39 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Spacemannegie]

DA2 is essentially Varric telling the story of Hawke to Cassandra. But we know that Varric is quite an unreliable narrator/sometimes outright lies. So how much of what we see in DA2 really happened?

[Taki17]

Everything, except Varric himself taking out an entire squad of mercenaries alone and the prologue with über-heroic Hawke and busty Bethany. Cassandra realises pretty fast when Varric is trying to exaggarate and dismisses him quickly.

[ArcadiaGrey]

Varric's writer said that Varric left out about 75% of what actually happened from his tale.  That sure gets me thinking.  

[Sah291]

I think it more or less all happened... some events were exaggerated, and some details omitted or spun... But Varric at one point says this is a story he wants to tell, and he feels like he owes Hawke that much, so I think its implied he was actually trying to tell a version of the truth from Hawke's perspective.

Before DAI came out, I remember there were theories whether it was all made up or maybe even that Hawke never existed. It's confirmed Varric lied about not knowing where Hawke was at the end, but it appears most of the rest was true.

[roselavellan]

Varric's writer said that Varric left out about 75% of what actually happened from his tale.  That sure gets me thinking.  

 

Ahhh, so he left out the part where mage Hawke gets into trouble with the templars, and negotiates a truce with them. And the part where Orsino was a blood mage! It all makes sense now!

[themikefest]

I like to have a remade DA2 game with Aveline telling the story since she's been with Hawke from the beginning. I would be curious how different her version is from Varric's. Of course that's up to the writers how different it would be.

[themikefest]

Ahhh, so he left out the part where mage Hawke gets into trouble with the templars, and negotiates a truce with them. And the part where Orsino was a blood mage! It all makes sense now!

Or that Meredith doesn't really die at the end. She is just relieved of her position. She is recruited by Cassandra as a companion to help the Inquisition. I would be ok with that.

[DeathScepter]

Or that Meredith doesn't really die at the end. She is just relieved of her position. She is recruited by Cassandra as a companion to help the Inquisition. I would be ok with that.

 

And a more sensible timeline for Anders afters Awakenings and keep him as a go between Hawke and the Grey Wardens. Setting Hawke for Legacy. Also Stroud as Warden-Commander of the Free Marches. Nothing major out of normal within DA2 vanilla game with the Grey wardens. Just a sensible Grey Wardens storyline with the existing Grey Warden elements within DA2 game itself

 

 

Your Aveline idea is good I like it.

[Lord of War]

Nah, it's Orsino who didn't go full-Harvester and die at the end. Varric's just helping him hide from the Templars.

[SwobyJ]

Well, Hawke didn't really face off many waves of enemies out of nowhere.

 

Nor were locations really so repetitive.

 

All 'gameplay' that syncs just with it being a Varric story-world.

 

 

The 'reality' is that the world/Kirkwall/people likely didn't revolve around Hawke quite as much as we experienced. But the stuff still more-or-less happened.

 

 

The narrative of DA2 itself establishes that while Cassandra can be carried away by a story, she will likely detect anything that grossly goes off-track, and that Varric doesn't really wish to mislead her more than he has to. There might be some crucial elements of things still to be revealed (like Varric knowing where Hawke left to), but they would be few.

 

DA2 is 'real enough'. It just shouldn't be taken as the full 'actual Thedas world'.

[DeathScepter]

I do really like Varric, but lets face it, he is a self admitted notorious bullshitter.

[straykat]

i think a lot of the "bullet points" happened. The main quest descriptions and whatnot.

 

I think Varric is more of a liar when it comes to Presentation.

[Sifr]

I think it more or less all happened... some events were exaggerated, and some details omitted or spun... But Varric at one point says this is a story he wants to tell, and he feels like he owes Hawke that much, so I think its implied he was actually trying to tell a version of the truth from Hawke's perspective.

Before DAI came out, I remember there were theories whether it was all made up or maybe even that Hawke never existed. It's confirmed Varric lied about not knowing where Hawke was at the end, but it appears most of the rest was true.

 

Like the conversation Hawke has with the vision of the deceased Leandra in Legacy.

 

Varric outright says to Cassandra to let him indulge himself and take a bit of artistic license in that moment, because he feels that Hawke deserves to get a small bit of closure about their mother's death, even if it was only the fictional version of his friend that got to have it.

 

That's actually one of the more touching parts from all of DA2 and what makes me think Varric's account is largely true.

[ThomasBlaine]

When I start on my new DAII playthrough in a week or two, I think I might come back to this thread and list the times when my Hawke actually takes much more extreme action than people would be comfortable with and Varric covers it up in his story.

[Catilina]

All thing may be true what Varric said to Cassandra, but everything what Hawke and the his team did, a little bigger, brighter, more exciting, more fun, and more heroic. The enemies a bit crazier, darker, more ferocious and more dangerous. Everything is a bit more dramatic. Simple journalistic method. The protagonist of the news is fairer, smarter, better, or on the contrary, more corrupt, more idiot, more evil than the reality. But just a bit! Thus, the drawing will be sharper, the news is not compromised (so much...).

 

So will Hawke be a little bit cartoon-like, but still realistic (somewhat) and likeable. And so will be Varric's story fascinating, but yet true. 

 

(And how can we believe journalists. [cautiously])

[Sah291]

Like the conversation Hawke has with the vision of the deceased Leandra in Legacy.
 
Varric outright says to Cassandra to let him indulge himself and take a bit of artistic license in that moment, because he feels that Hawke deserves to get a small bit of closure about their mother's death, even if it was only the fictional version of his friend that got to have it.
 
That's actually one of the more touching parts from all of DA2 and what makes me think Varric's account is largely true.

Exactly... I think the main thing Varric wants to get across in his version of the story, is *why* Hawke did what he or she did. Cassandra wants the objective facts. But she already has a preconceived idea of who Hawke was and what their motives were (to attack the Chantry, etc). Varric spins events and leaves out details to protect his friends, but also he's trying to paint a narrative that shows Hawke's true motivations. Cassandra can't quite believe Hawke really went to the deep roads for money, for instance.

[GoldenGail3]

Varric. Ah Varric. As much as I like Varric in this game, he's a lier, so probably not much.

[BSpud]

I think people take the Varric's narrative framing thing too seriously. As far as I'm concerned (minus the gamey stuff and enemy waves, and when Varric is explicitly exaggerating in the Cassandra scenes), when I'm playing Hawke, all that **** is happening as it really happened. While I have Varric in the party most of the time, he's still not everywhere and privy to every conversation Hawke has. He's certainly not around when Hawke is hanging out at home, alone or with others (or is he?????? dumdumdum). So this idea that the entirety of our time with Hawke is all literally Varric's story doesn't jibe with me.

 

 

 

Varric's writer said that Varric left out about 75% of what actually happened from his tale.  That sure gets me thinking.  

 

I interpret that as most of the stuff you played was not relayed to Cass, which makes sense. She probably didn't need to hear about stuff like you going family-style on Isabela with Zevran amirite

[Lulupab]

When Hawke fought 2 blood mages, its possible Varric exaggerated a bit and made it 10 blood mages. So in the game we actually fought 10 of them, but in reality there was two.

[Kimarous]

i think a lot of the "bullet points" happened. The main quest descriptions and whatnot.

 

I think Varric is more of a liar when it comes to Presentation.

 

Very much this. The glorious thing about DA2 is how easy it is to head-canon due to the "narration by unreliable source" nature of the story. Certain events more than likely happened, but the exact details can easily be muddied, especially for the events Varric wasn't present for. For one person, something like the knife throw when rescuing Feynriel is a blatant embellishment, while another person (like me) might react "Okay, THAT definitely happened."

[DeathScepter]

I already said in a previous post here. Well headcanon is good.

[Sifr]

Exactly... I think the main thing Varric wants to get across in his version of the story, is *why* Hawke did what he or she did. Cassandra wants the objective facts. But she already has a preconceived idea of who Hawke was and what their motives were (to attack the Chantry, etc). Varric spins events and leaves out details to protect his friends, but also he's trying to paint a narrative that shows Hawke's true motivations. Cassandra can't quite believe Hawke really went to the deep roads for money, for instance.

 

Yeah, much like in Inquisition when she automatically assumes the Inquisitor was guilty, Cass goes into DA2 thinking the situation in Kirkwall was some grand conspiracy that was years in the making, that all the party members were involved in. Varric's story was to illustrate the real world as far less complex than that, but involved the right people, in the wrong place, at the right time.

 

Rather than seeking out trouble to cause anarchy, Hawke (at least in Varric's version) tended to get involved because they were either seeking money to help their family, were asked by various parties for help, or were forced into situations where they had no choice but to act.

 

Maybe the reason Hawke didn't have much agency and seemed to want to remain neutral until push came to shove in DA2, is down to Varric purposefully exaggerating those traits to paint their friend in a more positive light.

 

So Cassandra would conclude that Hawke is not someone who actively sought out trouble, but who nonetheless regularly found themselves in it. Compared to the reality, where Hawke doesn't really want to find trouble, but doesn't seem to try hard to avoid it either.

 

After all, if Hawke was so dead-set on avoiding problems, they'd never have bothered to seek out the Wardens to find out more about Red Lyrium and the possible corruption of the Templars. Nor would they have continued to collaborate with the Warden-Ally when they raised the possibility of Corypheus having survived his death in the Vimmark Prison.

 

While in both games we see Varric clearly wants to forget about Red Lyrium and Corypheus, we see in Inquisition that Hawke hasn't been able to. If Inquisition!Hawke had the same level of agency as the DA2!Hawke from Varric's story, it would have required the Warden-ally to seek them out to get their help, whereas Inquistion shows that Hawke intentionally sought out the Wardens in the hopes of getting information.

 

I think that Varric was right about Hawke being asked to get involved more often than not. But the reality was that Hawke didn't have a problem getting involved either, making them far more culpable and far less neutral.

[nightscrawl]

Maybe the reason Hawke didn't have much agency and seemed to want to remain neutral until push came to shove in DA2, is down to Varric purposefully exaggerating those traits to paint their friend in a more positive light.

This right here is what pisses me off about this unreliable narrator the devs foisted on us. It makes me feel like NONE of my roleplay decisions mattered AT ALL. Why in the Void should I even bother to play the damn game?

Neutral? The game allows you to play as rabidly pro- or anti-mage. In fact, it is actually quite difficult to be neutral for the majority of the game and requires a fair bit of meta gaming if you want to do so, that is, having specific reasons for making seemingly contrary decisions. Each Hawke may have their own reasons for making whichever choice, but time and again you must choose to either do something that is pro- or anti-mage; there is no true neutral option to do nothing, or walk away. The reasons behind those choices are roleplay and they're the only thing we have. By saying, "Varric said this and that for such-and-such reason," you are making those choices meaningless. Really, the best bit of neutrality comes in the Act 3 opening cinematic when Hawke can attempt to talk down Meredith and Orsino, rather than choose a side, but I've found that even in that case the game still does treat it as if you picked the mages, since you get Orsino's summons.

 

This suggestion also negates any sort of the "normal person" vibe the devs were attempting to go for with Hawke.

I LIKED the fact that stuff just happened to Hawke and that problems got dropped in their lap. I LIKED that they had no control over a lot of things. It was raw and real, and a huge bummer that you couldn't save your sibling or your parent.

 

There are a TON of games out there where the PC is a special chosen snowflake, including DAO. And yet people couldn't handle ONE game where their character was not completely uber, had all the power, and could solve all problems with their ability alone, despite the fact that Hawke was practically a god in combat ability. So what did we get with DAI? Another chosen one narrative, and people still complained.

 

 

[edit]

I suppose I should that I actually like DA2 a fair bit and have never looked at it in this way while playing the game. It is only the insistence of certain other people that Varric is the unreliable narrator so nothing he says is "true," and their willingness to use that as an argument to explain anything they don't like (I did see this used during the DA2 BSN days), that gives me these negative feelings about it.

Bearbeitet von nightscrawl, 01 Juni 2016 - 07:04 .

[Gervaise]

I guess the "Varric was exaggerating" could be used by the writers to explain practically every unbelievable element in Hawke's story.   They even acknowledged our objections to stuff like Orsino going bonkers when in DAI the Herald says to Varric that it didn't make sense.    Clearly if Hawke had been very invested in the Mage Underground Varric was never going to admit as much to Cassandra, but to my mind it is the later parts of the story, particularly Act 3, where things start becoming unbelievable.  Although I have to admit that a mage Hawke agreeing to go to Kirkwall, even if Mum was dead set on it, seems highly unlikely to me.    So may be Flemeth had far more to do with that decision than shown.  

 

I think one of the codices in DAI actually says that many critics thought that Varric's story was not credible and for that Hawke was truly grateful.   Whether that is because they don't want people to know it was true or because in fact it wasn't is left up to the reader.    Clearly it doesn't include all the elements of your story because Hawke could have been a blood mage and I'm pretty sure Varric wouldn't admit that to Cassandra.    

 

To get an idea of just how accurate Varric's true life accounts are, just try listening to Cassandra read from the extracts of Varric's account of the events in DAI, particularly where the relationship between him and Cassandra is concerned.

[Sifr]

This right here is what pisses me off about this unreliable narrator the devs foisted on us. It makes me feel like NONE of my roleplay decisions mattered AT ALL. Why in the Void should I even bother to play the damn game?

Neutral? The game allows you to play as rabidly pro- or anti-mage. In fact, it is actually quite difficult to be neutral for the majority of the game and requires a fair bit of meta gaming if you want to do so, that is, having specific reasons for making seemingly contrary decisions. Each Hawke may have their own reasons for making whichever choice, but time and again you must choose to either do something that is pro- or anti-mage; there is no true neutral option to do nothing, or walk away. The reasons behind those choices are roleplay and they're the only thing we have. By saying, "Varric said this and that for such-and-such reason," you are making those choices meaningless. Really, the best bit of neutrality comes in the Act 3 opening cinematic when Hawke can attempt to talk down Meredith and Orsino, rather than choose a side, but I've found that even in that case the game still does treat it as if you picked the mages, since you get Orsino's summons.

 

This suggestion also negates any sort of the "normal person" vibe the devs were attempting to go for with Hawke.

I LIKED the fact that stuff just happened to Hawke and that problems got dropped in their lap. I LIKED that they had no control over a lot of things. It was raw and real, and a huge bummer that you couldn't save your sibling or your parent.

 

There are a TON of games out there where the PC is a special chosen snowflake, including DAO. And yet people couldn't handle ONE game where their character was not completely uber, had all the power, and could solve all problems with their ability alone, despite the fact that Hawke was practically a god in combat ability. So what did we get with DAI? Another chosen one narrative, and people still complained.

 

 

[edit]

I suppose I should that I actually like DA2 a fair bit and have never looked at it in this way while playing the game. It is only the insistence of certain other people that Varric is the unreliable narrator so nothing he says is "true," and their willingness to use that as an argument to explain anything they don't like (I did see this used during the DA2 BSN days), that gives me these negative feelings about it.

 

"Neutral" was probably the wrong word.

 

What I meant was that despite the odd quest for either side, Hawke is never allowed to pursue any real involvement in the Mage Underground, nor are they allowed to pursue to become more involved with the Templars. Hawke spent most of DA2 seeming to remain in the middle and unaffiliated with the factions until called to take a stand directly, so while they might have had leanings one way or another and given us either pro-Mage or Pro-Templar choices, the game seemed to keep us "neutral" in terms of the greater conflict until the very end when we were forced to directly pick our side.

 

If the game had been given more dev time, it might have been nice if we had been given more distinctive paths, so that being Pro-Mage and Pro-Templar did have more of an outcome and change up certain events when it came to the later Acts.

 

I do agree with you though, that claiming that DA2 is irrelevant because nothing is "true" because Varric was an unreliable narrator sells the game and the characters involved rather short. I prefer to view the game as though everything that Varric said is how it happened, but because we are seeing them through his lens, sometimes his interpretation of character motivations and certain events might be how he saw it.

 

For example, while Anders and Sebastian are no doubt both overzealous and preachy in their own way, Varric probably dialed that up because that's how he saw them... and because he has an understandable chip on his shoulder about both men. Anders was a friend who betrayed his trust and ruined a lot of lives, while he never really much cared for Sebastian and he potentially might have invaded his hometown. That doesn't mean everyone was a caricature or that his interpretation of them was inaccurate, just that Varric's account highlighted how they could sound like a pair of broken records.

 

I also liked how DA2 didn't have the main character always in control of everything that happened, they didn't get a necessarily happy ending and that for all the good they might have done, that didn't prevent bad things from happening to them. As heroes, the Warden and the Inquisitor are often depicted as perfect, invincible and almost godlike, whereas Hawke is flawed, fallible and extremely human.

 

A power fantasy is fun, but what's the point if you can't lose?