I'm going to focus on one particular question and answer:
GI: Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?
ML: The "prominent antagonist" is a staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance, rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current goals!"
As has been said many times there's nothing wrong with that idea; in fact, it's a rather great idea. The problem is focus. If your story is going to be about the Mage/Templar conflict then it needs to be consistantly about that conflict.
We're introduced early to it with Wesley and Bethany. Our introduction to Kirkwall is the Gallows, we see first hand where the mages are imprisoned.
The problem is most of the game does not focus on that. There's the Deep Roads Expedition which seems in the game entirely to set up something later (DLC or DA3). There's the Qunari storyline, which is the best storyline in the whole game but it has nothing to do with the Mage/Templar circumstance.
I think there was a way to do the "no villain" idea with this. By creating two opposing sides of the argument that are believable. Getting involved with that story earlier, including meeting the key players in that story, and then over the course of the game the situtation and characters could evolve.
I don't know if you could 'vilivify' a circumstance or not (you probably could an illness or plague), but you could have offered two different but equally correct stances on circumstance. There wouldn't be a villain. In fact, you could create your own antagonist through your actions (maybe a sibling) and give the players a bitter victory.
As is, it's like every act is its own story. The first act's story is just saving up money. The second act is the superior storyline and the third act is brief, devoid of choice, and involving characters who lack the depth of the Grand Cleric or Viscount (and there's only a handful on conversations with either of those characters).
I'm beating a dead horse, I know. But these interviews feel an awful bit like "Hey, we tried something different and you couldn't keep up." Instead, it's a great idea but it felt like they crammed too much into a game that had too short of a development cycle to flesh out all the different bits. They likely would have pulled off this whole thing with another half year. Hell, just another month of game testing would have saved us from game breaking bugs.
Retour en haut
