77 réponses à ce sujet

[TerraMantis]

-SPOILER ALERT-

Read no further if you have not played Dragon Age and plan to because I am going to talk about the stories of the franchise and don't want to ruin the story for you, but also because I doubt you will have the slightest clue as to what I am talking about if you have not played them. I am putting aside fighting, charater building, and battle mechanics for each game and only discussing story.

What Dragon Age II has done can obviously never be undone. I am going to talk about story faults and add suggestions that are simple that could have helped the narrative not be so obfuscated in the second installment of the Dragon Age saga.

When I think of Dragon Age II I think of the story as being broken up into three chapters and the chapter's conclusions. For example, when I refer to Chapter 1 I would be referring to its conclusion which is the introduction to "the Dwarven Artifact" and a means to buy the Hawke family's foreclosed heirloom estate in Kirkwall.



Chapter 2 is really just an introduction into the cultural nuances and conflict with the Qun that are residing in Kirkwall. Also, the conclusion of Chapter 2 is really about the Champion killing the Arishok and the Arishok killing the Viscount which gives the Champion fame and somewhat of a political standing.



Chapter 3's conclusion is the start of a "civil war" between the already unstable relationship of the Templars and Mages.



That is Dragon Age II's story "in a nutshell". I'm not trying to belittle the story; I am just trying to give insight on my perspective to how I view it. I can easily over simplify DA: Origins aswell…Blight…get help…choose a new monarch…Archdemon. That is not what this is about.

Dragon Age: Origin's epic is almost Shakespearian in nature. Witches, kings, backstabbery, love lust, and events of the utmost political, ethical, and moral stature are addressed in Origins. Macbeth comes to mind. Your quest in Origins seems objectively paramount and has focus, and is subjectively enthralling at the same time feeling not too linear. The subjectivity of the story was fairly simple to grasp…how far are you willing to go to save this nation of Ferelden? So why did Dragon Age II fall flat? I have heard arguments that DA2 lacked a central villain which, in turn, made it lack a sense of drive and focus. I have also heard that the city of Kirkwall itself was the real antagonist and that political and moral decisions were the "evil characters" in the story. So, Let us get down to business.

Firstly, in Dragon Age II the introduction of your so-called "hero" is an awful display of heroism indeed. The introduction of Hawke is the cowardly act of feeling Loathering when he is obviously powerful enough to kill an ogre at the mere amateur level of 3. Instead of using his powers to help his nation, like the Hero of Ferelden, the Champion flees with no real backstory. In Dragon Age: Origins the game built-up to the ogre encounter and the ogre was a formidable boss fight with three other companions, all of these companions were at the more developed level of 5+, and you had a load of consumables at your disposal. The ogre was by itself in a large room and proved to be a considerably difficult challenge to overcome. In turn, if Hawke can effortlessly destroy an ogre, the preverbal "big dog" of the blight, and simultaneously dispose of additional waves of Dark Spawn with only 2 companions that range from level 2-3, with next-to-no consumables, and a total fighting experience of four prior Dark Spawn encounters. One can assume that Hawke is undoubtedly the superior combatant in comparison to the "Hero of Ferelden" whom sacked the Archdemon Urthemiel and would have unlikely seen victory put in the same situation and circumstances with the ogre. Yet the champion flees. Then why do a much vaster number of people agree that the "Hero of Ferelden" (HoF) was the superior protagonist in comparison to the Champion of Kirkwall? It is because the epic in which the HoF's story takes place is simply a greater tale with a satisfyingly grand closing and the HoF never displayed all of these weaknesses. The Hero of Ferelden met challenges head on. Regardless of whether or not you started in the circle of magi or as a noble dwarf prince your character never seems to flee, without just cause, from the very beginning of your tale. Sure, in some circumstances, your HoF leaves behind their previous life, but the story gave perspective on why. Also, instead of running from the Blight the HoF runs to it.

A point to discuss then is "why would the writer of DA2 start the game there?" with Hawke fleeing and the story leaves their departure ambiguously open. Your character's start is quite literally the foundation of their…well, character. Yes, it is an attention grabber and starts with combat which is a fairly good feature from a storytelling and videogame stand point to begin with. Also I did enjoy the idea of the "story within a story" from Varric, but that could have just as easily been portrayed in a multitude of ways and still delivered an action oriented beginning. Furthermore, I can think of an alternate intro that is just as good, if not better, and that I believe a wide range of fans would have loved to have seen. DA2 hints that you, and or possibly members of your family and for certain Aveline, were at the battle of Ostagar. Since the game talks about this I cannot, for the life of me, understand why DA2 started with you fleeing Loathering and did not begin basically at the same place where DA: O started, Ostagar. There for, intertwining the storylines more intimately and giving a returning audience a deeper connection to their relationship with the narrative. Also, as for the "story within a story" concept, the exaggerated "first Varric version" could have easily been applied with The Champion mutilating entire groups of the Dark Spawn Blight soldiers in single assaults on the battle field of Ostagar. Seriously, who would not have loved the game to start with your character standing side-by-side with King Cailan and Duncan on the battlefield of Ostagar? We could have finally seen Duncan's true demise…or his breath-taking escape from the Battle of Ostagar. Which the scenes of the Battle of Ostagar from DA: O cut short. Even possibly incorporating and revealing the unseen events of Flemeth's successful rescue attempt of the HoF from the bell tower.

THEN, after several close calls with the Blight (Ostagar being one close call then a never formerly told event in Loathering in which the town is actually seen being swarmed and pillaged by the Blight for the first time) Hawke realizing the futility of their struggle decides to save his entire family instead of sacrificing them to the Blight and they depart for Kirkwall. Kirkwall seems like the rational place to go because, according to Hawke's mother, that is where their family once had some hierarchical stature. Thus saving face and initially not looking cowardly.

This different chain of events could have simultaneously worked as a way of introducing Flemeth to DA2 while she saves you from the Battle of Ostagar and revealing her true alternative reason for saving you which she revealed in the actual DA2 storyline. Flemeth's actual motive was the transport of an amulet from "the wilds" to Kirkwall. Wherein, you discover later the amulet housed her non-corporeal form internally. For what motive, she wanted or needed the amulet with her essence inside transported in that manner, Dragon Age II's story never follows-up on and leaves it a mystery.



This cheap attention grab, of throwing Flemeth into the game early on and in the demo, was a sorry excuse for trying to push the story forward and to keep DA: O players interested. It is widely known that Morrigan, and her story, is a fan favorite of the DA: Origins' tale and that everyone is salivating for a taste of its conclusion. So, to throw Flemeth in the story and to imply follow-through with some of Flemeth/Morrigan's story, but not deliver…at all, was a huge disappointment. When you are on the summit, where Flemeth wanted the amulet delivered, and Flemeth returns to her corporeal form and you ask her "why did you want me to bring this here?" Flemeth's reply is basically "I'm out… (Turns into dragon and flies away)" you can't help but feel cheated when the story does not answer the question, your own character just asked, within the same videogame. This would have been fine if it was addressed in the same game, but since it didn't, in retrospect, it just feels like they're setting up for another game's story and not trying to deliver the full potential of this game's fable.



Many aspects of the story felt like they were only thrown in for the reasons of "setting-up" events for another installment of the franchise. For example, one set-up is the conclusion to the game's final segment. Also known as the Circle of Magi, Templar feud. Even the conclusion of Chapter 2 felt as though the story is just setting-up for something else with the Arishok's last words being "One day…we shall return". If the Qun would have returned in DA2 it wouldn't have felt like it was just framework for something else. But, the Qunari never returned. The bulk of the story felt as though it was only setting-up all of the conditions for a chronicling of epic proportions instead of delivering them in the story at hand.

The way the first chapter's conclusion is pathetically attempted to be validated as an important plot point by adding the Dwarven Artifact to Meredith's sword hilt was pitiful. The first chapter's conclusion really had almost no significance. The Dwarven artifact was absent from the end of Chapter 1 until the last boss encounter of the game. The story could have had the exact same chain of events without their lame attempt to include the Lyrium Idol onto Meredith's sword. In reality the only real importance of the entire first chapter was the exodus from Loathering and gaining some social standing. Because of the way the story feebly ratifies the first chapter's importance it makes the entire first chapter feel meaningless. Also, if the only real goal of the first chapter was to gain your family estate you could have easily done that by subtracting chapter 1's conclusion for chapter 2's ending, with the Champion defending Kirkwall and besting the Arishok.

Since the Qunari's response to the death of the Arishok was never felt and the absence of the impending war between the Templars and Mages never came to fruition I don't see how they could be okay with the story ending where it did. The story could have easily merged the conclusions of all three chapters into a single chapter. The story could have had the Champion find their wealth, the Arishok's death, and the straws that broke the camel's back to ignite the true conflict between the Mages and Templars in a single interval. I will get to my concept for this outcome in a moment.

This is why the story feels so obfuscated. What was the true meaning and important theme here? Yes, it is a good thing to have an ambiguous ending which begs the audience to draw their own outcome from the possibility of multiple interpretations, but the audience's options to choose upon important plot points should not be so construed. What is the story's actual axiom? Is the axiom the Ancient Dwarven artifacts that are Lyrium Idols and their influences on the sentient mind? Is it the corruption of Kirkwall's citizen's way of life and or the way a foreign dignitary can be affected by an "alien" culture to such a magnitude as to call upon confrontation? Finally, is the story about the moral and ethical pressures in the delicate world of a special type of "indentured servants" known as Mages and the overseers of said servants, known as Templars, who are supposed to be the "checks" in the balance between the two? The truth is that the story has no axiom or self-evident morality lesson. The story is obfuscated and the ambiguity of multiple interpretations is not within the realm of rational. Also, if you say "the story is, well…about all of those things" then you cannot deny that DA2's story is just the intermediary for setting the key players up for a different tale because of the way the narrative does not respond to any of these questions the protagonist(the audience, you) asks. Furthermore, if you claim that the city of Kirkwall is the real antagonist it is irrelevant because the story still never concludes any of the situations that are introduced with any amount of finality. Again, will the Qunari be back with a formidable force? What is going to happen in Kirkwall with the conflict between the Chantry, Templars, and Mages? Does the Dwarven artifact's manipulation of sentient life forms have significance to the plot? What the heck happened to Flemeth and Morrigan? Why not answer some of these questions in the same body of work if the objective of the narrative was not solely to set the stage for another game?

Here is a concept for what should have happened. Hawke should have risen to a respectable level of political power from defending Kirkwall from the Arishok and the tension of the Templar/Mage conflict should have ignited in a single chapter. This would have left the rest of the story open to finish up the quarrel between the Mages and Templars and or the gathering of funds and troops for the impending Qunari invasion to defend your new homeland. Which your character had failed to do once before in Loathering and wouldn't see it happen again in the case of Kirkwall, the Champion's new home. I am sure that some of these uncertainties will be answered…not until the next game though. Until this happens you cannot refute that you have only gotten a sample of the Champion's story. The tale of the Champion, in comparison to the epic of the Hero of Ferelden, only felt as though you got a small amount and what you have seen so far is nowhere near the Champion's start-to-finish history like HoF's story was. I don't know about you, but I feel cheated. Yes, it is fine to have a hero born in battle and circumstance, tell their tale, then have a continuation of their legends after words, but this story never finishes on ANY of the real predicaments awakened in it.

The equivalent of this would be like opening up a book and only getting the first couple of chapters read then the rest of the pages are blank. I would be very unhappy with that situation if I just paid 60$ for my brand-new book.

Dragon Age: Origins did not suffer from any of these shortcomings. Even if the tale of the Hero of Ferelden is looked at in the same simple way I stated it earlier " Blight, get help, new monarch, Archdemon" one can still tell that nearly all of the issues awakened in the story were addressed with finality. I will breakdown the story in the same manner as I broke down DA2. Chapter 1 would be the birth of a Grey Warden and the fall of a king because of the treason of Loghain. Chapter 2 would be the newly awakened urgency of the need to gather a formidable force to battle the Blight. Chapter 2's conclusion would be the gathering of said armies. Lastly, chapter 3 is about the rise of a new king and to conquer your opposing enemy king…the Archdemon. The first part of the story introduced the antagonists and by the end of the story all of them had been dealt with in one way or another, including Loghain. The only question the game did not address was if Morrigan was a friend to the HoF throughout or actually a brilliant antagonist the entire time who took the motto of "keep your friends close, but keep you enemies closer" to scary level of dedication. Why did she want that baby inside her to have the essence of the Archdemon's soul? What is her endgame? Was she actually manipulating you the entire time or were her motives righteous? This unanswered question was fine because it was an excellent plot twist and was only brought about moments before your ascent into the final battle. This question left the "door" open for possible sequels and remained to be one of the story's most intelligently ambiguous occurrences.

All in all, in the case of Dragon Age one very important part of "What can save a story?" seems to be follow-through.

I am not saying that Dragon Age II is bad writing, I am saying the story felt like it was all prologue.

Leave your ideas as to what can save a story. Make or break it. What game has your favorite story of all? Also, leave any suggestions to what you think could have enhanced your Dragon Age story experience or if you thought it was perfect the way it was.

Stay tuned for my "future" Dragon Age plot idea.

Modifié par TerraMantis, 29 avril 2011 - 07:29 .

[TerraMantis]

wow...seriously, this places forum editor is garbage. This looks nothing like how what i typed looked before i posted it.

[Myusha]

ooooh. Picture of Morrigan. *yoink*

[TerraMantis]

Sorry, this was my first post on this site. Everything is all in order now. Thanks

Modifié par TerraMantis, 29 avril 2011 - 07:30 .

[MingWolf]

Despite the formatting, I enjoyed the read. Thanks. You bring up a lot of interesting points and offer a lot of insight on how it could have been better.

One of the plot grabs that occurred from the beginning of the game was the Seeker's interest in the Champion. It was a great starting point in the story and yet the narrative gave little attention to that through the story. Instead, the Seeker kept asking "what happens next?" Then the end came, and Hawke disappears like the HoF, and the Seeker just lets Varric go. The end. That was where I most profoundly felt that the story never left the prologue and felt as though the story was "setting up," as you say, for another installment.

What would have saved the story, in my opinion, would have been to tie up such loose ends like the Seeker, and to have some ploy or reason that would make each chapter more gripping, coherent, and important. Stories might not need all of the above, but a game that is driven primarily by story should take a little more care in coherency and importance.

[GodWood]

Then why do a much vaster number of people agree that the "Hero of Ferelden" (HoF) was the superior protagonist in comparison to the Champion of Kirkwall? It is because the epic in which the HoF's story takes place is simply a greater tale with a satisfyingly grand closing and the HoF never displayed all of these weaknesses. The Hero of Ferelden met challenges head on.

Not my Warden.
My warden was quite a flawed man who quite often displayed weakness and cowardice.
I'd also say he hardly ever met his challenges 'head on'. If it was possible for him to avoid danger he would.

What made the Warden the better proganist for me was the fact that I was able to play him the way I wanted.

He was my character, not Bioware's.

[Ulicus]

I couldn't type in my own dialogue choices. What gives? 

(Though, admittedly, I could pretend they were just paraphrasing)

Modifié par Ulicus, 29 avril 2011 - 09:24 .

[Plaintiff]

Your comparison of Origins to a Shakespearean drama is pretty bad. Shakespeare's plays, tragic, comic or otherwise, are character dramas, not epic fantasies. They have intimate settings, with few locations and quite a small main cast. Stylistically, Shakespearean plays are much closer to DA2 than they are to Origins.

Saying that the Hero of Ferelden, a voiceless player-insert is somehow better than Hawke because he doesn't display weaknesses is laughable. From a story-telling point, character's need weaknesses, they add dimension. The Hero of Ferelden is essentially perfect, the only weaknesses he has are those the player chooses for him, and that's incredibly boring. Fleeing is natural, fleeing is human. His care for his family and urge for self-preservation are natural, human and make Hawke far more relatable than the mute Warden. As for the Ogre battle, well, I thought you were focussing on story and not gameplay? The player's level and the difficulty of the battle should be irrelevent.

I don't see how your rearrangement of story events would make the story better, frankly. Sounds like a tangled mess to me. Having everything happen at once would mean a long story of nothing happening and no measurable character progress, with the ending being even more of a cluster**** than it is already. The "axiom" of the story is Hawke. Hawke's life and his place. His role in events is the primary focus, the other "axioms" you listed are subplots at best, the majority seem like you were reaching to come up with questions to pad out your opinion. As for a self-evident morality lesson, why should there be one? In fact, in a game series that emphasises "Grey vs. Grey" morality and "no easy choices", having a clear and evident "lesson" would only be self-defeating.

I certainly can refute the claim that the Champion's story is unfinished. I think it's totally finished. The questions that arose from DA2 can be answered without him, they are large-scale issues that affect the world of Thedas as a whole and Hawke has little to do with them except that he was there to see them start. If you feel like DA2 was setting up for a sequel, that's because that's exactly what it was doing. Origins ended with finality because at the time of production there were no concrete plans to continue the series. DA2 serves to set up plot threads that will carry over to the next installment, the few questions raised in Origins are not sufficient, especially the "popular" question of Morrigan's child, which a lot of people opted not to conceive.

I don't think DA2 needs "fixing", in fact, I don't think you should be using the word in this context at all. Different is not automatically better. If you don't like open, ambiguous endings then that's your call but they're a valid device and comparing DA2 to a novel is ridiculous when a metric ****ton of novels, not to mention movies and other media forms, do exactly what you're complaining about in this regard.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 29 avril 2011 - 10:13 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Hah, saying the Warden never had any weaknesses while he canonically either cheated himself out of death at an unknown cost or sacrificed a friend to take his place.

[Alex Kershaw]

Well said

[bti79]

I think TerraMantis made some very valid points. In particular I agree that it was diappointing that there was almost no followup on the open points left by DA:O, especially in regards to Morrigan and Flemeth.

I also very much agree that DA2 seemed like a really long prologue. Assuming this means that there is much more to come, that's a good thing, although there could have been so much more 'relevant' hints of the next epic story.

I was also much more attached to my Warden than Hawke. Not beauce the Warden was perfect, by all means no, he was flawed in so many ways. But the silent protagonist with actual dialogue options instead of the wrethced dialogue wheel made him feel so much more like my character, That is what RPG is all about to me.

[Faroth]

Plaintiff wrote...
His care for his family and urge for self-preservation are natural, human and make Hawke far more relatable than the mute Warden.

I have to completely disagree with this statement.

Hawke is no more relatable to me than Cloud or any other generic Final Fantasy hero.  Hawke is horribly, and I mean HORRIBLY, cliche.

A refugee, an unlikely hero, overcomes great obstacles in a rise to power to become a hero.  Very original.
While this plot isn't necessarily different than the Hero of Origins, the presentation felt stale and dull for me due to the hum drum FF style presentation.  That presentation is "This is the story, you're along for the ride."

Before I continue to rant, let me make a point about Origins that others erroneously bring up.  The Warden was not mute.  The Warden was not voiceless.  The Warden was not voice acted, but he/she spoke.  The Warden speaks the lines the player selects, that is what the Warden says, those are his/her words.  Just because an actor didn’t give sound to them doesn’t mean the Warden does/says nothing.

Now I’ve not seen anyone, even people who liked DA2, saying they felt a personal close connection to Hawke. I’ve not heard any stories from players that were filled with enthusiasm of how “THEIR” Hawke played out.  Nothing like Origins.

For example: I remember reading a post of another player’s experience as the Hero.  They connected with Morrigan. They liked her and listened to her advice. They sought power by any means necessary, they allowed her to guide their actions because she was an interesting character to them and they liked how things were playing out.  When Morrigan offered the Dark Ritual, it was like a sudden red light. They had seen it through the game, but it was like clarity shone through that they were following the same path Morrigan was taken down by Flemeth and suddenly, when offered this ritual, they didn’t like where it was leading.  They refused Morrigan’s offer and in the last moment made the ultimate sacrifice to save Ferelden.

My Warden’s story was very different, breaking down Morrigan’s walls, finding the human beneath the Witch of the Wilds that Flemeth had shaped.  The ritual was viewed as much of a goal as it was a desperate plea to save the Warden’s life and it was accepted.  The moments of regret and pain when Morrigan has internal conflict made the decisions of my Warden interesting to me.

In neither of these examples is there in-game text to dictate these feelings, this assumptions towards the Hero’s thoughts and feelings.  Yet there’s a deeper association to the Hero than Hawke. Because the Hero is more connected to the player since the Hero WAS the player.  Hawke is just an actor on a stage and we’re watching the story play out.

I think the bigger part of the separation, however, is really more that DA2 offered no changes to the story based on your decisions.  It was a far departure from the breath of fresh air Origins brought to the genre and a huge step backwards towards the generic Final Fantasy RPG.

Modifié par Faroth, 29 avril 2011 - 02:48 .

[88mphSlayer]

the only big difference between the story of the Warden and the story of the Champion is that everything in DAO makes the Warden's journey personal

you've got betrayals in the Origin story that are concluded later on dealing with family, you've got the betrayal of Loghain that's concluded later on dealing with the Grey Wardens themselves of which you are a member, and the final boss is the archdemon whom Wardens sacrifice their lives to kill of which you must make the choice

in DA2 it's basically a story of tragedy, Hawke's personal investment is in his/her family and that family investment places him/her at the center of a city falling apart, it's your rise to fame and fortune in a place that has no future that's the story, for the most part your personal connections with events are only that of familiarity or unintended influence, while there are betrayals they're rarely satisfied with revenge, rather everybody just moves on and keeps trying to make a future in a place with none

and that's how DA2 ends, everybody leaves Kirkwall which was always an inevitability, while DAO was all about betrayals, revenge and taking responsibility for your role, DA2 was more about simply taking responsibilty for the actions that put you in power

do i think DAO was better than DA2 tho? maybe, maybe not, DAO was not consistent in its storytelling and there were many gaps in how things played out, the sake of giving players a video game with lots of content meant a story of betrayal and revenge would take a back seat to Bioware's hero-journey formula, whereas DA2 departed from that formula for the sake of focusing on Kirkwall, so while DA2 might've had some execution issues i don't think DAO is inherently better just for going with a more classically satisfying story

to me the simplest difference why people consider the first game better is that DAO has twice as much spoken dialogue and gametime with which to flesh things out

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 29 avril 2011 - 03:02 .

[jonesd]

So tell us, don't show us? We don't have to play a game, just tell us what happened. I'm sorry, but that is all I got from your essay. I think setup is a very bad word for DA2. While in a sense it is true, I fail to see why that is a problem. You get to experience the events to the war. Sure they could just tell you, but that doesn't have the same effect.

I also disagree that Hawke was a coward fleeing Lothering. Ask me if I'll save my country or family/friends. Every time I'll say screw the country and save my family. I won't say you're an idiot/bad person if you would save the country, but don't call Hawke a coward for protecting his/her family.

Modifié par jonesd, 29 avril 2011 - 03:46 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Morrigan... Yes, basically only Morrigan's God Baby question left unanswered in DAO. Everything else is clear.
In DA2 you get not a sequel... I get it, the game is ok and fine, but to a fan of DAO it's a big slap in the face by an elephant's dick. Here, got the right analogy.

To Bioware: the problem, the main problem is that you implied that the game was a sequel to Origins.

[DanZOAR]

TerraMantis

I think you, sir, deserve a job at Bioware

[EternalPink]

Think the main difference for me was as the HoF i was affecting and shaping the world, as the champion i've being led by the noise everywhere and anything i do is meaningless which true in Origins right at the very start was the same but then they diverged

Prologue in Origins was your characters backstory and why you ended up as a warden and while you had some dialogue choices you ended up a warden regardless

Escape from lothering again your being led by the nose, someone dies depending on your character choice and you escape

Then they change and as a opening comparision

Gather a army - Okay i get to choose whether the arl's family dies, who the king of the dwarfs is, whether golems return to the world, what happens to the circles, whether the elves live or die, defy or save andrastes ashes

Act 1 - Smuggler or mercenary, how you loose bethany (not done mage play through but i'd assume how you loose carver if your a mage)

And this goes on through out the entire game, other than which char i get to bone (which was in both origins and DA2)

Since my choices are pretty meaningless choices in DA2 they could be made by coin flib/random mouse spinning on wheel and you'd still end up with the same result and for me the same amount of emotional involvement going right through to the end where in Origins you had dark ritual to say alive (whats the cost?), personal sacrifce (noble), sacrifie willing companion (cowardly/allowing other to be noble), allow character to atone (cowardly/justice being done) compared to DA2 of kill everything

Modifié par EternalPink, 29 avril 2011 - 04:08 .

[Faroth]

Here’s my long ramble on my views of Dragon Age 2’s story and where I felt it was weakened.

I don’t think Dragon Age 2 was a bad game if it were to stand on its own, but I think it has tremendous flaws in attempting to fix what wasn’t broken.  As one review I read stated, they tried to capture an audience that wasn’t drawn to Origins and succeeded in alienating the audience that was.

My distaste for the cartoony combat, simplification of just about everything (I do approve of some) aside, the story is the main focus here.  My main complaint with the story is the deviation of Origins main strength: choices.

In Origins, there were so many choices that would have an effect, even if it was only mentioned in an epilogue card, that it made it seem like your actions had an effect, sometimes even a butterfly effect.  In Dragon Age 2, I had no indication that anything Hawke did ever made a difference. Perhaps on some level, this makes sense because Varric is, after all, telling the story while the Warden’s story was “real time” so to speak.  Still, I don’t see how offering variations on Varric’s telling would make a difference in the overall game and would lend itself more to the style offered in Origins.

Let’s break down the major events of DA2 and your choices.
You leave for Kirkwall. You can choose to kill Aveline’s husband or let her do it.  Either way, it won’t change the outcome of the prologue.

Chapter I: The big decisions here are who you work for and at the end who you take on the Expedition.  However, if you take your sibling, they will die or become a Gray Warden.  If you leave them behind, they are taken from you by Circle/Templars.  No matter what you decide, you will lose your sibling.

Chapter II: No matter what decision you make, a battle will break out between the Qunari and you will defend Kirkwall to become Champion.  There is no altering this and no other decisions I came across had a lasting impact.

Chapter III: This is the worst chapter of all.  Nothing you do can save your mother. She will die to blood magic as a Frankentsein’s bride.  You can choose to help Anders or don’t (or skip the quest) and he will still accomplish his goal regardless.  You can side with the Circle and you’ll have to kill the Head Enchanter before killing the Knight Commander or you can side with the Templars and you’ll have to kill the Head Enchanter before killing the Knight Commander.  You will be synonymous with oppression or freedom as the mages rise up against the Templars.

In Origins, you had deeper and deeper aspects to explore for your companions and your actions and decisions affected their view of you, not choosing the “heart” option when talking to them.  The characters had personality and reacted to the story and your actions (which Bioware claims they were trying for a more reactionary companion scenario in DA2. I feel your allies turning against you in combat or disapproving of you based on your decisions was more reactionary in Origins).

You choose to defile the Sacred Ashes and Wynne & Leliana will turn on you.
You choose to help a dwarf girl join the Circle as an assistant, but ignore a Chantry in Orzamar and an Exalted March is said to be in discussion on the city.
Even choices that didn’t have a lasting impact felt more difficult to make, such as using blood magic or getting the Circle to help you save the child possessed by a demon.

The lack of choices having an impact are what lessened the story of DA2 for me.  It was all just filler quests between “get your house back, defeat the Arishok, watch the “first shot” of a war and kill both leaders.”
I completely agree that DA2 feels shorter than it should have been, though.

Prologue
Absolutely would have been interesting to have started in Ostagar.  As a warrior/rogue it would have made sense that you had military training on how to fight rather than a supreme bad ass peasant from Lothering.  As a mage, you could have easily been a Ferelden Circle mage who fought at Ostagar and escaped after the battle to return to your family.  Even without Ostagar, I would have preferred to see Varric start the story with the “decimating waves of Darkspawn” exaggeration, then go back to the “real” story and start in Lothering.

Having Hawke do a few quests in Lothering to get to know your family and build more of a connection to them.  Talking to other villagers, even seeing the Warden with Morrigan & Alistair as you enter a tavern and they leave (importing your Warden) would have been a nice little offer.  Let the story skip a little time for the Blight to truly befall Lothering and battle Darkspawn before gathering your family for an escape.  Seeing your home completely overrun and decimated would have made the escape feel more desperate.

Kirkwall, Chapter I
More pressure from the Templars would have been appreciated here.  A true sense of hiding from them as you, or Bethany, are apostates could have been introduced.  As it was, it feels like Kirkwall has apostates living on every street of every part of the city and everyone knows about it, but they whistle innocently when a Templar is nearby.  If there were some hints towards the Templars having their eye on your sibling (as a recruit or an apostate) it would have made the decision to take them vs. leave them a bit more weighted.
If you take your sibling into the Deep Roads with Anders, having the possibility of keeping your sibling would have been interesting. They take them for the ritual and you hear nothing for months, but Anders, who ran away from the Wardens, can go about as he pleases?

Kirkwall, Chapter II
The entire situation with the Qunari was done rather well, but more interaction would have been good.  I personally would have liked to see Origins human qunari in the area alongside the new qunari.  Perhaps Sten was a barbarian physique human who converted to the Qun?  He would still be status of a Sten and this would offer another nice link between the two to see others like him and the mercenaries still existing in the Thedas world.

However, why was there no decision to convert to the Qun available?  Even if it led to disaster and the Arishok denying you based on a reason, leading to a duel for other reasons?  Could Bioware not have come up with a different path to still lead to Hawke becoming Champion?  At least the ability to explore converting to the Qun, what it means, more about the Qunari culture would have been interesting.

Kirkwall, Chapter III
Your mother should have been a more interwoven story and had methods to save her.  You could arrive in time, warn her, something could be done to discover the blood magic and what was happening.  She could have died from stress back home in her bed, she could have simply died of old age, she could have died as she did in the game as is.  Yet it felt like another example of tragedy forced upon you with no choice in the game’s story or path.
Anders’ request to help him separate himself from Justice seemed to suddenly end. After helping him, he says nothing about performing the ritual again whatsoever.  Why not have some different paths here?  Help him so he sets up the Chantry preparations, then a “failed” attempt at the ritual.  Deny him aid and have him leave your side (this would really work if you could keep your sister instead of losing her or if Merril was able to access healing abilities).  What’s more, I find it odd that I really disliked Anders being written so wishy washy.  At the game progresses, he’s becoming noticeably more aggressive on his anti-Templar stance, yet after he enacts his plan he gets rather remorseful and says he’ll accept the punishment.  I think if Justice, or Vengeance, was becoming more intertwined with his personality, the game would have benefited from Anders making a stand after the Chantry’s destruction like Rorschach from The Watchmen with the mindset of “Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.”  A battle against Anders would have felt more appropriate than a sudden turn to Blood Magic by the Head Enchanter.

Templar/Circle Support
This one frustrated me the most.  I am okay with Bioware wanting to lead towards the change in Thedas (Morrigan foreshadowed this in Witch Hunt and Flemeth again in DA2) and having our decision result in this no matter what, but I don’t like the way it played out.  Again, choices could have been made here that would have had an effect on things.

You had the opportunity to save many mages in the course of DA2 and to help them.  This didn’t seem to have much of an impact.  Rather than a last minute decision, your actions through the course of the game could have shaped who you supported in the end.  Almost a “morality gauge” not shown to you that works as a “support gauge” of who you’ve favored.

If you sided with the Mages, it seems it would have been more appropriate to conclude with a battle against the Knight Commander rather than killing the Head Enchanter and if you sided with the Templars, the Knight Commander’s madness seemed unnecessary.  And the third option was presented to you but still denied at the last moment: siding with neither.

Why did Bioware not allow you to take the path of the Resolutionists?  A group set on the notion of a more symbiotic relationship between Templar and Mage, where the mages and templar work together to police those who are going towards dangerous magics?  This would have worked to rally templar and mage to your side and at the end would have offered a more logical path to defeating both sides’ leaders.  The result would still be a splintering of the Circle and Templars, a new Order being founded that would have just as easily resulted in war as Mages rose up against the oppressive Templars in rally towards this more equal scenario.

I just felt that too much of Dragon Age 2 was a forced narrative in which our choices didn’t make any difference and were poorly masked to give the semblance of them having an impact.  Origins was largely linear, yes.  You couldn’t ignore gathering an army. You couldn’t not attend the Landsmeet.  But many of your small choices did have a reference in the epilogue and while I realize those can’t entirely be carried over to future games, they still added a nice touch of uniqueness to your own personal play through.  And the decisions that weren’t unavoidable still had some dual options: Werewolf or elf?  Mage or Templar?   Why couldn’t Hawke be more corrupt and have some of those street gangs working FOR him/her?

To me, the story’s weakness was that it was too straightforward with none of the branching paths that Origins offered.  Once again, as I’ve stated before, Dragon Age 2 is a fine RPG in the same style as any Final Fantasy, but it wasn’t a continuation of the successful style paved with Origins.

Modifié par Faroth, 29 avril 2011 - 04:17 .

[bti79]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Morrigan... Yes, basically only Morrigan's God Baby question left unanswered in DAO. Everything else is clear.

I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. I would also like to know or at least get a lot more clues about; What is Flemeth? What was the change Morrigan spoke of? Where is "beyond the fade" exactly? What did Avernus discover? Was Connor actually unharmed from his experience with the demon?

Also about the companions of the warden; was Morrigan right? Is love weakness? (that debate was so not over) What about Leliana..? considering her cameo in DA2 her story seems far from unfinished.

In short, I think DA:O left an abundance of open leads and direct cliffhangers. I was sad to see Bioware didn't pick up on more of them, in particular considering how popular the DAO companions are with the fans. I remain hopeful though.

Modifié par bti79, 29 avril 2011 - 04:21 .

[LobselVith8]

EternalPink wrote...

Think the main difference for me was as the HoF i was affecting and shaping the world, as the champion i've being led by the noise everywhere and anything i do is meaningless which true in Origins right at the very start was the same but then they diverged

I felt the same way. Hawke never had an opportunity to change the world around him, despite his status as a Human Noble and Champion of Kirkwall. He was reactive to the situations around him. I think the story could've benefitted from not being so linear and allowing our choices to have meaning.

[Vicious]

If you think the god baby will amount to anything, you need to get out of your imagination. Bioware has already handwaved the godbaby. It seemed like a huge deal in DA:O, but Witch Hunt Morrigan goes 'oh i didn't need it anyway.'

So forget it ever amounting to anything. At best it's like everything else Bioware does from game to game. A dangling plotline occasionally referred back to, but having nothing to do with any main plot.

[EternalPink]

They really didn't need to do much to salvage atleast part of this story.

If you sided with the mages just before the first enchant became an abomination have these two options

Orisino "Hawke what are we doing to do?"

Option 1 - Tell Orisino to fight at your side, turns into abomination and you kill him

Option 2 - Tell Orisino to barricade himself with the remaining mages somewhere that Meredith/templers have to fight through hawke to get to them

With option 1 plays out how it is and you have to kill everything, option 2 after you kill Meredith Orisino and survivors appear all thankful and new age of mage freedom

I've not done the templer version but with Meredith

Option 1 - feels driven to use sword that drives her insane and you kill everything

Option 2 - allows Hawke to spearhead the attack and doesn't get driven insane, new age of templer stability

Yet no we have linear kill everything in sight and it turns out all choices/actions are meaningless since everybody is dead.

Modifié par EternalPink, 29 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[Corto81]

Great post, OP.

Without getting too much into detail...

- I can live with Act 1... doesn't really have a story, but sort of like BG2 Galean Bayle quest "gather money" leads to some really good quests and content in BG2 (sadly, most quests in DA2 take 2 minutes + 10 minutes of combat, rather dull and disappointing)

- Act 2 was very good. And was not built upon, which is a shame.

- Act 3 was a complete mess. Forced behavior of NPCs, your inability to do anything about anything, Anders doing same stuff regardless of you completely ignoring him for 7 years, the ridiculous Orsino bit, etc.

Mostly though, I never cared for Hawke.
It's Hawke's story, not mine. It felt like playing Nathan Drake, with a touch of RPG in it.

My Warden was in Ostagar. The cut-scene gives me goosebumps every time.
I hated Loghain, I hated Arl Howe. It made me wanna forcefully kill him in the opening when you learn he killed your adorable little nephew in the Human Noble story.
I reveled in the vengeance I got killing them. I was genuinely happy I gave them what they deserved.
I felt genuine anticipation after Alistair's speech and the darkspawn coming through the Denerim gates.
etc.

The story felt real, visceral and personal.

You got pissed at Anora for betraying to the guards? Lock her up in the tower!
You got pissed at Petrice for nearly having you killed? Err.... She just walks away.
Why? I'm a sword swing away. I (ME) want her dead. But apparently Hawke just says "lol, okay, see ya."


I never cared my protagonist was silent, hell, I ended up presing "ESC" every time it was Hawke's turn to talk in DA2.

Biggest problem with the story in DA2, aside from the obvious plot omissions and generally plot-holes:

It's about Hawke. Not about YOU.

And that's not how it should be in a RPG from my PoV.

Modifié par Corto81, 29 avril 2011 - 05:06 .

[TerraMantis]

Wow...didn't expect this much of a reply from everyone. There is no way i can (haha...or want to) respond to everyone.

I glanced at many people's responses. One part i would like to touch on is that "what can save a story?" never really even touches on the subject of the other characters (companions) that inhabit the story of either game.
Personally, i think it is not much of a debate. Most people believe DA: O had a better ensemble. I've read, or saw, previews of different developers talking about how DA2 would have your family. In turn, this would create a more intimate relationship with the player and the game through storytelling. I didn't understand why then the story seemed to try to get rid of your family from the story at every possible chance.

Also, a part that ties into the cast and the fact that Hawke is a spoken protagonist is intertwined to the connection to your companions. The fact that Hawke was a spoken protagonist didn't bother me. Some may argue that having a silent protagonist is better because it offers a total submersion for the audience to create the protagonist's voice in their head. I can go either way, i like both. BUT, i believe this is also something that partly makes your companions "feel" more life-like. In DA:O you would choose a dialogue choice and, in some matter or another, you dialogue decisions would be played out by your companions. For example, when you finish you dialogue choices right before the final ascent into the last battle with the Archdemon then Alistair rallies the troops with a chilling "Braveheart-esque" speach before battle. I believe the lack of the protagonist having the ability to be voiced and having companions carry-out is PART of what the illusion of what creates a better ensemble.

Those are a couple of my thoughts on the cast/player relationship that is not covered at all in "What can save a story?"