323 réponses à ce sujet

[Zeevico]

Look, "I have limited resources" is well and good, but. Bioware worked on the visuals for DAO--why devote more time to visuals such that you actually have to throw away all your old tilesets and background art? Why spend resources to make a game which, at the end of the investment, actually turns out less detailed than the original? Why not just throw those resources into level design, or dialogue instead?  I'm respectfully suggesting that this is how Bioware should approach the next title. Respectfully, I don't buy these games for the next-gen graphics. Gameplay and story is where it's at for RPGs. Graphics should take a backseat.

Edit: 
Lastly, I think you and all the other writers should be pretty damn proud of the writing for this game. I only wish there was more of it.

Modifié par Zeevico, 24 avril 2011 - 08:07 .

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Origins provided good development for the companions. The problem in DA2 is that I find out more about the characters by reading their codex entries than I do by speaking with them

Character development does not mean that your understanding of the character develops.

Character development means the characters themselves grow and change. 

Allow me to clarify this issue if you didn't understand it the first time: I shouldn't have to read codex entries to see how characters in DA2 grow and change.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I think Origins provided good development for the companions. The problem in DA2 is that I find out more about the characters by reading their codex entries than I do by speaking with them

Origins didn't provide any development for any companions beside Alistair and Leliana, as I said in my edit. The relationship with the Warden changes.. but so does the relationship with Hawke in DA2.

There is a difference between being a good character and growing as a character, and DA:O has very little growth, especially compared to DA2.

I think the real problem in terms of connection is agency. David mentioned this somewhat in his post, but the issue with "companion X has something to say" is that the companions set the tone about the conversation.

So if I want to speak to Fenris about how he escaped as a slave... I have to wait for him to want to talk to me about it at the predetermined point. DA:O had the laundry list of tell me about, and thats not neccesarily the best way to do it, but it came down to you tell me, instead of passively waiting to be told.

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Allow me to clarify this issue if you didn't understand it the first time: I shouldn't have to read codex entries to see how characters in DA2 grow and change.

I would suggest listening to what they say then. I found that the party banters demonstrated fairly substantial character growth in the companions.

[In Exile]

Zeevico wrote...

Look, "I have limited resources" is well and good, but. Bioware worked on the visuals for DAO--why devote more time to visuals such that you actually have to throw away all your old tilesets and background art? Why spend resources to make a game which, at the end of the investment, actually turns out less detailed than the original? Why not just throw those resources into level design, or dialogue instead? Seems like a waste to me.

I think that the decision not to recycle conversation assets was strange. If you could start some conversations with characters using a generic "we're sitting down and chatting interaction" (ME2 recycles the cinematic asset for a lot of the conversations) then you could get that feeling of actively controlling interaction that I think really sold DA:O and really is missing from the ME series.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Allow
me to clarify this issue if you didn't understand it the first time: I
shouldn't have to read codex entries to see how characters in DA2 grow
and change.

You don't. You see them having changed in the first convo. You get the codex entry after you talk to them for the first time, and that's more of a btw, **** happened the last 3 years.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Origins didn't provide any development for any companions beside Alistair and Leliana, as I said in my edit. The relationship with the Warden changes.. but so does the relationship with Hawke in DA2.

The companions don't remain stagnant in Origins, and codex entries are a poor substitute for development. I'd prefer to see the development in DA2 rather than read about it.

In Exile wrote...

There is a difference between being a good character and growing as a character, and DA:O has very little growth, especially compared to DA2.

The characters should be developing in scenes with Hawke, not in updated codex entries that describe what they are doing and what's changed about them.

In Exile wrote...

I think the real problem in terms of connection is agency. David mentioned this somewhat in his post, but the issue with "companion X has something to say" is that the companions set the tone about the conversation.

It isn't merely an act of agency, it's an issue of Hawke not being as connected to these people because the dialogue with them is sparse.

In Exile wrote...

So if I want to speak to Fenris about how he escaped as a slave... I have to wait for him to want to talk to me about it at the predetermined point. DA:O had the laundry list of tell me about, and thats not neccesarily the best way to do it, but it came down to you tell me, instead of passively waiting to be told.

And Hawke being reactive instead of proactive is an issue that bothers some people, considering that he is a character who amasses wealth and status, and does nothing with either except buy a mansion and wear silk robes.

[hoorayforicecream]

Zeevico wrote...

Look, "I have limited resources" is well and good, but. Bioware worked on the visuals for DAO--why devote more time to visuals such that you actually have to throw away all your old tilesets and background art? Why spend resources to make a game which, at the end of the investment, actually turns out less detailed than the original? Why not just throw those resources into level design, or dialogue instead?  I'm respectfully suggesting that this is how Bioware should approach the next title. Respectfully, I don't don't buy these games for the next-gen graphics. Gameplay and story is where it's at for RPGs. Graphics should take a backseat.

Texture artists aren't writers. Level designers aren't engine programmers. Animators aren't environment artists. I wouldn't make a web designer do character artist duty, or have a concept artist modeling buildings. You have X of one, Y of another, and Z of the third. Depending on what you have allocated, the producers and leads determine what gets done where, when, and by whom.

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Allow me to clarify this issue if you didn't understand it the first time: I shouldn't have to read codex entries to see how characters in DA2 grow and change.

I would suggest listening to what they say then. I found that the party banters demonstrated fairly substantial character growth in the companions.  

I did listen to the banters, which is why I made my statement.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The companions don't remain stagnant in Origins

Aside from "hardening" just how else do they change and grow?  Please provide specific examples.

Also, with regards to DA2, please explain how character growth that takes place in view of the player is compromised or contradicted by expository background information as to what occurred during timeskips.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 avril 2011 - 08:11 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The companions don't remain stagnant in Origins

Aside from "hardening" just how else do they change and grow?  Please provide specific examples.

Morrigan softens. She was the only character I felt "developed" (I hardened neither Alistair nor Leliana).

Also, Wynne gets closer to death?

[EDIT] To clarify, I'm not arguing against you (I'm sure you know that ). Just providing Morrigan, because you asked, and, well, because I really liked that about Morrigan and don't want it ignored.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 24 avril 2011 - 08:12 .

[Zeevico]

Texture artists aren't writers. Level designers aren't engine programmers. Animators aren't environment artists. I wouldn't make a web designer do character artist duty, or have a concept artist modeling buildings. You have X of one, Y of another, and Z of the third. Depending on what you have allocated, the producers and leads determine what gets done where, when, and by whom.

I know it's not David's sole decision to make, and I'm not suggesting that he, a writer, is an expert on graphics, art or gameplay design. I'm just providing my input on the basic design decisions that should be made, in my respectful view, when creating a sequel to DA2.

Modifié par Zeevico, 24 avril 2011 - 08:26 .

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Allow me to clarify this issue if you didn't understand it the first time: I shouldn't have to read codex entries to see how characters in DA2 grow and change.

I would suggest listening to what they say then. I found that the party banters demonstrated fairly substantial character growth in the companions.  

I did listen to the banters, which is why I made my statement.

You didn't notice how Aveline and Isabela started off sniping at each other, and became friends over the course of the game?

You didn't notice that Anders started off a lot more fun and easygoing with the others, and became steadily more reclusive and obsessive?

You didn't notice that most of Merrill's wide-eyed naivete started to vanish as the game progressed? 

I guess you have a different definition of character development than I do.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The companions don't remain stagnant in Origins, and codex entries are a poor substitute for development. I'd prefer to see the development in DA2 rather than read about it.

Blank assertions aren't proof. How do you not see development in DA2, and who does develop in DA:O?

Some proof would be nice.

The characters should be developing in scenes with Hawke, not in updated codex entries that describe what they are doing and what's changed about them.

Repeating something isn't proof, it just shows you can be really creative about the number of ways you can say the same thing.

It isn't merely an act of agency, it's an issue of Hawke not being as connected to these people because the dialogue with them is sparse.

Except that it isn't. You get a comparable amount of dialogue. Unless you think David is lying in terms of the wordcount per companion?

And Hawke being reactive instead of proactive is an issue that bothers some people, considering that he is a character who amasses wealth and status, and does nothing with either except buy a mansion and wear silk robes.

I actually loved that for once, the plot didn't demand I care about a problem without offering justification. But that has nothing to with the dialogue changes.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Morrigan softens. She was the only
character I felt "developed" (I hardened neither Alistair nor Leliana).

Also,
Wynne gets closer to death?

[EDIT] To clarify, I'm not arguing
against you (I'm sure you know that [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]). Just
providing Morrigan, because you asked, and, well, because I really
liked that about Morrigan and don't want it ignored.

Point taken about Morrigain.

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You didn't notice how Aveline and Isabela started off sniping at each other, and became friends over the course of the game?

And Aveline and Isabella essentially remain the same people they were at the beginning of the game. There's no dramatic character change with either of them.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You didn't notice that Anders started off a lot more fun and easygoing with the others, and became steadily more reclusive and obsessive?

Yeah, I noticed a lot of that when he kept talking about the plight of mages with Carver, or when he sniped at Merrill because she made a joke about Ser Pounce-A-Lot.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You didn't notice that most of Merrill's wide-eyed naivete started to vanish as the game progressed? 

What does this even mean? You see her get serious when she talks about the ignorance of some of the Dalish in Act I or when she's talking about magic.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I guess you have a different definition of character development than I do.

Yeah, I suppose we do.

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I guess you have a different definition of character development than I do.

Yeah, I suppose we do.

Out of curiousity, what did you consider examples of character development in DA:O?

[LilyasAvalon]

That pretty much kills the DA franchise for me then if long, slightly random conversations are no longer included.

I liked that about Origins: What's that Alistair? You like cheese! AWESOME! Leliana, tell me a story! Wynne, what was the circle like?

It made it feel more real being able to converse with them about WHATEVER, I understood why this feature was pretty much removed in Awakening since Awakening was a much smaller game, but not in DA2.

Seriously, in DA2, it's not like you're trying to put a make shift army together, why not spend all that worthless time chatting up Aveline or Sebastian and finding out what their favourite food is, or what they did as a child? =/

I would love it to be re-included in DA3, the two/three companion quests per acts didn't provide me much of a chance to really feel like I could connect with Hawke, or his/her companions.

If the devs are serious about making the Dragon Age franchise work, they'd be serious in LISTENING to the criticism instead of just writing us off as crybaby fans and idiots.

I can stand all the changes to DA2, I understand they were trying to be different and creative... I won't stand for being ignored and treated like an idiot for pointing out what didn't work though.

[Deztyn]

David Gaider wrote...

To put it another way, I get that not everyone felt connected to the followers. It's not universally true, by any means, but I get some people feel that way. Regardless of the reason behind it, that feeling is valid. What seems to get on some people's goat a little is my suggestion that the cause is not necessarily what they suggest it is. When someone says "this is the way I felt", I'll pay attention. When they move onto "and this is why", I'm a little more skeptical. They may be right, at least for them, but more often what I see is people making a comparison to something they thought was better and assuming anything that's different must be the cause. I doubt it's that easy.

They all had a party, but Hawke didn't get invited.

At least, that's how I felt.

I loved that the characters seemed to have lives outside of Hawke and their adventures together. It was my favorite part of the game. We see them visiting each other, talking about going for drinks or playing games, that was great. My problem is we don't experience it. With only a few exceptions, our direct interactions with the characters involve the quests or talking about their big issues (Mages, Mirrors, and Slavery etc). If the characters didn't have these well developed relationships amongst themselves, their relationships with Hawke wouldn't have seemed lacking by comparison. What we get would have been enough for me. But since they are there, and I do get a good sense of who these characters are as people it made Hawke feel like an outsider. She observes their friendships and rivalries, hears about what they do when they're not out fighting, but doesn't actively participate.

And yes, I'm quite certain this is why I felt disconnected.

Modifié par Deztyn, 24 avril 2011 - 08:48 .

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The companions don't remain stagnant in Origins, and codex entries are a poor substitute for development. I'd prefer to see the development in DA2 rather than read about it.

Blank assertions aren't proof. How do you not see development in DA2, and who does develop in DA:O?

Some proof would be nice.

This is a false statement. I never claimed there was no development in DA2. I addressed that I didn't feel that the characters were as developed as the companions in Origins, I didn't feel as connected to them, I didn't feel that I knew them as personally as Hawke as the Warden knew his moiety crew.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The characters should be developing in scenes with Hawke, not in updated codex entries that describe what they are doing and what's changed about them.

Repeating something isn't proof, it just shows you can be really creative about the number of ways you can say the same thing.

Making false claims isn't proof, either. I'm addressing that I don't feel as connected to the DA2 characters as I did with the DA:O characters, and I don't find there to be as much insight into the characters as there was in Origins. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

You don't need to take my opinions so personally.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It isn't merely an act of agency, it's an issue of Hawke not being as connected to these people because the dialogue with them is sparse.

Except that it isn't. You get a comparable amount of dialogue. Unless you think David is lying in terms of the wordcount per companion?

I'm not saying I dislike the characters, I'm addressing how I don't feel as connected to these companions. I don't feel that the story really provides us with a connection to these characters, particularly when our dialogue options are limited to three expressions where I'm playing a guessing game at whether the options chosen will actually have my protagonist speak the same dialogue, or if it'll be completely different than what I intended. I feel that the dialogue is sparse in giving us insight into the respective characters.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And Hawke being reactive instead of proactive is an issue that bothers some people, considering that he is a character who amasses wealth and status, and does nothing with either except buy a mansion and wear silk robes.

I actually loved that for once, the plot didn't demand I care about a problem without offering justification. But that has nothing to with the dialogue changes.

The plot forces you to get involved even if you find no justification in it, though. Even when you turn down a quest, you're often forced to go through with it. It's an issue of linear progression where we have the illusion of choice.

[danitza81]

Deztyn wrote...

They all had a party, but Hawke didn't get invited.

At least, that's how I felt.

I loved that the characters seemed to have lives outside of Hawke and their adventures together. It was my favorite part of the game. We see them visiting each other, talking about going for drinks or playing games, that was great. My problem is we don't experience it. With only a few exceptions, our direct interactions with the characters involve the quests or talking about their big issues (Mages, Mirrors, and Slavery etc). If the characters didn't have these well developed relationships amongst themselves, their relationships with Hawke wouldn't have seemed lacking by comparison. What we get would have been enough for me. But since they are there, and I do get a good sense of who these characters are as people it made Hawke feel like an outsider. She observes their friendships and rivalries, hears about what they do when they're not out fighting, but doesn't actively participate.

And yes, I'm quite certain this is why I felt disconnected.

So true. I felt very left out listening to party banter. It felt like my companions were connecting more amongst themselves than I was to any of them. Sadly a lot of times it felt like all Hawke was good for was asking for favors or talking about dead serious things.

It made me wonder if my Hawke was really THAT much of a bore. It didn't help that everytime I'd visit a companion's home base and they were chatting with someone else the other person invariably ran for the hills. "Oh look... Hawke's here. I... errr.... have to go"

[Zeevico]

If anything, my comment was directed solely at those who felt the
Origins method was the only possible solution, that they required
lengthy and repeated conversations about nothing in particular in order
to feel connected. If someone absolutely feels that's the case, my
response was that they weren't likely to feel connected to a character
of ours again in a game. That said, I don't feel that the DA2 method is
the be-all and end-all of our development on this front, nor that
everything Origins did was wrong-- while some people will mix things
like plot and content volume into this argument as if they're the same
thing, I think there's some very valuable information to be garnered
even if I'm forced to filter it through my "I only have limited
resources" lens.

I think DA2's character interaction was great but it took a while to get there. A lot of the interaction and quests occurred later in the piece, meaning your introduction to the characters was relatively limited.

For what it's worth I thought the characters were great once they got developed. Aveline, incidentally, is my favourite as well (and no, I'm not just saying that). The first scene establishes her as a strong character and conveys a strong impression. By contrast I'm not sure I liked the Arishok's "you should be greatful" or Fenris' "I know you're out there Denerias (to thin air)"--both of these had a sort of "This is SPARTAA" feel to them. Otherwise the Arishok was great, and as to Fenris--he takes a while to exit SPARTAA in the mansion but once he does I liked him a lot.

I also think DAO's character interaction was pretty good; frankly I'd prefer something that takes from both--a set of a few questions to ask (a new set of questions say, each Act) and also reactions to the outside world.

If I also have to take such criticism with the caveat that it's
primarily going to come from those who didn't enjoy the results, and
that there are those who did... well, you can call that arrogance if you
like.

But it isn't. So don't get bitter about people not liking some parts of your game.

Whatever the cause, at the end of the day they're fans who wanted a good game and they look to you because they think you and the rest of the writers are great writers who made the game what it was. Notice how Laidlaw is the "big bad Lead Designer" getting all the flak, and you're getting all the pleading Dear David letters? Not that I subscribe to this view of ML, I'm just saying that's how I'm reading fan reactions atm. You're getting way less flak than he is and you're both pretty well known.

That's not to say that many have been quite unfair to ML personally and pretty offensive towards him, and that's hardly called for. I guess the Penny Arcade adage is true--anonymity breeds snarkiness.

But look, at the end of the day you made a game and a lot of people think you took a wrong turn with it. Agreeing with them or not is, in the end, a decision for you to make. What comes of it we'll see in DA3.

I seem to get called arrogant a lot these days when I disagree
with someone regarding what they think Dragon Age should be. If simply
having the power to form my own conclusions and act as I think best
(ignoring the fact that I do not control the franchise outside of my
tiny corner of it) is arrogant, then so be it.

Edit.

I don't think you're being arrogant by supposedly holding a view that is contrary to the view expressed by some fans, or indeed, by participating in a conversation about the game.. I do think some people have a habit of reading into posts something that isn't there--in this case, some criticism of companion interaction in DAO per se, rather than making the point that, in the scheme of things, DAO spent 7 years in development, and wasted a lot of resources in so doing.

Some fans are also disrespectful; a later poster (jds1bio) addresses this issue quite well a few posts below and I'll leave it to him to do it.

Even if it doesn't seem like we're coming to
the conclusions you think we should be, it's still very much
appreciated.

You're welcome.

Modifié par Zeevico, 24 avril 2011 - 02:50 .

[nightscrawl]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I would love it to be re-included in DA3, the two/three companion quests per acts didn't provide me much of a chance to really feel like I could connect with Hawke, or his/her companions.

If the devs are serious about making the Dragon Age franchise work, they'd be serious in LISTENING to the criticism instead of just writing us off as crybaby fans and idiots.

I can stand all the changes to DA2, I understand they were trying to be different and creative... I won't stand for being ignored and treated like an idiot for pointing out what didn't work though.

Did you even read his post? No where did he ever say that your opinion was invalid, or treat any players who felt this way as "an idiot." He simply feels that drawn out conversations aren't necessarily the way to become connected to a character. How is his opinion any less valid than your own? By reacting so defensively, it just seems as if you are going to take anything any dev says other than "we realized all you fans were right, so for DA3 we'll be going back to the DAO method for companions," as a refusal to listen to these forums complaints.

I felt connected to my Hawke and my companions, I don't think there was a failure there, but I understand others didn't. I liked DAO's method as well, and I thought it fit with the format. However, DA2 has a different format. You aren't traveling around with your companions 24/7, you are looking at snippets of their lives.

Perhaps the issue here is the way companions are treated in their home base. Maybe it should have been done in such a way as to have them only be there when you have a specific quest, that way it seems like they aren't just waiting around for Hawke to show up.

[jds1bio]

David Gaider wrote...

Perhaps I shouldn't have responded to the initial thread at all. The responses from some quarters are fairly predictable -- "Oh, he's being arrogant. He thinks he knows what everyone wants, but he's wrong!"

I don't, in fact, know what everyone wants, nor do I think I have all the answers. This is a field in which I have a lot of experience, however, so I'll speak to that, and in terms of how the writing team can best use the resources at hand. Resources are, after all, the reality of game development. So if I'm talking about things that you find irrelevant, that's fine. I just can't express it in any other terms, and I know for a fact that no matter what solution I end up trying it's never going to work for everyone.

...

As for conversations being a thing of the past, that's simply not true. You had quite a few conversations with your followers in DA2, some of them quite lengthy. Overall the density of conversation was, in fact, higher than in Origins.

...

If I also have to take such criticism with the caveat that it's primarily going to come from those who didn't enjoy the results, and that there are those who did... well, you can call that arrogance if you like. I seem to get called arrogant a lot these days when I disagree with someone regarding what they think Dragon Age should be. If simply having the power to form my own conclusions and act as I think best (ignoring the fact that I do not control the franchise outside of my tiny corner of it) is arrogant, then so be it. I'll simply ask you in the most snide and arrogant tone possible to keep providing such useful and thoughtful feedback. Even if it doesn't seem like we're coming to the conclusions you think we should be, it's still very much appreciated.

Thanks for your feedback on the thread.  It can't be easy to have to read the commentary that resembles personal attacks or judgements of your character.

When I say I feel a certain way about something, I do try to back it up with a rational "why".  Now that may be ultimately impossible to do because feelings aren't always rational, but I do make an attempt to bring clarity to my viewpoint without imposing my judgement as being more right than others' viewpoints.  I hope that will be considered worth reading by the community from time to time.  

I don't have all the answers, either.  What I do know is that Dragon Age II has gotten me to talk more about aspects of RPGs, story, writing, and their relationship to videogaming than any other game has so far.  And though I may have my opinions and criticisms, I continue to enjoy playing the game.  The game is more than the sum of its parts, and I don't think some of the parts support the writing as well as they perhaps could have.  That could come down to resources, as you say, but I also think that includes the fact that certain styles of play can thin out the density of conversations you mention.  It seems to me that a videogame writer is in some ways competing against the gameplay for the player's attention.

Is the best or most feasible solution "more writing" and "more exposition" in order to maintain a certain level of connection or density, especially for a player whose gameplay will vector towards less conversations?  I don't know, but I created this thread to discuss it with the community, not to bash you or form a pitchfork mob.  If you feel that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to the community, then just keep writing the things you want to write, and making the games you want to make.  If nothing else, your game was very good at making me sit up and take notice.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is a false statement. I never claimed there was no development in DA2. I addressed that I didn't feel that the characters were as developed as the companions in Origins, I didn't feel as connected to them, I didn't feel that I knew them as personally as Hawke as the Warden knew his moiety crew.

You misunderstand.

You said that the development in DA2 isn't shown. I'm disagreeing with that; I'm claiming it is shown. What I am saying is that so far as you have offered no proof that it isn't shown, other than saying it should take place on screen and not in the codex, yet never said what development happens in the codex that doesn't happen on screen.

So, no, I am not mischaracterizing what you said.

Making false claims isn't proof, either. I'm addressing that I don't feel as connected to the DA2 characters as I did with the DA:O characters, and I don't find there to be as much insight into the characters as there was in Origins. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

You don't need to take my opinions so personally.

I'm taking nothing personally. I want to have a discussion, but you don't see to want one. Yes, these are all your opnions, but your evidence for them is that they happen to be your opinions.

If you don't want to talk about it, we don't have to. But I think it's an interesting discussion to have, if you're willing to actually discuss the execution of it.

I'm not saying I dislike the characters, I'm addressing how I don't feel as connected to these companions. I don't feel that the story really provides us with a connection to these characters, particularly when our dialogue options are limited to three expressions where I'm playing a guessing game at whether the options chosen will actually have my protagonist speak the same dialogue, or if it'll be completely different than what I intended. I feel that the dialogue is sparse in giving us insight into the respective characters.

Okay, this is much better.

DA:O gives us the same options as DA2 insofar as your number of options are concered. Very rarely DA:O had what I call ''double up'' options, which have different text for the PC but which actually amount to identical lines and effect for the NPC (usually empty flavour lines that the NPC ignores).

Hawke just as much unique dialogue as the Warden did - picking one option on the wheel changes the wheel that you get. as in DA:O. Accusing Aveline of failing to protect your mother switches the conversation from her trying to console you to her failure.

I found DA:O the system that I had to struggle with to build a connection when I was either rairloaded into liking the Wardens (no bearded dude kidnapped me, I had no choice!) options, and being forced to be passive and reactive in most conversations (because even when you got to speak, the majority of your lines were hooks for what the other person said).

I disagree with you on the empirical side of things - I don't think we had less dialogue than DA:O; it was just that the interface changed.

Now, if you honestly feel that the wheel itself prevented you from getting close to the characters, I acknowledge that. But that isn't the same as DA2 failing to show character development.

The plot forces you to get involved even if you find no justification in it, though. Even when you turn down a quest, you're often forced to go through with it. It's an issue of linear progression where we have the illusion of choice.

As it is in Dragon Age Origins. You can't not recruit an army. You can't call a Landsmeet without it.

It's the same thing. I agree with you that DA2 failed to offer branching choice and I absolutely agree that this cheapens the experience, but with respect to mandatory quests that's just what Bioware does.

The plot allows you to invent a justification for Hawke. Just as there could be lots of reasons you might want to stop the blight, there could be lots of reasons you end up doing these quests. You even get to pick options at one point.

That being said, I think DA2 faild to use the templars as blackmail. Using that in DA2 to force the main quests (help practice your apostate ass is thrown in the Gallows or executed) and suddenly there's a justification, since it seems players need that.