192 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

The Fable games always have at least one good idea....that they kill by burying it in crappy gameplay and cheesy storylines.

Fable 2's good idea was the economy and buying/owning houses/shops. That was well done and has since been stolen by other games, noticeably the Assassin Creed games.

Fable 3's good idea was being King and deciding to protect your values and have the people love you or sell your values to protect the people. The problem here was that the choices were pointless if you had the near 6 million dollars, which is entirely possible at how easy it is to earn money in those games. Then you find out that your wallet is the only thing that makes you a good King.

The Fable games also love the idea of Morphs. Your appearance changes to match your morally and cities change depending on how low/high the rent is or plot points. Fable 2 had a town go from barely there slum to nice Nordic setting if you invested money to develop it; and Bowerstone Lowtown could be crime/prostitute ridden slum or middle class haven depending on if you turned in papers or not.

[Mindr]

 After reading most of the posts in this thread, I feel like I should give my 2 cents as well. 

After finishing the game, I felt I had gone through a detailed ( or dragged on, depending on your opinion) origin story of DA:O. You can choose whether to bang or not that chick in the Human Noble Origin, express your dislike of the Wardens when conversing with Duncan and your Father, yet Howe will still attack the castle, your family will end up (mostly) dead and you will join the Wardens and make history.

It has been stated by many that this is a "personal" story, I, however, find myself agreeing more with Foolsfolly on that particular point: Having themes does not equal having a solid plot. By the end of the game, I just felt that, unlike the Hero of Ferelden, Hawke had gained a lot of his reputation because of misconceptions, as evidenced by the surprise Cassandra expresses when Varric explains that nobody their actions would have the concequences they did or that they had planned them beforehand. 

Also, after having the final plot twist with Meredith, I couldn't help feeling like everything that happened was brought on by my (Hawke's) greed to rise in social status, rather than a natural escalation in tension between mages and templars based on their conflicting beliefs of public safety and personal liberty. Despite that, though, I can somewhat understand the decision the writing staff made, having an ( admittedly, sloppily explained) artifact act as the medium that intensified the conflict to a full-scale war, because of a simple reason:

I think that anyone who has finished the game can see that the sequel will deal with the same problem ( Mages vs Templars) on a national or global scale and probably lead to more extreme measures taken after the end of the revolution depending on the players' choices ( No Circle or Tevinter-style Chantry / Instant execution of Mages upon discovery of their powers). Had Dragon Age II provided us with a non deus ex machina explanation, one side would have to take the full blame for the war that's coming and would rob the choice of some players or brand them "evil" because they sided with those that started the whole deal.

Of course, this is a metagame reason and does not in any way explain or excuse the flaws that we see in many points in the story, mostly in the last Act, such as the Orsino's turning to blood magic and becoming an abomination when the mages, along with Hawke & Company, have defeated the bulk of the attacking Templars and had a chance at Meredith since no Templar reinforcements had arrived by that point.

Modifié par Mindr, 30 mars 2011 - 05:45 .

[Foolsfolly]

I actually don't think the next game will deal with this as much as DA2 did. I think Sandal's prophecy (the magic will return), the Golem Merchant (the Stone Lives Under Orlais), and the fact that Orlais's likely the location for the next game makes me think that the 'Great Change' will interrupt the Mage/Templar fight.

So...you know, He will rise and all that will be the main plot.

Of course, I could be wrong. No one besides BioWare knows what's coming.

[txgoldrush]

Mindr wrote...

 After reading most of the posts in this thread, I feel like I should give my 2 cents as well. 

After finishing the game, I felt I had gone through a detailed ( or dragged on, depending on your opinion) origin story of DA:O. You can choose whether to bang or not that chick in the Human Noble Origin, express your dislike of the Wardens when conversing with Duncan and your Father, yet Howe will still attack the castle, your family will end up (mostly) dead and you will join the Wardens and make history.

It has been stated by many that this is a "personal" story, I, however, find myself agreeing more with Foolsfolly on that particular point: Having themes does not equal having a solid plot. By the end of the game, I just felt that, unlike the Hero of Ferelden, Hawke had gained a lot of his reputation because of misconceptions, as evidenced by the surprise Cassandra expresses when Varric explains that nobody their actions would have the concequences they did or that they had planned them beforehand. 

Also, after having the final plot twist with Meredith, I couldn't help feeling like everything that happened was brought on by my (Hawke's) greed to rise in social status, rather than a natural escalation in tension between mages and templars based on their conflicting beliefs of public safety and personal liberty. Despite that, though, I can somewhat understand the decision the writing staff made, having an ( admittedly, sloppily explained) artifact act as the medium that intensified the conflict to a full-scale war, because of a simple reason:

I think that anyone who has finished the game can see that the sequel will deal with the same problem ( Mages vs Templars) on a national or global scale and probably lead to more extreme measures taken after the end of the revolution depending on the players' choices ( No Circle or Tevinter-style Chantry / Instant execution of Mages upon discovery of their powers). Had Dragon Age II provided us with a non deus ex machina explanation, one side would have to take the full blame for the war that's coming and would rob the choice of some players or brand them "evil" because they sided with those that started the whole deal.

Of course, this is a metagame reason and does not in any way explain or excuse the flaws that we see in many points in the story, mostly in the last Act, such as the Orsino's turning to blood magic and becoming an abomination when the mages, along with Hawke & Company, have defeated the bulk of the attacking Templars and had a chance at Meredith since no Templar reinforcements had arrived by that point.

Actually in the endgame, the Templars win the battle for the Gallows, regardless of your choice. Orsino had only 6 mages left and the entire complex already fell to the Templars or was in the process of falling. Orsino was going to lose, it was a matter of time. Meredith also said that more templars were on boats to the Gallows. Nevermind the fact, that once the party does break out, they meet Meridiths regiment. There is no flaw there, you failed to see the entire picture of the final battle. What Orsino did was irrational, but that was the point.

Hawke is not the driver of the story, but she is the catalyst. And Flemeth did give him a goal, twice, she mentioned, embrace your destiny. And thats what she did. And no, the misconceptions were that she was RESPONSIBLE for the war, which she wasn't.

And the story is about conflict in general, not just the mage vs templar battlle. Hawke is not required to be the driver of the story, just the participant....and its refreshing to see that she is not.

[Big I]

There seem to be 3 broad opinions about the DA2 story in this forum.

1) DA2 failed to adequately show why Hawke would have an emotional stake in Kirkwall and what goes on there.

2) The plot of the story was the Mage/Templar crisis, and was poorly done

3) The plot of the story was Hawke vs inevitability, and was well done.


I agree with (1). Some have defended DA2 by saying that this is common throughout Bioware games; the Warden is always assumed to be dedicated to their duty, whatever the person playing them feels. This is of course true, but at least with Origins we are given some justification in having such duty through the character of Duncan, who saves your life at the beginning of the game in exchange for your recruitment. If you want the player to feel that the protagonist has an emotional investment in something, simply show that in game. Have Hawke mention how much he loves Kirkwall, or how he always felt like an outsider in Fereldan, or something. Have him make non-party, Kirwall specific friends. Anything.


As for the plot, if it was trying to make a point about an individual's relative powerlessness it failed by giving you a series of false choices throughout the game. If you want to tell a story about how people are swept up by events, remove the element of choice completely. Don't make me choose between Orsino and Meredith for no reason, or save someone's live in Act 1 only to have it make no difference in Act 3. If you want to put people on the rails to the extent that their choices don't matter, simply stop giving them choices. As it is, I played the game with a false sense of personalisation, to the extent that when unavoidable things happened (Orsino and Meredith, Leandra) I felt cheated, not engrossed.


I agree that the main plot was the Mage/Templar conflict, and that it was done poorly. As Foolsfolly pointed out it's established as early as the prologue, it's mentioned incessntly by Anders and Fenris, and is supposed to have a greater impact via Hawke or Bethany. That's fine. However, in a bid to make both sides relateable both groups were portrayed unsympathetically. Every mage you meet is a blood mage or an abomination, and most templars are corrupt and sadistic (Alain even mentions he was molested by Ser Korus, and was subsequently threatened with tranquility). Two of the most sympathetic representatives of the group, Meredith and Orsino, are shown to be mad.


You're given little compelling reason to want to help either group, choosing to help one or the other is completely irrelevant to the plot, and it's not until Act 3 that the conflict is explored in anyting other than side quests. As a player, how it played out simply did not work to make me interested; it in fact went in the opposite direction and made me resent having to sit through unsympathetic characters make straw man arguments.


Bioware have made their reputation by making customers invest in their games by giving the ability to personalise the secondary aspects of their game settings; who rules Orzammar, or whether you kept Wrex alive, etc. To remove that aspect, while leaving in mechanics that make you think player choice will still have a semi-significant impact, was disappointing.

[Darth Obvious]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I agree that the main plot was the Mage/Templar conflict, and that it was done poorly. As Foolsfolly pointed out it's established as early as the prologue, it's mentioned incessntly by Anders and Fenris, and is supposed to have a greater impact via Hawke or Bethany. That's fine. However, in a bid to make both sides relateable both groups were portrayed unsympathetically. Every mage you meet is a blood mage or an abomination, and most templars are corrupt and sadistic (Alain even mentions he was molested by Ser Korus, and was subsequently threatened with tranquility). Two of the most sympathetic representatives of the group, Meredith and Orsino, are shown to be mad.


You're given little compelling reason to want to help either group, choosing to help one or the other is completely irrelevant to the plot, and it's not until Act 3 that the conflict is explored in anyting other than side quests. As a player, how it played out simply did not work to make me interested; it in fact went in the opposite direction and made me resent having to sit through unsympathetic characters make straw man arguments.

I agree on all counts.

Regarding Meredith at the end, and why she failed miserably as an interesting villain:

For most of the story, Meredith seems barely relevant. "Oh, it's just another one of those annoying templar d-bags." Since I cared nothing for this stupid templar-mage conflict, I just ignored her and moved on, anxious for the impending Qunari invasion. Little did I know that somehow Meredith would be chosen by the devs to be the final boss, and the sure-to-be epic Qunari conflict would be dropped mid-game, never to be mentioned again.

There are a few minor references to Meredith here and there, and you run into her a few times, but her character was so poorly fleshed-out that she seemed a hell of a lot less important than even the captain of the guard. Meredith's role was not much different in that regard, and was a hell of a lot less interesting.

But then, at the end, you find out that she has somehow been possessed by the idol-thingy. Uh... what? You mean that thing from the Deep Roads that barely gets mentioned in the entire game? And somehow now it has become a cheesy-looking sword, and has possessed her? That's got to be the most idiotic idea for a villain that Bioware has ever conceived.

[Reinveil]

txgoldrush wrote...

Mindr wrote...

 After reading most of the posts in this thread, I feel like I should give my 2 cents as well. 

After
finishing the game, I felt I had gone through a detailed ( or dragged
on, depending on your opinion) origin story of DA:O. You can choose
whether to bang or not that chick in the Human Noble Origin, express
your dislike of the Wardens when conversing with Duncan and your Father,
yet Howe will still attack the castle, your family will end up (mostly)
dead and you will join the Wardens and make history.

It has been
stated by many that this is a "personal" story, I, however, find myself
agreeing more with Foolsfolly on that particular point: Having themes
does not equal having a solid plot. By the end of the game, I just felt
that, unlike the Hero of Ferelden, Hawke had gained a lot of his
reputation because of misconceptions, as evidenced by the surprise
Cassandra expresses when Varric explains that nobody their actions would
have the concequences they did or that they had planned them
beforehand. 

Also, after having the final plot twist with
Meredith, I couldn't help feeling like everything that happened was
brought on by my (Hawke's) greed to rise in social status, rather than a
natural escalation in tension between mages and templars based on their
conflicting beliefs of public safety and personal liberty. Despite
that, though, I can somewhat understand the decision the writing staff
made, having an ( admittedly, sloppily explained) artifact act as the
medium that intensified the conflict to a full-scale war, because of a
simple reason:

I think that anyone who has finished the game can
see that the sequel will deal with the same problem ( Mages vs Templars)
on a national or global scale and probably lead to more extreme
measures taken after the end of the revolution depending on the players'
choices ( No Circle or Tevinter-style Chantry / Instant execution of
Mages upon discovery of their powers). Had Dragon Age II provided us
with a non deus ex machina explanation, one side would have to take the
full blame for the war that's coming and would rob the choice of some
players or brand them "evil" because they sided with those that started
the whole deal.

Of course, this is a metagame reason and does not
in any way explain or excuse the flaws that we see in many points in
the story, mostly in the last Act, such as the Orsino's turning to blood
magic and becoming an abomination when the mages, along with Hawke
& Company, have defeated the bulk of the attacking Templars and had a
chance at Meredith since no Templar reinforcements had arrived by that
point.

Actually in the endgame, the Templars win the
battle for the Gallows, regardless of your choice. Orsino had only 6
mages left and the entire complex already fell to the Templars or was in
the process of falling. Orsino was going to lose, it was a matter of
time. Meredith also said that more templars were on boats to the
Gallows. Nevermind the fact, that once the party does break out, they
meet Meridiths regiment. There is no flaw there, you failed to see the
entire picture of the final battle. What Orsino did was irrational, but
that was the point.

Hawke is not the driver of the story, but she
is the catalyst. And Flemeth did give him a goal, twice, she mentioned,
embrace your destiny. And thats what she did. And no, the
misconceptions were that she was RESPONSIBLE for the war, which she
wasn't.

And the story is about conflict in general, not just the
mage vs templar battlle. Hawke is not required to be the driver of the
story, just the participant....and its refreshing to see that she is
not.

Many of the Templars were already starting to question Meredith's leadership, and by the final battle, she's fighting
alone.  Also, since she's defeated by the end of the game, it seems odd to assume "Orsino was going to lose".  He mentions nothing about the inevitability of defeat during that particular battle in his little speech before he turns into the Golgothan **** Demon, beyond feeling sorry for himself and the usual "mages have no hope" diatribe you hear from the start.  He goes from passionate defender of mages' rights to exemplifying why they're persecuted to begin with in a single short scene, and he doesn't even attack the templars, he attacks you.  The only thing this "point" succeeds in doing is making both sides unsympathetic and making the player wonder why they should care about either.  It's a cheap twist to fight a boss.  I found everyone so thoroughly unlikable at that point I was only playing to get the last few achievements.  Act 3 is a train wreck.

Also, "embracing your destiny" and "conflict" could not possibly be more basic.  The latter is a rudimentary component of fiction, and if you're arguing that conflict is the focus of the game, then it's really no different from nearly every other game, is it?  Origins featured a lot of destiny embracing and conflict as well, yet you claim the sequel is more focused.  It's narrative themes also tie the quests together.  Your argument simply does not hold up, and frankly, makes it look like you don't really know what the story is, either.

The whole "you just don't like it because it's not a typical plot" defense needs to die in a fire.  The complaints about the story have little to do with "lack of epicness" or not being able to save the world, and more to do with it being a disjointed, poorly-executed mess.

Modifié par Reinveil, 30 mars 2011 - 06:40 .

[zyxe]

Reinveil wrote...

Many of the Templars were already starting to question Meredith's leadership, and by the final battle, she's fighting
alone.  Also, since she's defeated by the end of the game, it seems odd to assume "Orsino was going to lose".  He mentions nothing about the inevitability of defeat during that particular battle in his little speech before he turns into the Golgothan **** Demon, beyond feeling sorry for himself and the usual "mages have no hope" diatribe you hear from the start.  He goes from passionate defender of mages' rights to exemplifying why they're persecuted to begin with in a single short scene, and he doesn't even attack the templars, he attacks you. 

The whole "you just don't like it because it's not a typical plot" defense needs to die in a fire.  The complaints about the story have little to do with "lack of epicness" or not being able to save the world, and more to do with it being a disjointed, poorly-executed mess.

THIS!!! i know that some people do things you just don't understand, but this game is FULL of people doing stupid things that just feel like plot devices since they couldn't think of anything better (Orsino, the aforementioned idol and Meredith, Anders blowing up the chantry-though yes he is fanatical so this is maybe the least out of left field plot hooks, but it's so stupid-etc). it feels like this entire game was made because someone had some idea that the mages should rebel in all circles, and they had a bit of development time in, too short to make a full game, so they just threw this together to get from point A to point B.

and the part in the 2nd paragraph above, i also agree with. i LOVE the IDEA for the story, telling a personal tale of your rise to power, but it could have been told so much better. the plot holes are just too much for me to handle, and add to that the lack of "personal" moments in the game that would make the player emotionally attached just didn't do it for me. it made the entire experience feel cheap (definitely not $60 worth )

[txgoldrush]

@Reinviel

Yes, Meredith is fighting alone after her whole regiment turned on her, but this is AFTER the attack on the Circle and the death of Orsino. The battle for the Gallows is over after this point. The fort was basically taken by the Templars. Orsino had NO chance, he would have been overrun already by the time Hawke even fights Meredith.

The templars turn on Meredith only after she decides to kill you instead of capturing you, because if they would kill the champion (mage side), there would be outcry and Cullen still respected you. He lets you go after the battle as a sign of respect.

[txgoldrush]

zyxe wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Many of the Templars were already starting to question Meredith's leadership, and by the final battle, she's fighting
alone.  Also, since she's defeated by the end of the game, it seems odd to assume "Orsino was going to lose".  He mentions nothing about the inevitability of defeat during that particular battle in his little speech before he turns into the Golgothan **** Demon, beyond feeling sorry for himself and the usual "mages have no hope" diatribe you hear from the start.  He goes from passionate defender of mages' rights to exemplifying why they're persecuted to begin with in a single short scene, and he doesn't even attack the templars, he attacks you. 

The whole "you just don't like it because it's not a typical plot" defense needs to die in a fire.  The complaints about the story have little to do with "lack of epicness" or not being able to save the world, and more to do with it being a disjointed, poorly-executed mess.

THIS!!! i know that some people do things you just don't understand, but this game is FULL of people doing stupid things that just feel like plot devices since they couldn't think of anything better (Orsino, the aforementioned idol and Meredith, Anders blowing up the chantry-though yes he is fanatical so this is maybe the least out of left field plot hooks, but it's so stupid-etc). it feels like this entire game was made because someone had some idea that the mages should rebel in all circles, and they had a bit of development time in, too short to make a full game, so they just threw this together to get from point A to point B.

and the part in the 2nd paragraph above, i also agree with. i LOVE the IDEA for the story, telling a personal tale of your rise to power, but it could have been told so much better. the plot holes are just too much for me to handle, and add to that the lack of "personal" moments in the game that would make the player emotionally attached just didn't do it for me. it made the entire experience feel cheap (definitely not $60 worth )

What plot holes? None are major. You do not see much of the idol because the story is told from Hawke's point of view, notice how no cutscenes are shown not involving Hawke. And Meredith was a tyrant well before she got hands on the idol.

And how is Anders murdering voices of moderation stupid? Terrorists and extremists do it all the time.

How does this game lack "personal" moments? Its full of them. In fact, the choices are more "personal" in this game.

[txgoldrush]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

There seem to be 3 broad opinions about the DA2 story in this forum.

1) DA2 failed to adequately show why Hawke would have an emotional stake in Kirkwall and what goes on there.

2) The plot of the story was the Mage/Templar crisis, and was poorly done

3) The plot of the story was Hawke vs inevitability, and was well done.


I agree with (1). Some have defended DA2 by saying that this is common throughout Bioware games; the Warden is always assumed to be dedicated to their duty, whatever the person playing them feels. This is of course true, but at least with Origins we are given some justification in having such duty through the character of Duncan, who saves your life at the beginning of the game in exchange for your recruitment. If you want the player to feel that the protagonist has an emotional investment in something, simply show that in game. Have Hawke mention how much he loves Kirkwall, or how he always felt like an outsider in Fereldan, or something. Have him make non-party, Kirwall specific friends. Anything.


As for the plot, if it was trying to make a point about an individual's relative powerlessness it failed by giving you a series of false choices throughout the game. If you want to tell a story about how people are swept up by events, remove the element of choice completely. Don't make me choose between Orsino and Meredith for no reason, or save someone's live in Act 1 only to have it make no difference in Act 3. If you want to put people on the rails to the extent that their choices don't matter, simply stop giving them choices. As it is, I played the game with a false sense of personalisation, to the extent that when unavoidable things happened (Orsino and Meredith, Leandra) I felt cheated, not engrossed.


I agree that the main plot was the Mage/Templar conflict, and that it was done poorly. As Foolsfolly pointed out it's established as early as the prologue, it's mentioned incessntly by Anders and Fenris, and is supposed to have a greater impact via Hawke or Bethany. That's fine. However, in a bid to make both sides relateable both groups were portrayed unsympathetically. Every mage you meet is a blood mage or an abomination, and most templars are corrupt and sadistic (Alain even mentions he was molested by Ser Korus, and was subsequently threatened with tranquility). Two of the most sympathetic representatives of the group, Meredith and Orsino, are shown to be mad.


You're given little compelling reason to want to help either group, choosing to help one or the other is completely irrelevant to the plot, and it's not until Act 3 that the conflict is explored in anyting other than side quests. As a player, how it played out simply did not work to make me interested; it in fact went in the opposite direction and made me resent having to sit through unsympathetic characters make straw man arguments.


Bioware have made their reputation by making customers invest in their games by giving the ability to personalise the secondary aspects of their game settings; who rules Orzammar, or whether you kept Wrex alive, etc. To remove that aspect, while leaving in mechanics that make you think player choice will still have a semi-significant impact, was disappointing.

Actually, you as a player give Hawke's motivations. Its the same as any prescripted protagonist. You can be the "I love Kirkwall" Hawke or you can kick and scream you way through the story, doing things only to further himself. You can pick sides. The motive is provided by you, with Flemeth's foreshadow. Is the same as the Nameless One in Planescpae Torment, who you decide what life he currently leads, or Geralt, who has a whole questline in Act IV of The Witcher to define his worldview and his goals. (The quest is called Identity). You can even be rude to your family and even have Meredith kill Bethany at the end. But regardless of how you roleplay, he is still caught up in events and have to react.

Actually, even in moments of powerlessness, there is still choice. In fact, Hawke's chocies are powerful not for the changes it brings, like in most WRPGs, but how you shape peoples lives. Instead of choices affecting the world stage, your choices impact a person for the rest of their lives. For example Fenyiral....you can send him to the Dalish and the Circle, a choice that affects HIS life, but in Night Terrors, your actions will affect the quality of life he has and the game will let you know the consquences. Your brother or sister's life is hugely affected by your choices. The choice and consquence system defies convention in this game....instead of choices afffecting the world as a whole, they affect the lives Hawke comes in contact with. Thats how "personal" this game is.

The Witcher also portrayed BOTH sides unsympathetically, their knight order routinely abused elves and dwarves, while the nonhuman resistance committed atrocities and terror against humans. Both factions were downright nasty. Its called, choosing the lesser evil.

You can personalize DAII...instead of who rules Ozrimmar, its how is Bethany going to live her life and how does she develop through the years.

[88mphSlayer]

personally i actually enjoyed the story of the champion more than the warden, while you could say the warden's journey had a better ending i enjoyed the journey of rags to riches and the ensuing tumbles that you have to face more, and i really enjoyed the gray choices in act 3

[Mugnir]

As a player I was unable to ever give Hawke any motivation to remain in Kirkwall at all. It's the place his family fled from for crying out loud for being oppressive. I never once had a "My only choice is to head for Kirkwall" feeling from the prologue... that's just the choice I got shoehorned into.

In origins, you head to Ostagar because you're becoming a warden; and that's where the wardens' were gathering. Wardens stop blights, head to place where blight is. Makes perfect sense.

What's my goal in DA 2? It can't be to protect my family, because I probably wouldn't drag them to the worst city in the world to be a mage in. (great suggestion mom) If it's just to survive until the blight is over, boom, done. Your year of indentured servitude is up, but... you decide to head to the deep roads. (And you already have more than enough money to just leave and go someplace where you won't get murdered/raped/tortured for being an apostate or an apostate sympathizer.)

And seriously, the deep roads? You just FLED from the freaking darkspawn to come to Kirkwall, and you want to go to the deep roads? Why? WHY! Am I supposed to be roleplaying a mental midget?

There was nothing in Kirkwall worth endangering my family for. There was no purpose to staying in Kirkwall. I can't magically give Hawke motivation he won't have under any circumstances.

Modifié par Mugnir, 31 mars 2011 - 05:34 .

[PirateT138]

Yup, you're just SOOOOO much smarter.

It's so focused when you're running f'ing errands for most of the game. Hawke never grows a pair and decides what to do, he just gets caught up in the current of the real powerful people (like the Arishok, Meredith, Orsino, Varric and Bartrand).

[Foolsfolly]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

There seem to be 3 broad opinions about the DA2 story in this forum.

1) DA2 failed to adequately show why Hawke would have an emotional stake in Kirkwall and what goes on there.

2) The plot of the story was the Mage/Templar crisis, and was poorly done

3) The plot of the story was Hawke vs inevitability, and was well done.


I agree with (1). Some have defended DA2 by saying that this is common throughout Bioware games; the Warden is always assumed to be dedicated to their duty, whatever the person playing them feels. This is of course true, but at least with Origins we are given some justification in having such duty through the character of Duncan, who saves your life at the beginning of the game in exchange for your recruitment. If you want the player to feel that the protagonist has an emotional investment in something, simply show that in game. Have Hawke mention how much he loves Kirkwall, or how he always felt like an outsider in Fereldan, or something. Have him make non-party, Kirwall specific friends. Anything.


As for the plot, if it was trying to make a point about an individual's relative powerlessness it failed by giving you a series of false choices throughout the game. If you want to tell a story about how people are swept up by events, remove the element of choice completely. Don't make me choose between Orsino and Meredith for no reason, or save someone's live in Act 1 only to have it make no difference in Act 3. If you want to put people on the rails to the extent that their choices don't matter, simply stop giving them choices. As it is, I played the game with a false sense of personalisation, to the extent that when unavoidable things happened (Orsino and Meredith, Leandra) I felt cheated, not engrossed.


I agree that the main plot was the Mage/Templar conflict, and that it was done poorly. As Foolsfolly pointed out it's established as early as the prologue, it's mentioned incessntly by Anders and Fenris, and is supposed to have a greater impact via Hawke or Bethany. That's fine. However, in a bid to make both sides relateable both groups were portrayed unsympathetically. Every mage you meet is a blood mage or an abomination, and most templars are corrupt and sadistic (Alain even mentions he was molested by Ser Korus, and was subsequently threatened with tranquility). Two of the most sympathetic representatives of the group, Meredith and Orsino, are shown to be mad.


You're given little compelling reason to want to help either group, choosing to help one or the other is completely irrelevant to the plot, and it's not until Act 3 that the conflict is explored in anyting other than side quests. As a player, how it played out simply did not work to make me interested; it in fact went in the opposite direction and made me resent having to sit through unsympathetic characters make straw man arguments.


Bioware have made their reputation by making customers invest in their games by giving the ability to personalise the secondary aspects of their game settings; who rules Orzammar, or whether you kept Wrex alive, etc. To remove that aspect, while leaving in mechanics that make you think player choice will still have a semi-significant impact, was disappointing.

Spot on. Well done.

[txgoldrush]

Mugnir wrote...

As a player I was unable to ever give Hawke any motivation to remain in Kirkwall at all. It's the place his family fled from for crying out loud for being oppressive. I never once had a "My only choice is to head for Kirkwall" feeling from the prologue... that's just the choice I got shoehorned into.

In origins, you head to Ostagar because you're becoming a warden; and that's where the wardens' were gathering. Wardens stop blights, head to place where blight is. Makes perfect sense.

What's my goal in DA 2? It can't be to protect my family, because I probably wouldn't drag them to the worst city in the world to be a mage in. (great suggestion mom) If it's just to survive until the blight is over, boom, done. Your year of indentured servitude is up, but... you decide to head to the deep roads. (And you already have more than enough money to just leave and go someplace where you won't get murdered/raped/tortured for being an apostate or an apostate sympathizer.)

And seriously, the deep roads? You just FLED from the freaking darkspawn to come to Kirkwall, and you want to go to the deep roads? Why? WHY! Am I supposed to be roleplaying a mental midget?

There was nothing in Kirkwall worth endangering my family for. There was no purpose to staying in Kirkwall. I can't magically give Hawke motivation he won't have under any circumstances.

How about because the family home is in Kirkwall? The Hawke and Amell family names are in Kirkwall. Leandra Hawke was born in Kirkwall. Kirkwall is the family's original home. Thats good enough motivation. In fact, Hawke's mom is born in the home you moved into in Act II. The player can then add motivation as well to protect his family and friends.

Your family goes to Kirkwall because Leandra has family there, makes PERFECT sense. Plus, they only lost everything. Where else should they go? Its the only LOGICAL choice.

And why did you go to the Deep Roads? To hunt for treasure and riches.  One huge way to move up is to find unrevealed treasure. It is a risky, even fool hardy adventure, one that can bare cost as well, but Hawke along with Varric tru to do it to get ahead. The game did portray it as a shot in the dark and that it could fail. It was a risk, plain and simple, but it payed off. And at least Bethany is allowed to fight darkspawn, unlike templars.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 mars 2011 - 09:29 .

[txgoldrush]

PirateT138 wrote...

Yup, you're just SOOOOO much smarter.

It's so focused when you're running ****g errands for most of the game. Hawke never grows a pair and decides what to do, he just gets caught up in the current of the real powerful people (like the Arishok, Meredith, Orsino, Varric and Bartrand).

and how is that different from most WRPGs? Most WRPGs have you run errands for people. The difference is, the errands of DAII connect to future plot threads and the themes of the game. Its the very end when he has to choose which side to support, that he leaps into destony.

And how is that a problem that Hawke is not top dog? Does every WRPG hero have to be "God" and change the world with his simple decisions? Its actually refreshing to not play such a character...as the Fables and Fallouts get old sometimes. And Hawke has to grow a pair in the endgame when he has to choose which side to support.