number of combat encounters that your character is capable of surviving mostly unscathed.

Heck, take DA2 as an example. Just at the start of the game, you are able to kill an ogre towering at least five metres tall. You then survive some bandit encounters, last as mercenary in the criminal underworld, and then survive an expedition into the Deep Roads, and that's just half the damn game.

That all puts Hawke at the 'epic hero' level at least.

[Dorrieb]

In Exile has a point, RPGs and videogames in general are power fantasies http://tvtropes.org/...in/PowerFantasy.

 

All too often, but should they be?

[AlanC9]

DA2 got a lot of grief because it wasn't. Hawke was really good at killing, yes, but it turns out that being really good at killing is not a solution to some problems.

[Nefla]

That is every single RPG. You're either special because you've get the magic plot macguffin (like in DAO) or because you're so amazing at fighting you might as well be a demi-god (DA2) or both (DAI or ME1). There's no middle ground on that point. This is no less stupid than the endgame fight in DAO, except that instead of risking your life in small fireteams you're doing it in the vanguard of an army.

If you don't have a story about saving the world then it's not a problem. That's the most boring plotline to me anyway. Having a better written and linear story would also prevent that. Think of movies, books, and tv shows vs video games. I didn't say anything about DA:O. I didn't like saving the world in DA;O either (though the visual presence of the army made it much more believable) but I liked the details, lore, and individual quests of DA:O enough to overlook it.

 

 

Bioware's always been a tell and not shown developer. They just pushed down the tell even further - before you were told things by NPCs when talking to them via lore dumps. Now it's the same mechanism as in TES games - plot by way of journal entries.

It was definitely pushed too far in DA:I for me. I can only gloss over so much in my mind before the negatives outweigh the positive and taint my overall experience.

[Seraphim24]

This dichotomy between DA:O being one way and DA2 being this other way and which one is better is kind of silly when you factor in that NWN is better than both.

 

Actually SWTOR has been as well, the situations in both DA:O and 2 were never either/or, there are other ways of doing things.

[Bizantura]

How real life would change if people fell over details like this.  But then again maybe they do but the responsability that stems from this is way safer to enact in games!?

[vbibbi]

I half-agree with you. Yes, I don't believe Warden/Hawke/Shepard/Inquisitor literally kills enemies one-to-one with the gameplay. The problem then comes from the sheer number of combat encounters that your character is capable of surviving mostly unscathed.

Heck, take DA2 as an example. Just at the start of the game, you are able to kill an ogre towering at least five metres tall. You then survive some bandit encounters, last as mercenary in the criminal underworld, and then survive an expedition into the Deep Roads, and that's just half the damn game.

That all puts Hawke at the 'epic hero' level at least.

Sure, Hawke is an epic hero, as are all of the companions. But s/he isn't a special snowflake or supernaturally powerful (unless a mage, but that's still in the standard ruleset of the setting, not greater than anything another mage can accomplish).

 

And yeah, Hawke can accomplish combat feats that 99% of the population couldn't, but that's in part because we're playing a combat-oriented roleplaying game. If we wanted to play as someone who couldn't perform these feats, we would be playing an adventure game or other game without combat.

 

It's kind of a Catch-22 where any PC in a combat game is necessarily going to have to be able to fight better than realistically possible, but then people complain that all PCs are superheroes. Who would want to play a game where we were constantly losing fights and never improving our skills?

[Dai Grepher]

Hawke was exceptionally skilled, in my case a great archer (for hunting), but that doesn't mean she was a born leader like the Cousland from Origins. My Hawke lead as best she could, and sometimes her best wasn't good enough. I think this is how BioWare intended it. A skilled character who isn't perfect, who has much tragedy in his or her life, and ultimately becomes burnt out over the role. And I think HLtA reflected that in Hawke's fear, which was that nothing she did ever really mattered. She felt like a failure. Probably ever since Carver died escaping Lothering.

[nightscrawl]

It's kind of a Catch-22 where any PC in a combat game is necessarily going to have to be able to fight better than realistically possible, but then people complain that all PCs are superheroes. Who would want to play a game where we were constantly losing fights and never improving our skills?

 
Not that I would want this, but it might seem a bit less superheroish if the PC were to come out of every fight with only 20% health, having had to use all their tricks and skills just to survive, barely beating the enemy.

[BansheeOwnage]

 
Not that I would want this, but it might seem a bit less superheroish if the PC were to come out of every fight with only 20% health, having had to use all their tricks and skills just to survive, barely beating the enemy.

Generally speaking, that actually happens a lot in games. Even if you're a Spartan in Halo. It happened a lot for me in the first 2 DA games, because our health pools weren't inflated to make up for no regeneration like in DA:I.

[vbibbi]

 
Not that I would want this, but it might seem a bit less superheroish if the PC were to come out of every fight with only 20% health, having had to use all their tricks and skills just to survive, barely beating the enemy.

Sure, that could make sense. Although I think that would be an exhausting game to play, personally, as I'm more about story and characters rather than maximizing my knowledge of the combat system and using up all of my combat materials in every fight.

 

Plus, as Banshee says, DAI inflated health points which would make this harder. I like systems where everyone has low health levels, so it's about hitting the enemy before they hit back. Although the game itself is only so-so, Drakensang: The Dark Eye does have a more realistic combat system where we're not super buffed and a few critical hits can even fell a tank.

 

In The Descent, I was bored by wailing on ogres and genlocks as they ineffectually tried to bash my team.

[Iakus]

Wait, are you seriously asking? 'Cause Aragon is a special snowflake not just because he's an engine of death (although, interestingly, not in the books), but because he's Numenoriam (or however that is spelled). In the movies he is because of his fighting. 

 

Hawke's feats - even if we try and reduce them to sanity - are still unreal. They're unreal even within the game itself, where notionally soldiers are only as capable as they are IRL. Hawke kills hundreds of people single-handedly. 

Well, in Aragorn's case he is specifically the direct descendant of Elendil through Isildur and thus the heir to the thrones of both Gondor and Arnor (the destroyed Northern Kingdom).  And as a descendant of Elros Tar-Minyatur, he was also the king of the Dunedain and of lost Numenor.  This made him someone whom humanity could unite behind in the war against Sauron, and why the Enemy went to such pains to try and eliminate the bloodline.

 

[BansheeOwnage]

 

In The Descent, I was bored by wailing on ogres and genlocks as they ineffectually tried to bash my team.

Ugh... Just, ugh. I've ranted about that in the past. The Sha-Brytol Earthshakers were the worst. It wasn't fun, and more importantly in some ways, it wasn't challenging, because their attacks were so pitiful they'd never kill me but at the same time it took forever to kill them, so it was more like waiting for the enemy to die than anything else.

 

Tedium defined.

 

Well, in Aragorn's case he is specifically the direct descendant of Elendil through Isildur and thus the heir to the thrones of both Gondor and Arnor (the destroyed Northern Kingdom).  And as a descendant of Elros Tar-Minyatur, he was also the king of the Dunedain and of lost Numenor.  This made him someone whom humanity could unite behind in the war against Sauron, and why the Enemy went to such pains to try and eliminate the bloodline.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to clarify that I know Aragorn is special on some ways, but I was highlighting his combat prowess specifically as an example. He was the first person I thought of, but Gimli or Legolas can also solo dozens of orcs, or any number of other characters from other 'verses.

[AlanC9]

In addition, doesn't that bloodline grant Aragorn some special quasi-magical abilities?

[D_Schattenjager]

We see the effects of the civil war in Exalted Plains and Emerald Graves, esp the Freemen of the Dales. 

I, for one, did not come across any conversation during Wicked Hearts which addressed this. If we do these areas before or after Wicked Hearts doesn't seem to change any conversations, notes or reactions.