143 réponses à ce sujet

[Kemmer]

As much as I think I should... I don't think I'll be able to kill him. Hawke has just lost so much, and he cares deeply for Anders. With everything Hawke has lost, I just think he deserves to be selfish this once. Then again, I'll probably change my mind again on this in a few minutes. Sigh.

[Carmen_Willow]

errant_knight wrote...

Not my thing at all. If it's going to be this dark, it needs more humor to keep it from being a misery-fest, and some wins to balance. Act two did a better job of that than act three, which was 'kill yourself now' dark, although act two was pretty brutal, too. Thank God for King Alistair. He was the bright spot of act three and a reminder of just how much more fun Origins was. Poor damn Hawke. I felt pretty sorry for him. He was just trying to help and it went into the crapper almost every single time.

The only time I really teared up in this game was when Grey Warden Alistair came running through my game with my bro and another helmeted grey warden.  I SO WANTED to run away with them. It was like "Get me the heck out of this crazy place!  Even darkspawn make more sense than this crazy town!" 

[Carmen_Willow]

[double post]

Modifié par Carmen_Willow, 15 mars 2011 - 11:02 .

[cin_zia]

I'm not even finished the game and I find it emotionally draining....man this game would honestly keep me restless at night!

[maselphie]

How in the world you know Carver and Bethany?  They have about the same screen time as your parents in Human Origins.

No, they don't. The first sibling, perhaps. The other one has the ability to last until the end of the game, or at the very least until the end of Act 1, which is the longest act in the game. It may be optional, but if you put them in your party, they are as vocal as any other companion, and when you get home, you complete several family related quests and they have bonding cutscenes. You saying this leads me to believe you are simply overexaggerating, or ignorant of the sibling's role in the game.

So you are saying... if Bioware Declear that "this character can be future companion" that makes their death more meaningful?  Or is the meaning coming from the fact that your character grew up with these people and loves (hopefully) them?

Not at all, don't put words in my mouth. Was my mother char in DA2 ever a companion character? No. Did I feel for her when she died? Yes. Your argument that you didn't care for your sibling's death is your same arguement for why I should care about the family in the noble origin. Check yourself.

I thinkthe problem is that the characters in DA:O is more "known" to me than the character in DA2.  I didn't like Iron Man 2.  If you liked the movie then there is no point of this conversation.  I couldn't get over the fact his moral delima in Iron Man 2 is avoidable with a 12 volt car battery.

Never saw Iron Man 2.
DA:O is more known to you because it's been out longer ..? If you play the game, you'll find you get very intimate with the characters, if not WAY MORE than DA:O ever allowed you to. This argument is again just you not wanting to get into them, not that there weren't opportunities to.

That is the problem with DA2.  Vast majority of their problems (not all) are self-inflicted.  As an intelligent person they shouldn't be making those mistakes.  Which is why I said they are archtypical and ramroded into decisions just so the story can be taken in a specific direction.

By "their" you mean the companion's problems? Why is a character-driven conflict a bad one? Humans are flawed people, which is exactly what Varric's story was trying to tell. Hawke didn't start a war because that was his perfect intention from the get-go. It's more complicated than that. And wouldn't character conflicts be exactly what you want to get to "know" them? 

And she would only go if you insisted they going.  Please read again.  If you said, no, mom is right, they agree with you and stay.

Carver was pissed that I didn't let him come; the last straw to him joining the Templars. Don't say "they" as if you know both reactions.

And you are actually wrong.  The DuLancet (I think) isn't the murder.  He was actually really looking for his wife.  If you let him live and convince Moria that he isn't a blood mage or something, he actually helps you find the real killer in the quest.  

I'm not wrong in that your thoughts immediately think of DuLancet. Which is what I said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had no way of knowing Quentin was the murderer before the mother quest.

All of them are bad.  But the people in this thread make it sound like DA:O is a peach, that all path are roses.  Which is why I pointed out that it isn't.

DA:O is a peach because you had the ability to make it so. You could potentially do all the rotten things, sell your cousin, whatever ... or you could NOT. You could save everyone and become ruler. This game does NOT allow you a dialogue option to a perfect world. It's a tragedy, no matter how you spin it.

[Taritu]

Yes, that's the thing about this game: it is a tragedy, period, and there's nothing you can do about it. Maybe mitigate it very very slightly.

[Kemmer]

Carmen_Willow wrote...
The only time I really teared up in this game was when Grey Warden Alistair came running through my game with my bro and another helmeted grey warden.  I SO WANTED to run away with them. It was like "Get me the heck out of this crazy place!  Even darkspawn make more sense than this crazy town!" 

I know, right?!  I didn't even have Alistair or Carver for that part, but I felt so abandoned.  All the backstabbing and double-crossing in Kirkwall does make the simplicity of a fight against *pure evil* sound nice.  Sigh.  I do hope they elaborate on what that Warden mission was in DA3.  It would be a nice link between the games.

[JamesX]

maselphie wrote...

No, they don't. The first sibling, perhaps. The other one has the ability to last until the end of the game, or at the very least until the end of Act 1, which is the longest act in the game. It may be optional, but if you put them in your party, they are as vocal as any other companion, and when you get home, you complete several family related quests and they have bonding cutscenes. You saying this leads me to believe you are simply overexaggerating, or ignorant of the sibling's role in the game.

Which is what we are talking about the Initial death.  Since we are comparing their death to the family death of Origins.  Which only happens in the beginning of the game.

maselphie wrote...

Not at all, don't put words in my mouth. Was my mother char in DA2 ever a companion character? No. Did I feel for her when she died? Yes. Your argument that you didn't care for your sibling's death is your same arguement for why I should care about the family in the noble origin. Check yourself.

I did.  You said  "they are numbers not characters."  

So what do you mean by characters?  I guess I made the assumption you mean characters as Companions.   Was that assumption wrong?

Or do you mean Characters as in People you interact with?  You interacted with Carver/Bethany for 3 conversations before their death.  You interacted with your mom for about 2 in Origins, Father 1, the Guests 1.

So the only reasonable assumption is your distinction is that they are not companions or have no re-occuring role.  Except it is a bit hard for dead people to have reoccuring roles.  So how is Carver/Bethany's death in the beginning more emotional than the death of the parents?  That is not even including their death speeches - which is what brought this comparison out in the open in the first place.

maselphie wrote...

DA:O is more known to you because it's been out longer ..? If you play the game, you'll find you get very intimate with the characters, if not WAY MORE than DA:O ever allowed you to. This argument is again just you not wanting to get into them, not that there weren't opportunities to.

Actually I was talking about my original experience with the game when I did City Elf and Human Noble Origins.  Not "repeated" playing.  You can memorize a math book from cover to cover, but that doesn't make the subject more interesting.

That is the problem with the NPCs in DA2, and the storyline in general.  It is so borderline forced that I just don't get over it.  

maselphie wrote...

By "their" you mean the companion's problems? Why is a character-driven conflict a bad one? Humans are flawed people, which is exactly what Varric's story was trying to tell. Hawke didn't start a war because that was his perfect intention from the get-go. It's more complicated than that. And wouldn't character conflicts be exactly what you want to get to "know" them?

Everyone's problems.  Character driven conflicts can be bad or good.  Humans are flawed people, but neither are they onesided archtypes.  Archtypes are represented by an idea.  This is the typical problem with movies and stores that the characters are suppose to be "mature" or "intelligent" or "vetearns" but the end up making mistakes as if they are newborn babies or completely deprived of reasonability.  There are tolerances to be made becuse the writers themselves are not genius, so they cannot write a genius accurately.  But it is also quite odd when the Characters are reduced to being one dimensional just so the story can go one specific direction.

maselphie wrote...

Carver was pissed that I didn't let him come; the last straw to him joining the Templars. Don't say "they" as if you know both reactions.

I was a mage, Bethany was the surviving sibling, and she agreed and stayed.  Regardless of the outcome, the result is the same.

Unless you insist they come against your mom's wishes, they will not come.  You make it sound like if you didn't insist they come they will override you and come anyways.  Which is not true.

maselphie wrote...

I'm not wrong in that your thoughts immediately think of DuLancet. Which is what I said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had no way of knowing Quentin was the murderer before the mother quest.

Actually you can.  There is simply not enough evidence to mark that he did it.  Plus all the letters (while not definitive) goes with his story.  But that being said, I don't have hte habit of second guessing on things without supporting facts.  So I didn't second guess my decision and instead just went immediate to find Hawke's mother.  Second guessing is for when you have time for it.

maselphie wrote...

DA:O is a peach because you had the ability to make it so. You could potentially do all the rotten things, sell your cousin, whatever ... or you could NOT. You could save everyone and become ruler. This game does NOT allow you a dialogue option to a perfect world. It's a tragedy, no matter how you spin it.

Except I never said DA:O is darker than DA2.  I have repeatedly said that DA:O isn't as peaching as some of the people have made it sound.  It has dark elements as well.

What I did say is that DA2 NPCs are archtypes forced into unnatural decisions because the story needs to turn into a specific direction.  Their obvious lack of forethought makes their tragedy less sympathetic and emotional.

Like for example Merriel's Clan's death.  I felt nothing for Merriel but hatred.  Her OWN selfishness and lack of willlingness to understand or learn of the danger of her actions started this.  I don't feel nearly as bad for her as I did for the Brides of the Elven Origin Story.

[Narreneth]

[quote]JamesX wrote...

No, Carver/Bethany wanted to go. Please listen again.[/quote]And she would only go if you insisted they going.  Please read again.  If you said, no, mom is right, they agree with you and stay.
[/quote]

And if they don't go Bethany is forced into the Circle and Carver willingly goes into an organization that fundamentally has issues with who you are. 

I can understand where you're coming from when you say that not everything in Origins was peachy and rainbows; but, you're intentionally downplaying events in DA2 to make your point rather than letting the events in Origins stand for themselves.  

On one hand you make assertions that when characters have problems that are self-inflicted, it can't be tragic.  On the other you say if an event occurs because of random circumstance it can't be tragic.  So what, then, is tragic?  Being targeted specifically because you made a particular decision?  So by your definition, say, an Earthquake and Tsunami would be pretty damn stupid to whine about because they're both a) random and can be avoided by living in areas away from fault lines and shores?

The things in DA2 that are sad and tragic are that way because if they were to happen to you in a real world setting it would royally suck.  You're supposed to identify with the situation.  In the case of Isabela being responsible for a lot of the problems because of taking the Qunari's book, it's supposed to get to you because you find out that someone who is supposed to be your companion is largely to blame for the problems with the Qunari that have been plaguing the city.  When the explosion went off and Anders revealed exactly what it was he was doing, I felt pretty betrayed.  I had used my character to be a voice of reason for mages and then this guy who I had put so much trust into turns around and does something like that.  Those aren't the only instances, just some examples.

Not everyone is going to agree on everything about the game, obviously, but it's really starting to seem like you're arguing just for the sake of trying to get people to bow down to you and say "okay, you're right, Origins was better."

[Innocent Erendira]

I thought the game was very emotional. The whole scene with Leandra I was just like, "This can't be happening,"

Somebody likens Hawke "the center of a hurricane" and I definetly got that sense. I do wish that there had been an option to let Anders live but still respond to him angrily. My Hawke did not like being accessory to something so awful

But yes..emotionally draining indeed. I would have lost it were I Hawke.

[JamesX]

Narreneth wrote...

On one hand you make assertions that when characters have problems that are self-inflicted, it can't be tragic.

Tragic or Emotional?  A Drunk driver running over an family is tragic.  Do you feel sympathy for the drunk driver?  If the Drunk Driver is your companion do you feel as emotional invested in this situation?

or do you feel more emotionally invested if the drunk driver run over your companion's family?

That was my point in regards to some of the pathos in DA2.

Narreneth wrote...

On the other you say if an event occurs because of random circumstance it can't be tragic.  So what, then, is tragic?  Being targeted specifically because you made a particular decision?  So by your definition, say, an Earthquake and Tsunami would be pretty damn stupid to whine about because they're both a) random and can be avoided by living in areas away from fault lines and shores?

How are you living in an area caused the Earthquake?  We are talking about Causes, not lack of solutions or avoidance.

Narreneth wrote...

You're supposed to identify with the situation.  In the case of Isabela being responsible for a lot of the problems because of taking the Qunari's book, it's supposed to get to you because you find out that someone who is supposed to be your companion is largely to blame for the problems with the Qunari that have been plaguing the city.

Except it didn't.  I already know that when Isabelle always skip off when I goto the Quanri Compound.  I already know she is most likely the cause of it, and it didn't get to me at all.  But that is a bad example.  I know what you mean.  

But the problem is that if Isabella wasn't actually the thief and was framed by someone else (or even tricked) I would have felt far more for her problem than I would as it stands.

My entire point was that I have less emotional involvement with problems people creat for themselves than bad things that just happen.

Narreneth wrote...

When the explosion went off and Anders revealed exactly what it was he was doing, I felt pretty betrayed.  I had used my character to be a voice of reason for mages and then this guy who I had put so much trust into turns around and does something like that.  Those aren't the only instances, just some examples.

So did I.  But the game won't let me.  I wanted him to fight for the mages then march him off to Val Royalux to face justice - instead of killing him there as a mob.  But the game did not let me.  To let him live is to forgive him of his crimes.  That is more frustrating than sad.  

Unlike a lot of people here, I already know what Anders did when he tried to blackmailed me into doing something.  Considering I was his "best" friend (not lover).  At that point I wanted to go tell the Chantry about it, which someone who has been as neutural and the voice of reason as I have played Hawke would do.  But the game did not allow such an action.

It is one of the reasons why I feel the plot is forced. 

Modifié par JamesX, 15 mars 2011 - 11:59 .

[Darian Tylmare]

Yeah, so many unnecessary death. It was emotional draining and people close to Hawke can die very easily.
But if you take it from the lore side, Kirkwall seems like one big slaughterhouse. You kill so many people that after the end there may be no family in Kirkwall left that hasn't at least one dead family member thanks to Hawke or his actions.

[maselphie]

Which is what we are talking about the Initial death.  Since we are comparing their death to the family death of Origins.  Which only happens in the beginning of the game.

Sorry when you say Carver/Bethany's death, I assumed you were talking about both of them. We all agree that their death wasn't impactful, BUT I think it definitely became impactful when you went home and the mother was still grieving, Gamlen was distressed to hear the news, etc. It wasn't just ignored, unlike in DA:O where no one really cares about where you came from expect, maybe ONCE when someone asks you about your family.

So what do you mean by characters?  I guess I made the assumption you mean characters as Companions.   Was that assumption wrong?

Yes, that was the wrong assumption. How many characters were killed in the battle of Ostagar? Cailan, Duncan, and if you want to include the failed Wardens you can. Those are characters. I'm not about to say that that battle was more sad than the noble origin story simply because more people died in it. Those are just numbers, not characters. Characters are not just people, but they are "the inherent complex of attributes that determines a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions". Shorter: a character is how you react to conflict. If I'm not exposed to a person, then they're not a character. They're as much a prop as the chair in the scene.

 Humans are flawed people, but neither are they onesided archtypes.  Archtypes are represented by an idea.  This is the typical problem with movies and stores that the characters are suppose to be "mature" or "intelligent" or "vetearns" but the end up making mistakes as if they are newborn babies or completely deprived of reasonability.  There are tolerances to be made becuse the writers themselves are not genius, so they cannot write a genius accurately.  But it is also quite odd when the Characters are reduced to being one dimensional just so the story can go one specific direction.

How are the characters in DA2 more archetypes than DA:O? This is a grave assumption, and frankly a wrong one. You honeslty look at Sten, or Zevran, or Leilana, or Wynne, or Ohgren, or whoever and tell me that they have more development or character than the companions in DA2. They have as much or less.

I'm not sure what your rant about making decisions come from. Who the hell are you talking about?

I was a mage, Bethany was the surviving sibling, and she agreed and stayed.  Regardless of the outcome, the result is the same.

Are you 100% certain Bethany survived? ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN? I MEAN REALLY DOUBLE CHECK. Mages get  Carver, not Bethany.

If by "insist" you mean the character selection screen, you're confusing a game mechanic for some sort of charisma check. You're the "leader" so it is your decision on whether to allow Bethany or Carver, not to persuade them to go or to stay. Of course they won't come. It's a game mechanic, and it was your choice as the player. You play with Carver and tell me he's not upset about not going.

Like for example Merriel's Clan's death.  I felt nothing for Merriel but hatred.  Her OWN selfishness and lack of willlingness to understand or learn of the danger of her actions started this.  I don't feel nearly as bad for her as I did for the Brides of the Elven Origin Story.

Most people don't care about Merril's troubles, but it's more about being surprised at what she's gotten herself in. What is so important that she's sacrificing her life for? Well, that's not cool. Bad Merril. You care about her struggle with it ... she learns that she's destroying her life. Potentially. Annnnd how is this an archetype? A cute, bubbly girl? CHECK? One that is blood mage conspiring with a demon to ressurect evil? WHOA WAIT THAT'S NOT ON MY CHECKLIST.

It comes down to ... Origins being the first. Origins introduced Elven slavery, the alienage, etc. The conflicts and ideals presented in it are much more general and covered way more bases: the alienage, the circle, the dwarves, corrupt politicians. Once you do those things, you've already done them. DA2 explores one in detail: the mage circle, but all that other stuff is still in there, because it's the same world. The more general you get, the less about the characters it becomes. This is a very character-driven game, as evidenced by the hand each character has in the plot.

[JamesX]

maselphie wrote...

Yes, that was the wrong assumption. How many characters were killed in the battle of Ostagar? Cailan, Duncan, and if you want to include the failed Wardens you can. Those are characters. I'm not about to say that that battle was more sad than the noble origin story simply because more people died in it. Those are just numbers, not characters. Characters are not just people, but they are "the inherent complex of attributes that determines a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions". Shorter: a character is how you react to conflict. If I'm not exposed to a person, then they're not a character. They're as much a prop as the chair in the scene.

Which is exactly how everyone feel about the initial death.  Which is why I pointed out that to use this as an argument to say DA:O is rosy is wrong.

I actually liked the Human Noble's Family, they are a nice family.  Which is contrasted to the undeserving fate they received.  All the subtle support in the Keep and the beginning conversation have already painted the image of Human Noble's parents as good and fair people, beloved by the people.

maselphie wrote...

How are the characters in DA2 more archetypes than DA:O? This is a grave assumption, and frankly a wrong one. You honeslty look at Sten, or Zevran, or Leilana, or Wynne, or Ohgren, or whoever and tell me that they have more development or character than the companions in DA2. They have as much or less.

Just look at how many mages turn Abominations?  How many mages did you find in the game would would rather die than to becoming host to demons?  How many apostates are good examples of that apostates are still people.  They did a far better job in Templars making them seem like real people as opposed to ideological clones.

Or how the Grand Cleric refusing to take a side even though she needs to, even at the brink of destruction.  Meredith has an excuse she is on Lyrium Corruption, but Osino has no such an excuse.  Nor does your character have any excuse to not realize Anders need help.  But pivital moments in the game are taken out of your hands because if your character acted as a intelligent/reasonable being, he would have stopped the events or severely altered it.

So in the end they just let your character have a brain fart and pretend he just over looked something.  Such as Ander's break down and attempt to black mail you into helping him set up his event.  Hawke (as the way I played him) would have insisted he get help and inform the Chantry of a possible plot.  But that might have prevented the end game from ever happening.  So the game did not allow such an event.  You just continue along as if your best friend has never black mailed you to sneak him into the Chantry and insisted not telling you in any way or form what he is going to do.

maselphie wrote...

Are you 100% certain Bethany survived? ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN? I MEAN REALLY DOUBLE CHECK. Mages get  Carver, not Bethany.

Yeah, I finished it as Warrior already.  Bethany was in my final party when I killed Meredith.

maselphie wrote...

If by "insist" you mean the character selection screen, you're confusing a game mechanic for some sort of charisma check. You're the "leader" so it is your decision on whether to allow Bethany or Carver, not to persuade them to go or to stay. Of course they won't come. It's a game mechanic, and it was your choice as the player. You play with Carver and tell me he's not upset about not going.

No Insist as in the normal use of the word.

Mom: "You cannot take her with you.  I can't lose both of you."
You: "Bethany is a big girl mom, let her decide."
Bethany: "Stop Babying me!  I want to be helpful"
You: "Sorry Mom, Bethany made her decision."
Mom: "No!.."
Bethany Goes

So that is what I mean. 

maselphie wrote...

it comes down to ... Origins being the first. Origins introduced Elven slavery, the alienage, etc. The conflicts and ideals presented in it are much more general and covered way more bases: the alienage, the circle, the dwarves, corrupt politicians. Once you do those things, you've already done them. DA2 explores one in detail: the mage circle, but all that other stuff is still in there, because it's the same world. The more general you get, the less about the characters it becomes. This is a very character-driven game, as evidenced by the hand each character has in the plot.

I don't think it is because it is First.  I like Origins better than I like Neverwinter Nights, and Neverwinter NIghts is far older game.  I finished every question that isn't bugged on my first play through.  Read majority of the Codex entries, so I don't think it is because I played the game less than I played Origins.  Though that is certainly true.

I just don't have as much emotional investment a lot of the character's troubles, and the whole situation about the plot is more frustrating than sympathetic.

[Narreneth]

Darian Tylmare wrote...

Yeah, so many unnecessary death. It was emotional draining and people close to Hawke can die very easily.
But if you take it from the lore side, Kirkwall seems like one big slaughterhouse. You kill so many people that after the end there may be no family in Kirkwall left that hasn't at least one dead family member thanks to Hawke or his actions.

You are incredibly bad about taking things out of context intentionally.  I am not going to go over your entire post and pick it apart with quotes, so hopefully my response doesn't get too meandering.  The earthquake and tsunami analogy fits exactly with some of the griping you've done.  No, living in an area does not cause earthquakes, but someone not moving certainly results in a bad situation when an earthquake eventually strikes.  That doesn't make it any less tragic when it happens.  You made an argument that you didn't feel for many of the characters in Kirkwall because something they were doing ultimately ended in them causing problems for themselves.  There is cause in this case, you're simply choosing to ignore the point I made.

As far as the tragic/emotionally invested part of your response, in this case you're just arguing semantics.  And would I feel sympathy for a drunk driver that ran over a family?  No.  But if it was someone I cared about I'd still feel awful.  You think mothers don't feel awful if their child kills someone and ends up in prison for life?  I had a friend a few years ago that died of a drug overdose.  Do I feel bad for him as if he was an innocent bystander?  No.  But that doesn't change the fact that it was still awful.  You can feel sad/hurt/etc. in more than one way.  People are not one-dimensional.

As far as you saying you didn't get invested in the story, that's at least something I can respect. 

Finally, as far as Anders goes, the game can only allow for so many options.  Marching him off somewhere for trial is a very specific option.  Yeah, fighting him as a mob is fairly lame if you want to go the killing him route.  I'll give you that.  Better to just have him submit to getting his head lopped off, at least then it feels more dramatic.  The other two options are just as good.  I ended up letting him run, because I couldn't kill him because he was my friend.  Same as I let Isabela take the book because she was my love interest.  I got attached enough to them that I could at least on some level forgive their screw-ups.  In the case of Anders running off, I kind of figured he'd get killed somewhere eventually anyway.  When he turned back up in the fight with the First Enchanter, I let him back into the party because he was the only available healer.  Something that I found to be a huge flaw in this particular game.

[Lirea Dragonage]

Argh so glad other people feel this way! By the end of Act 2 I was just ready to have my Hawke throw herself off a cliff it was so depressing! Mother murdered in the most horrific way possible, all companions hating each other, every mage is a bloody abomination etc etc. romanced Anders ... THAT turned out well! The only bright spark was my buddies standing by me at the end, especially Carver's heroic return

[LT123]

Kemmer wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...
The only time I really teared up in this game was when Grey Warden Alistair came running through my game with my bro and another helmeted grey warden.  I SO WANTED to run away with them. It was like "Get me the heck out of this crazy place!  Even darkspawn make more sense than this crazy town!" 

I know, right?!  I didn't even have Alistair or Carver for that part, but I felt so abandoned.  All the backstabbing and double-crossing in Kirkwall does make the simplicity of a fight against *pure evil* sound nice.  Sigh.  I do hope they elaborate on what that Warden mission was in DA3.  It would be a nice link between the games.

I know! And I think the Ostagar theme was playing and the Warden talking definitely had Riordan's voice and I was all like "Yeah, Grey Warden fistbump!-oh, wait. Go be awesome, guys. Go be awesome." I can't wait to do a Grey Warden Alistair playthrough.

And Kirkwall is absolutely insane. I hope we do find out about the Wardens' mission at some point.

[speedy111280]

I was a bit disappointed that the original Dragon Age wasn't this dark, I think even the two novels were darker than the actual game, and as someone who was interested in the title from the moment they announced they were working on it because of the influence GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire series had on the writers, it was a big let down on the "dark" part of "dark fantasy" and DA2 was the complete opposite. There were several times while playing DA2 that I had feelings reminiscent of the feelings I get when I re-read ASOIAF and for a game to make me feel anything close to how those books make me feel is amazing because no matter how many times I read them knowing everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket, I simply can't stop reading them because of how emotionally involved I am with the story and DA2 is the same way, I can't stop playing even after beating the game twice already.

Don't get me wrong, I love DA:O and it's storyline, when you add in all the DLC and Awakenings, was really good and IMO far better than ME2 (except for the awesomeness of LotSB) it just wasn't what I would consider a dark fantasy story, DA2 is.

[panamakira]

Agreed and I wasn't happy about that. It was incredibly darker and grimmer than DA:O.
I like wanted someone to lift up the mood but it was all on my Hawke....everybody else was brooding over something.....

I play games to put me in a good mood not a depressing one....Oh Anders!

Edit:
Alistair and Zevran totally put me in a good mood for that little while I met them. Then I was back to grim-dark-humor-less Kirkwall~

Modifié par panamakira, 16 mars 2011 - 04:43 .

[jfp2004]

Emotionally draining? That's saying the least. It's definitely effective from a storytelling perspective. But I tend to gravitate more towards a story that will end on a higher note. Still, I know DA2 is setting it up for something else, so I can accept it. But there's no denying that, at the end, I felt a bit defeated. It sometimes felt like it was one tragedy after another.

Although whenever I got too overwhelmed by whatever was going on I just went back and replayed Varric's exaggerated side mission or Aveline's side-mission involving the stroll through the Wounded Coast, since those both made me laugh.

[panamakira]

@jfp2004

Yes. That was the feeling! I felt defeated by the end of the game.

[leggywillow]

jfp2004 wrote...

Emotionally draining? That's saying the least. It's definitely effective from a storytelling perspective. But I tend to gravitate more towards a story that will end on a higher note. Still, I know DA2 is setting it up for something else, so I can accept it. But there's no denying that, at the end, I felt a bit defeated. It sometimes felt like it was one tragedy after another.

Although whenever I got too overwhelmed by whatever was going on I just went back and replayed Varric's exaggerated side mission or Aveline's side-mission involving the stroll through the Wounded Coast, since those both made me laugh.

Definitely felt defeated in the end.

This is the only game where I've immediately started another playthrough once the credits starts rolling.  Not just because it's awesome, but because that was the only way I could distract myself from thinking about it too much.  I was dreading the moment where I had to sit back and let it all sink in, because I knew it would depress me.  And it did.  Still does.

[jfp2004]

leggywillow wrote...
Definitely felt defeated in the end.

This is the only game where I've immediately started another playthrough once the credits starts rolling.  Not just because it's awesome, but because that was the only way I could distract myself from thinking about it too much.  I was dreading the moment where I had to sit back and let it all sink in, because I knew it would depress me.  And it did.  Still does.

Yeah. I didn't start another playthrough right away and that's pretty much what happened. I finished in the afternoon and for most of the rest of the day I kept thinking about it, torn between feeling impressed and annoyed at how the story had gotten to me at certain parts and how it had evoked emotion through manipulating scenes. Overall, I ended up impressed with Bioware, but there's no denying that it wasn't a "I feel awesome" kind of impressed.

[yoshibb]

The only reason why I wasn't completely destroyed emotionally by the end of the game was cause I romanced Fenris and I was able to at least save my brother from death (even if he is a grey warden, at least he seems happy with it). The mother dying was terrible. I hated that I had no choice in the matter. I had already come to terms with one of my siblings dying in the beginning.

Anders was just... wow. I seriously believed that he wanted to separate from Justice. And I liked the Chantry and the Revered Mother.

I think I remember Varric saying something like "I'm so tired of mages and templars" at the end and that's exactly how I felt. The whole damn place was doomed no matter if I showed up or not. Honestly, if Hawke hadn't been there, would it really have been all that different? I guess the qunari would've been a bit of a problem but whether or not I chose mages or templars, those crazies were going to annihilate each other in the end.

[ChloeRion]

I'm still alittle confused about that fact Anders aparently cheated on me...which still baffels my mind that I never found out...First play through I was just to full of excitement I was getting attached, now that I'm on my second and third time through (I'm playing them consecutively) I'm falling for Anders hes just so much diffrent from what I'm used to when it comes to Romance in a fantasy game. It was a very Buffy-Angel kind of relationship...and I liked it, but seriously....I want my family back. I tried so hard to save mum the second time through but to no evail. But I don't agree with those who said there's no humor in it...hell almost every conversation theres a humor option. It's just not that appropriate for the setting, things are grim in kirkwall. I'd be disappointed if the humor was as aparent as in Origins, it'd just feel overbaring if that were the case. I'm rambeling, I liked the changes it's nice to finally experiance the loses that many of my RP characters have gone through first hand.