77 réponses à ce sujet

[TerraMantis]

Also, the reason i added the "Level" aspect was to give my allegation of saying the "the Champion was a superior combatant" some backbone. You can't just say something without trying to back it up with a tangible argument or in this case, just a plain fact. The Champion was able to kill a specific adversary, and adds, with much less tactical advantages than the Hero did to the same enemy. In this case, story and game mechanics are kind of one in the same. The different protagonists, at this point of the ogre encounter, have basically a scripted amount of supplies and allied strength. Basically no different than if a book gave a list of what the protagonist had in their possession right before a fight with a monster. It is subjectively relevant.

[Cutlasskiwi]

GodWood wrote...

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.

Heh, for me it was the other way around. I could never play my Warden they way I really wanted to but this changed with Hawke. 

[nos_astra]

Yellow Words wrote...
Heh, for me it was the other way around. I could never play my Warden they way I really wanted to but this changed with Hawke.

^ This.

I've played through DAO twice but my canon Warden only exists as a headmorph, a couple of notes and an artificially created post-game save because even the game wouldn't let me play her the way I want. My canon Hawke was created during a perfect first playthrough.

Modifié par klarabella, 29 avril 2011 - 11:03 .

[Faroth]

I'd be interested to hear about the experiences with your perfect Hawke. As I've stated, I've yet to hear two vastly different versions of Hawke's adventure as interpreted by the players through their own imagination playing a part in the story. So I'd be interested to see how Hawke played out the way you wanted and how the Warden fell short for you as a comparative.

[Faroth]

Blasted repeated refreshes still showing no post until I am suckered into double posting!  Curse you, Fade Demons!

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 12:22 .

[Majspuffen]

Very nice thread. Read through it all, even responses, and I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything Faroth said in his post - though that wont stop me from posting my own wall of text.


The beginning of this game was poor. I was actually stunned by the fact that you could not create your character until after you've played through the intro. Did they learn nothing from Mass Effect 2? At the very least, you should be able to skip that intro. It is good for new players, sure, but for experienced players it is just a nuisance.

Once you get started, things do not exactly get better. I bought this game at launch, I ran home and installed it... but I did not actually play it until last week. I did get past Ferelden, but decided that "this sucks, I'd rather play through Dragon Age: Origins", and I did. What I saw, when fleeing the Darkspawn in Ferelden, I had already seen... in alpha/beta footage from august/september last year.



Dragon Age: Origins had 6 excellent beginnings. Followed by Ostagar which was breath-taking. The battle, the betrayal, the ogre... I mean, take the Human Noble Origin. You play it for how many hours? 1? 2 at most? Yet you still grow fond to the characters you see. Bryce does feel like a father, and Elanor feels like a mother. Fergus feels like a brother, and everyone you talk to in the area does have strong characters. You do get pissed off when Howe turns against you and during the entire game you carry a bullet with his name on. Figure of speech.

Dragon Age 2 had what? When I first played it, I wasn't moved by Aveline's "They will not have you!"-speech when defending her husband. When Bethany was killed by the Ogre I merely shrugged my shoulders and thought "meh, who was she to me? Did I like her? "... How could I like her, when I was never given the opportunity to learn what kind of character she is. Later on in the game, I did feel awful when Leandra died. Because by that time, I had gotten to know her character. I applaud Bioware for not giving us a happy ending to her death - but where is the choice? 

What would you do if you knew there was a psychotic murder around giving women white lillies before seducing them? I, personally, would tell every female I knew and cared about to be wary of white bloody lillies. But maybe Hawke thought her mother was old and ugly and that no one would ever want to capture her. And, I cringed typing that, my apoligies. It would be nice to have that choice. To have any choice.

But, typing and thinking at the same time... you do have a choice. You can let that first blood mage (DePuis or something) live in order to sniff up the murderer. Or you can kill the blood mage and find the murderer yourself. How does any of these choices affect the story? They don't! That is what's so sad with Dragon Age 2. Like many people have said; you only really get one big choice in this game and that happens before the journey to the deep roads. Bring/do not bring Carver/Bethany. Bring Carver/Bethany and Anders, or leave Anders behind. But what does this change? :/ Sigh.




I myself completed this game as a mage who sided with the templars. Yet, it is funny how my ending was pretty much the same as my friend who completed the game as a warrior who sided with the mages. Origins had a lot of endings. Will these endings affect following games in other ways than codex entries? Maybe not, but then, Dragon Age: Origins is a game of its own. It felt complete. Dragon Age 2 didn't.

In the end of Dragon Age 2, Varric said my Mage apparently inspired others to rally against the templars. That doesn't make any sense; if anything, my Mage stood for order. I believed, and I hope that my Hawke believed, that the mages in Kirkwall had grown out of control. Hawke's own mother fell subject to a blood mage. And, really... I didn't suspect that Orsino was a blood mage (even though the letters you can read as you run for your mothers rescue hints at it)... but, finding out that he was, it made me feel better for siding with the templars. Yet, even that felt as if it was taken out of my hands. It felt as Hawke sided with the templars because she was an... unreasonable ****? Despite everything I had done in the game? Hawke had helped the mages - much because of Anders... and Anders nukes the Chantry, which was the last straw for me.

Meredith said that Hawke was an inspiration to other Mages, because she symbolized freedom and power. But, did she really? She approved of the rite of annulment. The mages ought to hate her for that. If I had gotten an Origins-kind of ending, I would've loved to see my Hawke become the First Enchanter, working closely with Cullen as the new knight-commander. No such choices though. Hawke left Kirkwall and disappeared and I have no clue as to why my own character would do that - which makes Hawke feel more like an actor than a character I control.

And there are three Hawkes: The Diplomatic Hawke, the Sarcastic Hawke and the Direct Hawke. Whatever they choose, the result will be the same. Help or do not help Anders, he'll still nuke the church. Help or do not help Merrill and the Keeper will still end up being possessed.

I myself prefer Dragon Age: Origins over Dragon Age 2. It is not just because of the reasons I mention in the wall of text above, but also because Dragon Age 2 was a big pile of "Ctrl+C Ctrl+V". Same caves, same underground passages, same here and same there. Also; the opponents felt like lego. You smash them, they fall into six pieces. Even if you hit them with a staff...

Modifié par Majspuffen, 30 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[Faroth]

Majspuffen said struck a chord:

I would've loved to see my Hawke become the First Enchanter, working closely with Cullen as the new knight-commander.

Couldn't this have led to an epilogue saying that Kirkwall saw a new movement of Templar and Mage relationship less oppressive and still restricting against forbidden magic? When the other Circles heard of this, they rose up in search of this sort of arrangement, but since it doesn't fit Chantry Law quite the same way you'd have resistance and still see the Chantry splintering, the Templars fractured and the Circles at war with "the old ways" of the arrangement.

[Plaintiff]

Faroth wrote...

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.

See, that's the thing, people have a knee-jerk reaction against Hawke because he's not "their" character. And he's not, Bioware created him. But this connection you feel to your Warden is purely illusory, a cheap trick acheived by not giving him any personality of his own whatsoever. He is a bland player-insert. As you said, you're not playing a character when you play the Warden, you're playing yourself.

If you like that, then fine. But it's not objectively better and you don't need to "be" someone to relate to them. One shouldn't need a personal connection to Bethany or Carver to understand Hawke's grief. Loss is a universal experience. When a friend tells you of the loss of a loved one, do you shrug and say "Oh well, I didn't know them"?

As for the similarity to other RPGs, yes there's an obvious formula. Most games follow it. Hell, most stories follow it, and it's not in any way limited to High Fantasy. Stories have re-used the same archetypes and ticked the same plot boxes ever since we first started telling them. You can connect with and like Morrigan, but she's not original or unique by any means. Hell, she's basically Isabela with magic, the differences between the two characters are superficial details at best. They're essentially the same.

But regardless of whether or not you felt "railroaded", DA2's plot is actually less generic than most RPGs, including Origins. Origins is, at its core, nothing more than another Tolkien rip-off. The characters and the politics of the world are what make it different and memorable, and these are the features that DA2 brings to the fore.

[Ravendark]

I totally agree with everything that you wrote my friend,TerraMantis.Well said.By the way,I enjoyed DAO more than anything.DA 2 storyline sucks.

[Kendar Fleetfoot]

I think the 2 recurring themes in this post are lack of choice and too many dictated outcomes. Whether as the HoF you played yourself or a construct you still had choice that influenced the storyline and outcomes. In DA2 you are definitely forced into outcomes making your choices meaningless. I have been pro mage everytime and supported the mages thoroughly through the game so why do I get an otpion at the death knell to side with the Templars?????

Same with the silly rivalry meter. Great I get Sebastian to total friendship but then due to a plot point I can't change or influence (Anders blowing up the chantry) I lose him for failing to kill Anders. Yes I have a choice here but there seemed to be no consistency in the allocation of points in terms of how many you got for various actions or when you got them and am I really going to kill another character who I have at full friendship???? And why do I even need to have them at more than 50% friendship rivalry, what's wrong with people being ambivalent to one another and still able to work together.

Anyway in short DA2 was a good game to play but for very different reasons to DA:O and as has said by many the game was obviously rushed and as a huge DA:O fan I felt really let down by the DA2.

[TerraMantis]

@Plaintiff

You wrote "You can connect with and like Morrigan, but she's not original or unique by any means. Hell, she's basically Isabela with magic, the differences between the two characters are superficial details at best. They're essentially the same."

Actually Isabela is Morrigan without magic. Doesn't that make Isabela an even greater embodiment of a cliche' if she is based off of Morrigan and she is not 100% original? They do have a very similar "character"...then why is Morrigan more interesting even though they have many of the same characteristics and persona? Most likely this is because the story had a deeper history and insight into her character through better storytelling and showing her "family" and much more personal conversations between you and her. What do we really know about Isabela? Really the only thing i liked about her was the name of her boat. Narrative can't solely rely on the audience's past experiences to fill-in the blanks. The story should create the past experiences for you. The story shouldn't rely on my so-called "universal experience". Especially since I've never lost one of my brothers or sister before in real life. I doubt that i could try to draw a truly sincere reaction to that situation without it actually happening. But, hey...I am sure right after their death i'd be cool with it and have no emotional response displayed whatsoever and jump right into combat without even the cliche' use of a 'NOOOOOO!!!". I also liked how you tried to criticize Morrigan by wording it differently than saying "Isabela isn't cliche' because Morrigan rips her off".

In regard to characters having close similarities, I'm sure that BioWare has in house writers. If you didn't think Merrill was basically the exact same character as Tali, from Mass Effect, i don't know what game you're playing. So what do you think is more original then? You playing "their character" (as you put it) or the multiple interpretations of the individual playing the character. Playing their character is what sounds like a "formula" to me. Since both stories obviously only have the illusion of choice, through what you're saying, why not just read a book then if you have no true impact on the events of it? Then the fact that it's a video game medium would be brought into the argument right? Do you really want the conversation to go in that direction? If you think my opinion of the story is jaded you really don't want me to talk about combat and battle situations.

Honestly though...happy you're in here. Gotta have someone to liven up the conversation with some debate.

[Plaintiff]

TerraMantis wrote...
Actually Isabela is Morrigan without magic. Doesn't that make Isabela an even greater embodiment of a cliche' if she is based off of Morrigan and she is not 100% original?

Not really, no. Isabela isn't "based on" Morrigan, they both fulfill a specific character archetype that has persisted in storytelling forever; they're strong-willed, independant women who shun emotion and charity and look out, first and foremost for their own interests. I could, with time, give you a long list of characters, maler and female, from a range of media and genres who fit these specifications. The archetype is so ancient now that even if you could measure the "clicheness" of a cliche, the difference between Isabela and Morrigan would be so slight as to make no difference.

They do have a very similar "character"...then why is Morrigan more interesting even though they have many of the same characteristics and persona? Most likely this is because the story had a deeper history and insight into her character through better storytelling and showing her "family" and much more personal conversations between you and her. What do we really know about Isabela? Really the only thing i liked about her was the name of her boat.

We can learn a lot about Isabela. If romanced, and if the right questions are asked, she reveals to you a fair amount about her past. It doesn't come up in any quests, but that suits her character; Isabela doesn't dwell on the past, she's concerned with where she is now and where she's headed. I won't pretend that we learn "more" about her than Morrigan. We learn a lot about Morrigan but the bulk of that was extraneous detail that the story could've probably done without. For a chick who claims to dislike mindless chatter, she sure prattles on about her traumatic childhood a lot.

Narrative can't solely rely on the audience's past experiences to fill-in the blanks. The story should create the past experiences for you. The story shouldn't rely on my so-called "universal experience". Especially since I've never lost one of my brothers or sister before in real life. I doubt that i could try to draw a truly sincere reaction to that situation without it actually happening. But, hey...I am sure right after their death i'd be cool with it and have no emotional response displayed whatsoever and jump right into combat without even the cliche' use of a 'NOOOOOO!!!". I also liked how you tried to criticize Morrigan by wording it differently than saying "Isabela isn't cliche' because Morrigan rips her off".

I believe the word I used was "loss". You don't need to lose a family member to understand that it's painful. I'm not saying you have to be driven to tears, that's not it at all. You don't need to "react" you just need to relate. Hawke doesn't grieve because he isn't given the time to do so. He's in the middle of a fight for his life. If he stopped to cry over Carver/Bethany, he'd be dead.

I didn't say that Morrigan was ripping off Isabela, nor am I saying that she's bad. I'm simply saying: she's nothing special. You get more of her past but that doesn't automatically equate to character depth and seems like more of a deliberate stylistic choice than supposed laziness on the writer's part. The majority of companion quests in DA:O deal with character's pasts coming back to haunt them: Alistair, Leliana, Shale, Wynne, Oghren, Sten and Zevran all encounter skeletons from their closets as the story progresses. By contrast, the personal quests of Aveline, Isabela, Varric, Sebastian, Fenris and Anders all deal very much with the here-and-now. Aveline gets over Wesley on her own time and seeks your help in finding new love, Fenris is actively fighting against the people who want to drag him back to his old life. Merrill is the only character focussing on the past and it comes back to bite her in the butt in a big way.   

In regard to characters having close similarities, I'm sure that BioWare has in house writers. If you didn't think Merrill was basically the exact same character as Tali, from Mass Effect, i don't know what game you're playing. So what do you think is more original then? You playing "their character" (as you put it) or the multiple interpretations of the individual playing the character. Playing their character is what sounds like a "formula" to me. Since both stories obviously only have the illusion of choice, through what you're saying, why not just read a book then if you have no true impact on the events of it? Then the fact that it's a video game medium would be brought into the argument right? Do you really want the conversation to go in that direction? If you think my opinion of the story is jaded you really don't want me to talk about combat and battle situations.

I haven't played Mass Effect so I can't comment. Merrill is similar to a lot of different characters I've seen. The fact that the character belongs to Bioware and has their own personality, however, doesn't exclude the possibility of interpreting them your own way; for proof of that, just look at any one of the mile-long threads in this very forum that debate Anders' actions in Act 3. I see him as freedom fighter making the hard choice to do what is necessary and right. Others do not.

Why not just read a book? That's a good question, actually. I would highly recommend that people read books in general. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "choice" is the major factor games possess that books do not. This isn't the case, most RPGs, most games in general, have a set canon and that's that. Books and films and games are both very similar in that ultimately, their purpose is to tell stories. Games go one step further than books and films, by allowing you to experience the story in a different way, by placing you as directly into the head of the protagonist as they can, rather than having you on the outskirts, as a spectator. But that does not usually mean you get to affect the outcome of the story. In fact, the ability to do so is, at least on the scale that Bioware offers, is, to my knowledge, actually a fairly recent development. But it's not exclusive to them. Choose-Your-Own adventure novels have, in fact, already been doing this for decades before video games thought to. "Choice" is not and never has been the defining factor that separates the video game from books or films. If there is any such separation, I'd have to say that video-games offer a level of tactile immersion (pressing buttons and seeing the character/world respond accordingly) that books and movies do not. 

As it happens, you do get to affect things in Dragon Age 2, but they're on a much more personal level; you're deciding the fates of your companions, not whole cities. I think a lot of the backlash against DA2 is a knee-jerk reaction to a new kind of story that is atypical of RPGs. A scaled-down character drama, as opposed to a high-stakes tale of world-saving proportions. I won't argue that DA2 isn't flawed, nothing is perfect, but a lot of "problems" people perceive I think can be attributed to the fact that this is not what they're used to.

The problem with video games and player choice in general is that there will always be things you can't do. The human imagination is limitless, but disk space is not and you, the player, can envision all sorts of scenarios that can't be done in-game, either for the sake of establishing canon, because the writer's just didn't think of it, or because including so many options just isn't feasible.

[Faroth]

I'm not sure that it's knee-jerk, it's just the fact of how people feel.  They didn't like Hawke.  I never felt he was much of an interesting protagonist, or she in my case.  It's not knee-jerk if it's just simple fact that I didn't find them interesting or the story drawing me in.  I was more drawn into the story in FF X with Tidus, especially with the tragic twist at the end and THAT was a linear RPG, but that's what I expect from an FF game.

Hawke...meh.  I came to expect a game like Origins and was given a Final Fantasy.

And if players find a stronger connection to the Warden and their story, you can't tell them it's fake and doesn't exist because it's an illusion.  It's a fake character, of course it's an illusion, but none the less, the connection is there, just like any story that draws you in.

When a friend tells you of the loss of a loved one, do you feel grief? Do you feel pain? Do you feel an absence for having lost that person?  No.  You might feel sympathy for the friend, but it's not like you connect and truly relate to the loss they feel.  An RPG is supposed to make YOU take on the role so it shouldn't be like a friend losing someone, when Carver/Bethany die it's supposed to feel like YOU lost someone, not your friend.

If we had known more about the character, we would have felt more profound loss.  Or are you wanting me to believe you truly felt as bad losing the first sibling as you did losing the second after seeing more of that character?  Seriously, losing Bethany to the Wardens had me sitting there cursing my decision through the rest of the cut scene. I was genuinely disappointed.  And I was excited when I saw her again in the Deep Roads.

It's not the story formula I compare DA2 with FF games, it's the presentation.  The "here's your protagonist, let us tell you what he does" formula.  Origins was a different type of RPG than a FF game, it stood apart for that.  That's what I don't like, that DA2 didn't continue the successful formula of DA: O and you CAN NOT tell me Origins wasn't successful in its presentation and style.  Why change what's working?

As was already pointed out...further exploration of Isabella in DA2 makes her a copy of Morrigan, not the other way around.  So you're basically saying Isabella is not original or unique within Dragon Age, she's a clone of the first game's companion in the very next installment.  If they're both the same cliche, does that make it a good idea to use it again each game?  Use other archetypes instead.

I'll agree that the plot is less generic. It's a good story they wanted to tell and it's unique.  The execution of telling it fell short and the game suffered for it in my, and many others', opinion.  You can say Origins is a Tolkien rip off, but hey...it works.  D&D and everything since is a Tolkien rip off, Tolkien is a rip off of myths and legends altered and modified.  But I disagree that DA2 brought the unique aspects of Thedas to the forefront.

The Qunari are touched upon and the mage/templar situation is more center stage, but other than that, what did we learn in DA2 that we didn't already know about the cultures and politics of Thedas?

I should, however, note that Plaintiff does make a good point that we did have companion quests dealing with the here-and-now.  I think basically there's a lot of good intentions in DA2, but I feel the game did not come off as well as Origins. It's just not as strong for a number of reasons.

In DA3, I'm hoping they take a step back and look at what made Origins so successful and popular and go back to that while taking the good aspects and intentions in DA2, polish both up and make the final product a perfect blend of both.  I'd rather have more discussion with my companions about their pasts, I'd like quests involving here and now, I'd like some to have their past come back to haunt them, I'd like some to have perfectly boring pasts that don't need to be dwelled on.

Aveline's romance plot was among the most amusing and my favorite in the game.  I do hope to see Varric again as he vastly surpassed Oghren as my favorite Thedas dwarf too.

I'm perfectly fine with the smaller scale taking place in the city, but to say your choices and the affect on your companions makes the game more personal?  I don't know. As Champion of Kirkwall, it's clear you have clout and that your word makes a difference to the people...but the city's fate isn't supposed to be the focus?  The whole mage/templar thing isn't an issue to address as a big deal?

I think we'd find common ground if you pointed out what you saw as the game's weaknesses because I can't fathom Act III feeling natural and not forced to people.  They had so many good possibilities available, different turns in the road with the same destination; I just feel they were squandered.  Also, just curious, did you play Origins when it first came out and if so, did you like/dislike it?  I've gotten the impression you really didn't like Origins much, but I could be very wrong in that observation.

Regarding the "Why not read a book" question?  I used to read these "choose your own adventure" books as a teen. They were pretty awesome and that's what Origins felt like.  Sure, only a couple pages led to a good ending and the rest were "you're dead" but it was still fun to see how they wove through to different details before getting to the conclusion.

DA2 is a normal book, but I felt it wasn't as good as the author could have made it. Personally, I think it's the editor's fault.

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 08:06 .

[nos_astra]

Faroth wrote...
I'd be interested to hear about the experiences with your perfect Hawke. As I've stated, I've yet to hear two vastly different versions of Hawke's adventure as interpreted by the players through their own imagination playing a part in the story. So I'd be interested to see how Hawke played out the way you wanted and how the Warden fell short for you as a comparative.

My warrior Hawke started out as a neutral good character and ended up lawful neutral. Her favourite sibling died and she was stuck with her sweet, gentle mage sister, at Kirkwall of all places. After Act 1 she got estranged from her sister who went to the Circle and later lost her mother to blood magic. Her best friend was Aveline, her best rival-friend was Sebastian. She sided with the templars and the way NPCs reacted to her made perfect sense, most of the time. It's a bit hard to explain why she didn't turn in Anders or Merrill and why on earth she put up with someone as scary as Fenris, but these were the only things that were really jarring. I loved how things just happened around her, despite her actions.

My human noble Warden was a spoiled girl who knew how to manipulate people, an opportunist through and through. She didn't care about the plight of the dwarves (Harrowmont is the obvious choice for her), elves (they choose to live in the alienage) or mages (need to be under control, blood magic is evil). She ignored Sten in his cage (murderer) and sent Morrigan away (anti-social, annoying apostate who got replaced with Wynne). She kind of bonded with Leliana and Alistair but due to the lack of rival-friendship that's hardly playable. She needs both who would speak up against her decisions and challenge her views. She failed to save Irving, so the Circle got annulled and Connor had to die (that part is easily playable!). She would not go around, flaunting her status as a Cousland (Howe still wants them dead) or a Grey Warden (outlawed). She would send word to the Orlesian Wardens! She would never(!) go chasing an ancient myth, instead she would do anything to get Teagan to take over and gather support among the nobles. Especially the Landsmeet part doesn't work for her. She's the kind of person who would seek to be Anora's ally. She wouldn't go for the throne herself (she values her own freedom, but appreciates the privileges of her status), she wouldn't put Alistair on the throne (not exactly king material). She would consider sparing Loghain because that would secure Anora's support, not because an Orlesian(!) Grey Warden(!) walks into the Landsmeet chamber and interferes. This part is completely unplayable. DAO has just too many plotholes to play a really nuanced character.

Both games are deeply flawed in their own ways, but:
Hawke is more connected to the world around him/her. The Warden is more disconnected from the world. DA2 seems to react to Hawke's personality, DAO obviously ignores the Warden's personality and offers them way too much influence.

Edit: That is, Hawke is more connected to the world unless he's an apostate mage himself. Then Hawke is disconnected from the world due to his PC status and from the player. And that's a bad thing.

Modifié par klarabella, 30 avril 2011 - 02:16 .

[Adanu]

ALl I gotta say about this thread is you people are *way* too serious about your stories and can't figure out how to *enjoy* games anymore. It has to be all philosophy now?

[TerraMantis]

@Plaintiff

I think i've come to an understanding of what you're saying and i do agree with a lot of it. So i'd like to say touche' on that front, but not to all of it. I saw a video where the developers where talking about how they had two possible stories that they liked for DA2. One that was a lot like Origins' story and the one that they went with, which he said "was the harder option to tell". I don't doubt that the story of the events of "the Champion" and Kirkwall are not going to be great. But that is basically my whole argument...GOING to be great. My feud with the narrative of DA2 wasn't not that the issues awakened within seemed weak or even weaker companions (i actually left them out of the whole equation), but that story only seemed weak because it felt as though it was only a prologue. I mean, even when movies have those dumb endings where it's like "whhhooooooo who ooooo...there's going to be another one." Dragon Age II took it to an even worse level. It felt as though they turned off the projector halfway through, after only introducing everyone and telling the predicament of the reasons an audience would even want to witness such a storytelling. They set the stage for several pivotal historic moments in Dragon Age history, which is pretty great, but then stopped without finishing-up on a single one of them.

Just say these words then if you didn't feel cheated at all. "I am completely happy with the way the game ended and at no point did it feel as though the story was only a stage setter for another installment."

Even the way they tried at every point to get rid of Hawke's entire family throughout the whole game would only suggest that they really just didn't want to have to deal with them in the next adventure. Do you know how hard and obscure it is to not have your mother die? They tried to hide the option almost. Also, one way or another you remaining sibling either dies or goes away. That is really where this "illusion of choice" definitely comes into play. Sure there may possibly be several things to choose from situationally in the story, but they're all just means to the same end.

You should really play Mass Effect. If part 3 delivers i think it could be the best story told in the history of gaming. Merrill is just a carbon copy of Tali, same exact information...but not on the same material. A highly intelligent female who is not human and always jumbles and rambles her words and worries about if she is having proper cultural interactions with your human race nuances. She is even trying to save her people and return them to their former glory. At times what she is trying to do could get her shunned, but she is doing what she thinks is for the good of her people. Sound familiar?

[TerraMantis]

@Adanu

I thought the gameplay was not fun at all and the battle scenarios were regurgitated. It was tactically nonthought provoking and asked for no intelligence of the player. Some new COMBAT mechanics were good, but the battle situations were used and reused. Their idea of a battle situation was adds...more adds, hey this boss' battle mechanic is going to be hey, you guessed, adds pop up. It felt like a Dynasty Warriors with deeper RPG elements.

So, all i've got left is the story, man.

[Ray781]

I'd like to
commend you on what is clearly a well thought out response to your problems
with this game, and state that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your opinions of
the story. That being said I'd like to say I definitely found myself
disagreeing with certain aspects of your view.



Certainly I agree that Dragon Age 2 does feel like
an extended prologue, but I felt that it was definitely intended to be
that way. Dragon Age 2 was merely meant to be an introduction to what Thedas
will be going through. The issues with the Templars and Mages was never meant
to be finished within the game, it’s most likely going to be a recurring theme
throughout the Dragon Age series with Mage v. Templar quarrels being a part of
the narrative. Also with the Qunari it was to be an expanded introduction to
these characters and there way of life, expanded of course since we didn’t get
that great a picture of them from the little information Sten provided us. In
this way Dragon Age 2 delivered what it was meant to.

As for your
interpretation of Hawke as a coward, I disagree immensely. You compare Hawke’s
and the Warden’s fighting prowess and argue that Hawke should’ve stayed and
fought like the Warden did, but the truth is the Warden had to fight the blight
head on, he/she was 1 of 2 Wardens left in Ferelden and thus the responsibility
to stop the Blight fell on them. Hawke is a nobody, he/she is a gifted
combatant but that’s it, Hawke was not special like the Wardens, despite his/her
skill, it would have been foolish to believe he/she would’ve had a significant
impact on the blight, Hawke chooses to do what is best for him/her and their
family an idea I hope you would be able to identify with.

In regard to
Ostagar, that setting while pleasing to many fans of Origins would not have
worked for the established origins of Hawke. It completely excludes the Mage
class as Hawke was an apostate trained by Malcolm Hawke, and thus would not
have been at Ostagar with the circle. In fact if that Mage was at Ostagar then
the Templars would most likely of apprehended Hawke and would’ve thrown him/her
back in the Ferelden Circle which we all know went to ****. Thus a Mage Hawke
reasonably couldn’t have started the game at Ostagar.

As for Flemeth
and her amulet, I don’t know if you were just disappointed and made up your own
ideas or simply missed it, but her motives were completely explained. It was an
insurance policy if Morrigan were to turn on her and bring about Flemeth’s
demise. She in fact states “know that you may have just saved my life, as I
once saved yours” or something along those lines. Flemeth it seems will also be
a recurring part of the Dragon Age story and as such Bioware decided to explain
her continued survival with Hawke.

With the whole
Morrigan storyline, that’s most likely over. Besides maybe a few background
mentions in future games, I think it’s best if we accept we’re not gonna see her
again. Considering that one of the endings of Witch Hunt was you killing her, don’t
expect her to be central to any main plots anytime soon. As for the story of
the Old God Baby, maybe the concept will be implemented in the future, but
really I wouldn’t expect to see Morrigan’s child anytime soon considering it is
an optional sub-plot.

The story you
proposed about the Qunari invading Kirkwall and you settling the Mage/Templar
conflict and raising an army to defend your new home. It was kinda clear that
with the death of the Arishok and/or the return of the Tome of Koslun there was
no ill will towards Kirkwall. In fact Hawkes victory would have simply made the
Qunari respect them as they appear to appreciate battle prowess and glory in
death. The whole “we will return” thing is just the Arishok’s final words to
Hawke, because we all know the Qunari are invaders and Sten even said there
will be a time where they will attack. Assumedly the Arishok’s final words were
not directed at Kirkwall specifically but just him referring to the Qunari’s
plan of domination.

As for Dragon
Age: Origins your comparison of the two stories is a little biased. Sure DA:O
has no gaping plot holes or unanswered questions but that was because it was
meant to be a stand on its own game. If the Dragon Age series did not take off
and they couldn’t justify a continuation of that setting, then Bioware could
say the story was complete anyway. DA 2 is not like that, it’s clearly part of
a series and not meant to stand on its own. DA 2 is meant to have a sequel, it is
meant to have a continuation, that’s why it has so many unanswered questions.

Modifié par Ray781, 30 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[bti79]

If I'm not mistaken both David Gaider and Mike Laidlaw has clearly said that they are not done with Morrigans story yet and that (us) Morrigans fans have someting to look forward to yet (or something to that extent). I assume that still stands.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Faroth wrote...

I'd be interested to hear about the experiences with your perfect Hawke. As I've stated, I've yet to hear two vastly different versions of Hawke's adventure as interpreted by the players through their own imagination playing a part in the story. So I'd be interested to see how Hawke played out the way you wanted and how the Warden fell short for you as a comparative.

I think it all comes down to how well you like the hook for the story. As the Warden you have to gather a army and fight the archdemon and as Hawke you have to rise as a champion. 

My Warden was a Dalish hunter and skilled with her bow who loved to spend her time with Tamlen. She despised humans and would gladly kill them on site if they ever dared to enter the forrest. When Duncan forced her to leave her clan it felt very real to me as that was exactly how my Warden wold have reacted in that situation. So far so good. But after Ostagar the game assumes that you want to be a Warden and end the blight. My Warden would not do that. She would return to her clan to flee the land with them. That's all fine and well, every BioWare game have a hook that you as a player has to swallow. I didn't and while DAO is a great game it just wasn't that much fun to play for me. 

My Hawke was a rogue that loved her family, especially Carver. She was hesitant when it came to magic and she knew it was dangerous but she grew up around it. She was equally hesitant when it came to the templars and how they treated mages. When Carver died she was devastated and started to do anything in her power to make Bethany and her mother happy again. The deep road expedition seemed like a good idea to her. It was their way out of the slums so that came natural for my Hawke. She grew closer and closer with Isabela and Varric and from a distant she admired what Aveline did for the city as a guard. As the tension grew between the templars and the mages she started to worry for Bethany but also for the safety of Kirkwall, her new home. She tried her best to stop the conflict and save Kirkwall but things happened that were out of her control and she was in the end forced to pick a side. She had failed to keep Kirkwall safe.  

That was refreshing for me. I could never fail at ending the blight/killing the archdemon only have someone else do it. Short version: I like the hook for DA2 more than I did with DAO. 

[Faroth]

So far what I've gathered from Yellow Words, klarabella, and Plaintiff is that I played DA2 looking for an interesting story in the wrong place. I've still yet to see anyone give staggeringly different explanations of their Hawke's views on the events in Kirkwall (though I see how you couldn't play the Warden how you liked...but running away with your clan and ignoring the Blight would indeed kind of make a short game hehe), they're all pretty much the same while I heard very varied "Warden mentality" when Origins was out.

However, that's only in relation to Hawke's outlook regarding the main plot!  So what have these three revealed to me? The mistake is I was looking at the plot to DA2 and Hawke as the Champion, which isn't really the point. Perhaps that's the overall arc, but the meat of DA2's plate is apparently in the companions and Hawke's personal connection to the friends and family around him/her. Perhaps I do indeed need to give another in-depth play through with more heavy focus on interacting with my companions and see if it hooks me better than my first play through.

It's difficult for me to find an urge to play the game again since everything will end up identical to my first play through, but I admit you three do have me interested. Perhaps I dismissed my companions too easily. I partially blame it on having to go to their home to find out anything about them. I liked the Origins camp allowing me to talk to companions any time, more frequently, and all together more than each one having a home base I had to go to, talk to them, go to another, talk to them, go to another, etc.

But hey, why not. You've convinced me to at least think maybe I did indeed miss something that gives DA2 some charm. I'll just have to fight through the ridiculous cartoony splatter combat and focus on the story instead. Perhaps easy mode for faster "get past the fights" and more time spent interacting with the world.

Of course Hawke's tale isn't over just yet. DA2 was an introduction and unlike Origins, whose DLC was mostly prologue and side story quality content, DA2's DLC will likely be the ongoing story of the Champion, which seems to be what Bioware is intending.  More meaningful DLC...which is a positive and negative.  There's a disturbing trend in gaming that a game can be rushed and released incomplete since DLC can fix it.  It's more bothersome if a trend begins to develop of telling only half a story in the full retail purchase because players will shell out another $30-$45 for DLC to see the rest of the story (not saying Bioware's going to release that much DLC with story for that much money, but in the industry, it's an avalanche I fear waiting to happen).

As I said in another thread, I hope Hawke is done after DA2, though. A new protagonist, preferably Origins style of different prologues/races (unlikely we'll ever see that again since they want voice acted protagonists from now on) would be preferable. But I'd like to see my Warden, since he survived, in a tavern sharing a drink with Hawke.
Hawke: F'r th' hero 'f F'rel'dn..you...you sure don't have any shtories...kinda quiet...
Warden: *shrugs*

^_~

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[TerraMantis]

@Ray781

I like your take on Ostagar. It was a spur of the moment idea that i would've really like to see. On the other hand, i really don't think it would have been too hard to write around that with what was basically the decimation and chaos to follow what was the aftermath of Ostagar. One wayward mage probably would have easily been over looked during the death of a king and a blight.

I never said Hawke was a coward, i said (in short) that my fault with the story is i didn't understand why a writer would start off Hawke's tale with what appeared to be a cowardly act of fleeing his homeland and giving no real perspective as to why. I have no problem with Hawke leaving Loather, in many cases the Warden fleed their past home, i just wanted some insight as to why. Just saying "EEK!!! there's a blight!!" isn't good enough for me.

As for the Flemeth thing, you're not the first person to tell me that. So, I have gone through to that point in the story to see it again after-the-fact of writing this article. I have to say that...it is still pretty ambiguous with Flemeth's wording. Although, i can easily see how everyone came to the conclusion that they did and it seems to be a rational one. Nevertheless, you have to consider the source, when speaking to Flemeth, she is wordy, ambiguous, and picks her words carefully...and with a dash of crazily. But, my true gripe with it was not really her lack of thorough explaining it was the, what felt like, a cheap attention grab of throwing her in there with no real follow up.

Lastly, as for the part where you say i am a little bias, you're wrong. I am completely bias. I liked DA: Os more, what can i say. It is right in the title of the article.

Thanks for the read and the good insight.

Modifié par TerraMantis, 30 avril 2011 - 02:02 .

[88mphSlayer]

Adanu wrote...

ALl I gotta say about this thread is you people are *way* too serious about your stories and can't figure out how to *enjoy* games anymore. It has to be all philosophy now?

i found it very easy to enjoy the story of DA2, really just wish they put more time into developing Orsino & Meredith by letting one or the other live after the initial anulment battle (maybe letting them turn on us later for a better reason), and explored the idol and Hawke's last days in Kirkwall (with maybe a cameo from Flemeth too)

The Witcher would've been disappointing as well if it had ended with the civil war, instead you went on to clean up the Salamanders with whichever side of the civil war you picked, having possible betrayal in the form of Meredith/Orsino later on in would've been an improvement over The Witcher if you ask me

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 30 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[Faroth]

My problem with Flemeth was her...what, 5 minutes of appearance, and she warranted being featured in promotional artwork? Why?

I was expecting her to be a more driving force as an antagonist based on that and kept expecting her return. 10 years and nothing.

But the numerous aesthetic changes from Origins also pretty much pushed me away. I don't think I liked a single artistic change in DA2. Felt too much like reinventing the world as a reimagined Thedas rather than expanding on Origins in many of those cases.

Edit: I've been thinking about playing The Witcher. Recommended while we wait for DA2 DLC?

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 02:06 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Faroth wrote...

So far what I've gathered from Yellow Words, klarabella, and Plaintiff is that I played DA2 looking for an interesting story in the wrong place. I've still yet to see anyone give staggeringly different explanations of their Hawke's views on the events in Kirkwall (though I see how you couldn't play the Warden how you liked...but running away with your clan and ignoring the Blight would indeed kind of make a short game hehe), they're all pretty much the same while I heard very varied "Warden mentality" when Origins was out.

Frankly I would have enjoyed the game much more if I could have expressed the desire to leave and my Dalish girls dislike for the Wardens but that pretty much stopped after Duncan forces you to leave.

As for giving the DA2 another go, why not? You may not like it more or even end up disliking it more. It's not for everyone. Personally, I ended up with a deeper connection to all the followers in DA2 than I did in DAO. So that was another big part of why I like DA2 more. For me it's a more personal experience while Im playing the game.