88 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

The Angry One wrote...

After hearing that BioWare wanted the CoD audience, I have to wonder if this affected choice in the story.
I've never played CoD but from what I hear it's story modes (that nobody plays) involve casting you as mooks who are pushed along by world events, outwitted by their companions and used as patsies by their superiors. Sound familiar?

Haven´t played CoD, but usually even shooters main characters are quite involved in the game plot and their actions shape the outcome. Hawke however it´s just a witness/ accidental player whose removal wouldn´t change much of the story. It´s something that can work in books or TV/movies, but not so much in games. Especially after being told time and again how important Hawke was.

[Paeyne]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I completely agree with you on the plot. If you've seen any of my recent posts, you'll see I'm no fan of it, nor the way both previous plot points and choices were glazed over. But I don't think it is fair to say people, in particular Laidlaw, don't care about choices. Instead, I think Laidlaw would love to create a game where choice is at the front and center, but wasn't able to pull it off. Not due to lack of trying, lack of caring or lack of talent, but simply from lack of time.

Dragon Age: Origins was released November 2009. DA2, while in loose talks and discussion, wasn't green lit until a few months after that. So, within under 18 months, under 70 weeks. Bioware had to completely redesign and reconfigure their combat and interface system and their graphical and animation style and programming. If you know anything about how gargantuan of an effort that was in and of itself, let me use some arbitrary but probably realistic numbers.

Of those 70 weeks, easily 40 of it was spent programming, designing, drawing and animating the game. A few glitches outside that were fixed in early patches, this was done succesfully. So that leaves 30 weeks to write hundreds of pages of dialgoue, record them, do QA on the game, reintegrate feedback on the game, get final sign off, implement a marketting strategy, get to production and then distribute. While I know a lot of these actions were being done concordently while developing the gameplay mechanics, it is more accurate when you look at the man hours involved with each section.

So 30 weeks to get enough story and dialogue to fit a 800 page book, polish it up and get it out the door. If J. K. Rowling could get a Harry Potter book out in 30 weeks that was just as good as the book that usually takes her over a year or two to write, she would quickly become richer than Oprah. Oh, and if you add in the fact that a lot of the Dragon Age team was at the same time making content for DLC from Origins during this time, it only makes it even more impressive. It would be like Rowling is also writing the entire script for the next Potter movie, while also putting out the 800 page book. But she can't. Its just physically not possible. The same thing with DA2... its just not possible to get a game that can meet and exceed all expectations in the time they were given, with all the directions their resources were being pulled.

So to say they don't care... I think you can only make that statement when (if...? hopefully not, but...) DA3 comes out, after a design cycle of two and a half years and no ridiculous constraints to push it to market before its time. If, at that point, the game is still static and gives no sense of choice or takes past actions into consideration, then I will be the first one on these boards to say Bioware has failed and lead the march to have the entire company disbanded for the good of RPGers everywhere.

But Bioware has been putting out great, quality games that have each topped the last since the early 90's. I think they are allowed one mulligan before we start throwing them under the bus for all time.

I wish everyone put some reasonable thought into their posts like you do.

[987Ferb]

Krahen0 wrote...

It's strange really. BioWare should know that making decisions that matter is what we want to do in these sorts of games.

I massively agree. DAO was fascinating and addicting. DA2 -- is such a let down. I don't think I'll even bother finishing it. Nothing makes a difference, everything's the same. Go over here and kill a bunch of guys, go over there and kill a bunch of guys, go over here and kill some people you liked, go over there and kill some people that liked you. And the mindless quests in the same places leaves me stupefied.

RPG should be about developing a character and discovering the world through that character. If there is no character development then it is just an arcade game shoot-em-up. I will not be buying DA3.

[Heehaw]

Double posting is driving me nuts.

Modifié par Heehaw, 17 avril 2011 - 08:53 .

[Heehaw]

Those who defend Bioware with "well they had less time to do it so..." guess what?  You still paid full price for a half-finished game.  I paid the same price I did for DA:O, and DA:O had FAR more substance.  I can agree it was nigh impossible to make it on par with DA:O in every single area in the time they were given, but then why didn't we get a price cut on an unfinished product?  They blatantly advertised it as being better than DA:O, and totally finished, with as much substance and the same price tag, for a game not worth the same as it's predecessor. 

This isn't to say given the amount of time spent on it, it's not a great game.  I thoroughly enjoyed it, but compared to DA:O it was lacking in many areas, and only marginally better in others.  And those other areas aren't really that important to me anyway.  And for its price, not worth it in my opinion.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah I have to say the lack of choice hurts this game horribly.

The only thing we really seem to influence is our companions. Everything else stays on the same lame railroad.

[mopotter]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

HonRosie wrote...

I think they got rid of the choices so they won't have to deal with the headache of keeping all the choices and story consistent in future Dragon Age games.

Which is good in some ways because I'd rather have no choices if they're just going to be ignored in future games.

And this just proves how superior the ME team is. Hell, 50% of my save import was retconned.

Two different styles.  I never expected DA:2 to be a sequel to DA:O, just a story in the same world.  ME 1, 2 and 3 are Shepard's story so it makes sense that our choices carry over.  And I am looking forward to the ending of Shepards story.

I've enjoyed DA:2.  I've played it 3 times through and have another ons started.  I don't need every BioWare to be a trilogy or to have choices carried over from one game to another.  It's nice, but not necessary.  

Does the game have faults, definitely, and would I have liked to see two different ending fights.  Yes.  I dislike having Orsino and Meredith both go nuts in the last fight.  I would have liked to see this set up so that whichever side you supported stayed at least semi sane.  And having mages start doing blood magic left and right when I'm trying to say most mages don't do it, I'm tempted to support the templars even as a mage.  

But I did influence the group I worked with and overall  for me,  the game is fun.  I'll keep it and replay it off and on over the years.  I figure one night out with dinner and a movie for 2, $25 for 7:30 pm show and around $40 for dinner  $65 about equels the game I'm still playing.  Not a bad investment in my game library. 

[Sarcastic Tasha]

At the start of the game I thought Hawke was going to do something that would have dire consequences from the way the Seeker was talking. But then Varric explains it was all just a misunderstanding and Hawke just happened to be nearby when crazy things happened. I didn't mind though, it was a change from playing the hero. There were still choices just not so much with the main plot. I've played twice (sarcastic rogue and aggressive blood mage) and there were enough differences to keep it interesting. I'll probably play again at some point to try different friendships and rivalries.

[raymonddhj]

I agree with the main post about lacking decisions. However this is an pointless rant b/c DA2 is Hawke's rise to power. From Day 1 of DA2 coverage all DAO fans knew this was a different Dragon Age. This was not abot a Grey Warden. No matter the path you take, Hawke would rise to power. I wish that the games decisions were more immediate but that is what DLC and DA3 will contain. Some the fans seem to forget this is a BW IP. This company reaches out to please the fans every chance they get. For now I will trust that these glaring issues will be fixed in DA3.

[Icinix]

Nerevar-as wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

After hearing that BioWare wanted the CoD audience, I have to wonder if this affected choice in the story.
I've never played CoD but from what I hear it's story modes (that nobody plays) involve casting you as mooks who are pushed along by world events, outwitted by their companions and used as patsies by their superiors. Sound familiar?

Haven´t played CoD, but usually even shooters main characters are quite involved in the game plot and their actions shape the outcome. Hawke however it´s just a witness/ accidental player whose removal wouldn´t change much of the story. It´s something that can work in books or TV/movies, but not so much in games. Especially after being told time and again how important Hawke was.

DA2 is the spiritual successor to Rise of the Argonauts, which like COD was very structured in it's story.  If you haven't played it and see it in a bargain bin, give it a whirl and you'll see the similarities. Voice acting is pretty top notch as well.

Speculation : I'm wondering if during testing when they got people who traditionally played COD games and their like, asked them for input, the responses were along the lines of the choices and how they were uncertain how to reach the end of the quests, what they should be doing, right and wrong etc..(nothing against shooter players, but that concept seemed pretty foreign to me the first time I played an RPG as well). So they took that on board to make the transition better for newer players.

[Mnemnosyne]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins was released November 2009. DA2, while in loose talks and discussion, wasn't green lit until a few months after that. So, within under 18 months, under 70 weeks. Bioware had to completely redesign and reconfigure their combat and interface system and their graphical and animation style and programming. If you know anything about how gargantuan of an effort that was in and of itself, let me use some arbitrary but probably realistic numbers.

Of those 70 weeks, easily 40 of it was spent programming, designing, drawing and animating the game. A few glitches outside that were fixed in early patches, this was done succesfully. So that leaves 30 weeks to write hundreds of pages of dialgoue, record them, do QA on the game, reintegrate feedback on the game, get final sign off, implement a marketting strategy, get to production and then distribute. While I know a lot of these actions were being done concordently while developing the gameplay mechanics, it is more accurate when you look at the man hours involved with each section.

While I'm generally not one to go harping on flaws or the problems in how it was done when I've really enjoyed the game anyway, here's the thing: They already had a combat and interface system and a graphical and animation system and all of that.  All they really needed to do was write a new story, create new areas, and put it in.  There was no need to rebuild half the game system from the bottom up for no good reason.  So no, rebuilding half the game systems is not a reasonable excuse for not doing other things well, because rebuilding half the game systems was completely unnecessary.

But then we have the other side of the coin.  Writers are not programmers, and rebuilding the game mechanics has little or nothing to do with them.  They can work on the important part of the game even while the programmers are rebuilding the game mechanics, if that is so important.  So writers did not spend 40 weeks programming, just as programmers didn't spend 30 weeks writing.  These are two completely separate tasks that use different personnel and can be done concurrently.

The one place where a major conflict does come into play is artists and animators.  The artists and animators need to design the areas and characters the writers write about, but if they're too busy redoing the visuals of the game which did not need to be redone then that's really going to put a limit on things which do need to be done, like building new areas.  One thing I can almost certainly blame on this without question is the reused areas.

A lot of the choices that are being complained about, however, could be included with minimal effort.  Things like the final boss fights - no, fighting Orsino and Meredith wasn't really necessary.  Meredith I can see always being necessary because of the idol, but Orsino came completely out of left field (the only hint was the -O letter) and the fight was poorly set up.  Without changing or building any additional area, they could have reworked the way the encounters in that section play out to at least have it make much more sense.

And as a final note, let's say time issues were a problem.  Then they should have taken longer to make the game.  Frankly I don't think I know anyone who claims Act 3 feels finished and well-polished.  There's what, about 3 or 4 main story quests in it and that's it?  If they needed another month or three to finish it and polish it up, they should have taken it.  I understand that there's always things you can take longer to do that you really want to do and think would probably significantly improve the game, and if you carry that too far you wind up with Duke Nukem Forever, but there's a difference between feature creep and properly polishing the product. 

As a comparison I posit Knights of the Old Republic, which I am given to understand (I am not certain of this but it is my understanding) that Lucasarts was pushing to have it released much sooner than it actually was, but BioWare didn't feel the product was finished and they held it back until it was.  There were things that were cut from that game, there were things the developers and writers undoubtedly wanted to include that they couldn't.  But no one can say the game felt unpolished or unfinished, and neither did they allow it to go into infinite feature creep.  As much as I enjoy DA2, I cannot say that Act 3 feels finished, and if another couple months would have served to finish that off and polish it well, then that isn't feature creep and it should have been done.

[Foadumf]

If you ask me, I think the lack of game-changing impacts gives this game a true "real world" feel. Your actions do matter on a small scale, but there are just some major turning points in history that regardless of your personal decisions, the results will still be the same.

[Fast Jimmy]

Koyasha, I agree they should have pushed back the release date, but I understand why they didn't. Releasing Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 in Fall of 2011 would have been most fans joyous overload, but it would have meant Bioware would have to split holiday sales between the two. Why compete with yourself when you are already competing with other companies? Its silly and hurts both games. Releasing Dragon Age 2 earlier than it should have been only hurts DA2, which, let's be honest, is lower on the totem pole to Bioware than the climax of the Mass Effect series.

It sucks. We did not get as much bang for our buck as with Origins. It is a little frustrating to play DA2 because you can see how close Bioware was to acheiving a truly great game that would have been the next logical step in the series. But it is what it is.

To say Bioware didn't need to upgrade the combat or the graphics from DAO to DA2 would be ignoring what everyone on these forums was saying was the only problem with Origins (for the most part). To not pay any attention to these complaints would have been a source of a lot of complaints. However, it looks like Bioware threw the baby out with the bath water.

But if Bioware is going to skimp on the plot in DA3 or any DLC, then I'll be a monkey's uncle. They saw the dip in projected sales. They read the comments on the forums. They hear the lackluster reviews that say "good... but not great." And everyone's reasons why are the same. $60 was worth the game I got, but I'd make the argument that Origins was worth double that, given how many times I've replayed it and enjoyed it. DA2 is still better than the vast majority of drivel that is out there and constitutes the gaming market.

So I don't feel cheated that I bought DA2. But I feel like Bioware cheated itself by creating something that doesn't live up to their name.

[jds1bio]

Does Hawke make a difference? No

Do YOU make a difference? YES, by using your wallet.

OP I've posted much the same thing you have several times already. A game all about choice mechanics, a rise to power, and the legend of the Champion gave us no story-shaping main-story choices, no actual power to make an impact with the side we chose, and a legend that undoes itself by the end of the game.

Most of the reviews, critiques, etc. from the game industri literati were too blinded by the reused levels and constricted city maps to really get to the heart of where the game is weakest.  Now that people have played through the game a few times, it is becoming too apparent to them.

Modifié par jds1bio, 18 avril 2011 - 03:51 .

[morbusswg]

I bought DA:O and DA2 both on day of release. Yes, I love DA:O and have replayed it until my eyeballs bled. Not so much with DA:2. I loaned my DA:O disc to my bored neighbor, he brought it back after a week, saying he just went out and bought himself a copy and downloaded all of the DLC, because he enjoyed it so much. When I got DA2, he tried it out and returned it 3 days later, no he didn't buy a copy for himself, he said he would at some point in the future, but couldn't bring himself to spend the money for it now (hey, in case you missed it in the newspapers, times are tough and 60 bucks is a lot of money to some people). That, to me, is the difference between DA:O and DA2.

[Perles75]

I am a bit surprised by all the people that praise the replayability of DAO in terms of the "differences" that you make... I really don't see it too much. All the critical points allow you two choices only (circle/templars, Bhelen/Harrowmont, etc.), so with two, maximum three playthroughs you cover all the possibilities. You have the six origins, but after the introduction the changes your origin brings are mostly cosmetic and not substantial (with the possible exception of the human noble, that permits a bit of power-playing around the throne). So you might want to replay it multiple times for the fun of seeing the small changes, not for the big differences.

[Mnemnosyne]

Perles75 wrote...

I am a bit surprised by all the people that praise the replayability of DAO in terms of the "differences" that you make... I really don't see it too much. All the critical points allow you two choices only (circle/templars, Bhelen/Harrowmont, etc.), so with two, maximum three playthroughs you cover all the possibilities. You have the six origins, but after the introduction the changes your origin brings are mostly cosmetic and not substantial (with the possible exception of the human noble, that permits a bit of power-playing around the throne). So you might want to replay it multiple times for the fun of seeing the small changes, not for the big differences.

I think part of what people are pointing out is that at least in Origins you did get to make choices that make a difference.  In DA2, I can't really think of a single choice you get to make that has a noticeable effect on the world at large after the end of the game.  The only difference I see is in how Hawke is perceived, and a few differences in your companions' behavior.

In DA:O, most of the choices actually have a significant impact on how things turn out.  Your choices affect what allies you have at endgame, but they also leave a lasting impact on Thedas because they determine a variety of pretty significant things in the world, from who gets to rule Ferelden to who gets to rule Orzammar, to whether the Dalish or Werewolves are around, Redcliffe survives, etc.  But in DA2, they don't.  I am pretty sure that Act 3 plays out exactly the same way with almost no differences based on your choices in Act 2.  So far I have seen no notable differences.  Similarly, Act 2 plays out exactly the same way, with no notable differences based on choices from Act 1.  And none of Hawke's choices actually have an impact after the end of the game that I can see, other than whether she is perceived as a hero by mages or templars.

Look at the Act 1 main quests: There's only three of them that give any kind of choice whatever, and that choice has no real effect on what happens.  The three are: Wayward Son, where you choose whether Feynriel goes to the Circle or the Dalish, Act of Mercy, where you choose whether to release Grace or send her back to the Circle, and Enemies Among Us, where you choose whether to suggest that Keran stay in the templars or not.  Of these quests, only two have any effect at all on future actions - your decision in Act of Mercy is completely irrelevant since Grace and the others get recaptured no matter what.  And the decisions in the other two affect the rest of the game so minimally as to be nearly nonexistent.

This is why people feel they do not make a difference in DA2.  They do make a difference in one thing and one thing only: Hawke's opinions, and those of her companions.  Beyond that, Hawke's choices, except for the single choice of whether to support or oppose the Rite of Annulment, are of no significance to the rest of the world.  And it is why I said that I feel as though the story they told in this game, while good, may have been better served by being told in a different medium.

[Plaintiff]

The choices in DA:O are largely cosmetic, you don't actually get to decide anything important, and the "far reaching consequences" are actually extremely minor. Oh you get a couple extra quests in DA2, gee whiz. You got to decide who rules Ferelden? So what? Alistair only makes a cameo in Awakening and/or DA2 either way and I'm willing to bet that a lot of this stuff will fade into extraneous background detail. We may never see Ferelden again, so whoever rules it is largely irrelevant at this stage.

Aside from whatever development issues they may've had, there's the fact that they have to start worrying about an over-arching storyline now, which they didn't have to in Origins. That means establishing a canon. Sucks for the people that killed all their party members in Origins, but canon trumps unrealistic player expectations.

There's also the fact that DA2 is a completely different kind of story from DA:O. DA:O is, like most fantasy games, a blatant and shallow Tolkien rip-off. The stuff that saves it, that actually makes it different and interesting, is the characters and the politics of Thedas, the stuff that comes to the fore in DA2. DA2 is not an epic quest, it's a character drama set in a central location.

It's also setting up a conflict that will likely be the main focus of the next installment, and we have no clue as to how that's going to play out or what choices we made will turn out to be signifcant. It's ripples in a pond, people. You claim decisions in Origins had far-reaching effects but what those are don't become apparent until you play DA2 anyway. Unless you've received some reputable information about how the next game is going to pan out, I don't think any of us are in the position to make that judgment.

[AloraKast]

I started a second playthrough with a different Hawke character to my original lawfully good female rogue and despite my second Hawke being a total smartass male mage... I am seeing no differences with respect to choices I can make and their consequences. The differences are so miniscule and insignificant (something as inconsequential as a one line of voice over in variation) that I find I simply cannot finish my second playthrough, as I'm bored out of my mind. Despite my mage Hawke being a different character and having totally different relationships with his companions than my rogue Hawke... I just can't seem to find the energy to even force myself to finish my second playthrough. And considering that I was able to finish my first playthrough in under 40 hours... that's pretty bad.

My Warden was the one who actually shaped the world around her; my Hawke was merely an observer, limited to and bound by the choices forced upon him with no real say in how the events unfolded before him.

There is just SO much variety, SO much diversity, SO much CHOICE (choice that actually matters) in DA:O that despite my first playthrough being around the 80 hours mark I am still excited and look forward to more playthroughs, playing different characters and exploring the different possibilites offered by a wide array of choices. DA2 has turned into a snooze fest that is the result of little to no variety availble within the game, nothing of substance, that's for sure.  And it's a real shame, as DA2 could have been a great game... if only more time and effort was put into it and the great artists at Bioware were allowed to do what they do best, instead of rushing out this meh product out the door as quick as humanly possible. Please, keep your "awesome" button and instead give us substance, quality, not just flashy, inconsequential silliness. We are adults here, after all, this game is rated M, not E.

Maybe, if enough time goes by and I forget my 40 hour experience in the DA2 universe, I will be able to go back and find some measure of enjoyment in another playthrough, but I am guessing that will be when I forget the finer points of my first experience and will need a refresher course. By which time perhaps enough DLC will have been released to make another playthrough seem like a different enough experience to allow me to finish. I can only hope that the DLC will be of higher quality than the last of the DA:O DLCs.

[Mnemnosyne]

Well let me put it this way - if the series had not continued, you would have felt that the decisions you made in DA:O had significant effects on the world of Thedas. If there was, for whatever reason, suddenly no DA3, it is doubtful that you would really feel the same way about any decisions you got to make in DA2.

Even if they have to minimize the actual effects of the DA:O decisions in future installments, at the time you played the game they were significant changes and major differences to Thedas and it felt that way. None of the decisions in DA2 give that impression at all.

Now, I am in no way complaining about a story focused around Hawke and how she rose to power, but even in such a story I would expect some of her decisions to actually change what she goes through in more than a minimal fashion. So, do I really need there to be consequences to Thedas as a whole based on my decisions to be happy? Well, no. But a few noticeable differences in Kirkwall at least, wouldn't hurt. Something that, in Act 3, six years after Act 1, you could look at and go 'that happened because of the decision I made six years ago'. The only thing like this is the personal consequences for one or two individuals.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Koyasha, I agree they should have pushed back the release date, but I understand why they didn't. Releasing Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 in Fall of 2011 would have been most fans joyous overload, but it would have meant Bioware would have to split holiday sales between the two. Why compete with yourself when you are already competing with other companies? Its silly and hurts both games. Releasing Dragon Age 2 earlier than it should have been only hurts DA2, which, let's be honest, is lower on the totem pole to Bioware than the climax of the Mass Effect series.

It sucks. We did not get as much bang for our buck as with Origins. It is a little frustrating to play DA2 because you can see how close Bioware was to acheiving a truly great game that would have been the next logical step in the series. But it is what it is.

But Dragon Age was more succesful than Mass Effect. It sold more. At the very least, it sold as much. I strongly defended Bioware's decision to change their model from DA:O because (at least I) didn't care for a re-hash and there were some features (like PC VO) that I am a strong backer of.

But the reality is that the IP was succesfull and with some more time and care could have meant massive sales. Whatever DA2 ended up being, I don't think favouring ME makes sense.

Personally, I still like DA2 more than DA:O because I can't connect with the Wardens or with the missions; I've always felt closer to a PC like Shepard that actually exists in the game-world than a player avatar. But there's no doubt that DA:O was the better game. 

ETA:

And IMO, Bioware already did do a poor job with Awakening.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 avril 2011 - 01:54 .

[In Exile]

Koyasha wrote...

Well let me put it this way - if the series had not continued, you would have felt that the decisions you made in DA:O had significant effects on the world of Thedas. If there was, for whatever reason, suddenly no DA3, it is doubtful that you would really feel the same way about any decisions you got to make in DA2.

I disagree. The Circle decision was 100% irrelevant. You need a Circle in Ferelden. Culling this one or not doesn't change that. Eamon lives no matter what, and the ashes may or may not be mystical and divine. Whether the Dalish clan lives or dies is irrelevant.

What choices we do make that have an impact are the OGB, Orzammar and maybe Ferelden in that Anora or Alistar may be more/less compentent but since either are arguably infertile things will end the same way.

That's not to say that DA:O didn't have more decisions than DA2.... but I wouldn't overhype 2 1/2.

ETA:

Frankly, I'd raise Fenryel against the OGB in terms of "future wrecking everyone's **** potential". \\

I was just never impressed by "choice" in the enslaved by creepy bearded dude plot of DA:O.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 avril 2011 - 01:51 .

[Mnemnosyne]

Eamon may live no matter what, but Redcliffe is another matter. If you do not save the village then Redcliffe as a whole is unlikely to ever recover (even if you discount the epoligue slide that states exactly that). Admittedly, this is not significant to Thedas as a whole, but it is to Ferelden at least, and still a relatively major decision. I also would not dismiss the Dalish clan decision either - again, true, it does not have an impact on Thedas as a whole, but it does have impact on the people and surrounding area far more than wiping out Merrill's clan if you go that route. So while these things do not impact Thedas, they at least impact Ferelden, which is more than most choices in DA2 can be said to do for Kirkwall.

And let's not forget the significance of the various boons you can ask for. I understand some of them have had their overall impact lessened in DA2 (I wouldn't know from personal experience as I have yet to play a save where Alistair became king, since I have so few of those) but the decision certainly seemed significant at the time. Things like the Dalish clan getting land granted to them, the Circle gaining its autonomy, or military aid to Orzammar are all pretty significant for their respective peoples.

[Big I]

I don't expect Bioware games to allow me to radically alter the main plot; I never expected to stop Saren or Irenicus or the Archdemon before the endgame. What I like about Bioware games is that you get to choose between different ways of getting to the endgame, and hopefully have those choices reflected in how the endgame plays out and in any sequels.

Want to make Revan darkside? You can do that. Want to preserve the Anvil of the Void? You can do that too. It allows one to have a feeling of control over the development of the setting.

In DA2, nothing matters. Sent Anders away in Act 2? Doesn't matter. Saved the mages in Acts of Mercy? Doesn't matter. Chose to support Meredith/Orsino? Doesn't matter. I don't even really have a problem with the mage/templar war being inevitable. However, making Anders do what he did no matter what? Invalidating previous quest choices? Having a nonsensical endgame? That I have a problem with.

What disappoints me most about DA2 wasn't that I didn't care about Kirkwall, or that your family is irrelevant halfway through the game, or anything else. It's that they concluded the DA2 story in such a way that the protagonist's involvement felt inconsequential.