77 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Faroth wrote...
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.

My issues were with pacing, mostly. In some ways, I did feel somewhat cheated. The game is advertised to take place over the course of a decade, but the three acts, the important parts, take up very little of the span of time the game actually covers, with three-year gaps in-between where nothing happens. And the thing is, it didn't have to take ten years. It could've covered five, or less. The unseen things that are only heard through narration don't need that much time. They can occur over the course of one year, or less. They chronology of events was set up so they could advertise DA2 asa much bigger game than it actually is. I have no problem with the amount of content in and of itself, I've played a lot of great games that were as long or shorter, but the wording of the advertising spun the game to make it sound fuller than it actually is. And it didn't need to, they could've said it was a five or three year-long game and nothing major would change.

I think also there were some missed opportunities. They could've shown Hawke and his sibling working with Athenril or Meeran. Why skip a year ahead? Why not plan the Deep Roads expedition around their smuggling/mercenary work? For those who purchased the Exiled Prince DLC, why not actually go to Starkhaven and reclaim the throne? I at least hope they're planning to do something with that later.

But the most important missed opportunity; the threat of the Templars should've been played up a lot more. There are sadists and rapists among their ranks, but that's only hinted at, never really seen. In a supposed "dark" fantasy, they should really play that aspect up. Having them assault Hawke directly would be tricky to implement because it interferes with crucial story mechanics like his ability to wander freely around town. But why not have them try to take Bethany early on? Anders keeps talking about how they're hanging around the clinic, and I'm perfectly willing to believe they are, but why don't we ever see them? Even Alrik, who is decidedly creepy, isn't really threatening enough. Have him manhandle Ella; don't **** out with implications, have him dictate in very clear terms exactly what he plans to do with her. I get their reasons for avoiding this; the mages are very sympathetic as is, despite the fact that most of the individual mages we encounter are obviously irredeemable bastards, and they don't want to make the decision too easy. But I think they could've pulled it off. People already staunchly defend the templars despite how negatively they're portrayed, I doubt actually seeing some templar abuse would've swayed them, there are sympathetic templars enough to balance it out.

I bought Origins quite some time after its release, because they were offering a code to get the Stone Prisoner DLC for free, I had next to no experience with Bioware games previously. I realize my criticisms of Origins may seem fairly harsh compared to my defense of DA2. I like Origins a lot, but I think people are definitely exaggerating its greatness. I've said it was formulaic and it is, but that's not a bad thing at all. The formula persists because it works, it's a tool to be used, not shunned, and there's no shame in using a formula and using it well. But what really stands out is a very well-realized world. The things that made Origins interesting and distinctive from other Tolkien-esque RPGs, (which previously have all seemed very identical to me), were the politics of the world and character interactions, and those really come to the fore in DA2, so in my eyes, it's overall a success.

I can see why people consider 2 somewhat lacklustre, in a prolonged series of any medium, the installments between the first and last can and will frequently plateau, or be somewhat muddled. It's not easy to avoid. The way I view DA2 is in fact, as a series of short stories. Interconnected, featuring the same characters, but distinctly different. Maybe that would make it easier to stomach for those who bemoan the lack of cohesion between acts.

As I said before, in large part, I blame the advertising; we were lead to believe that Hawke would play a more active role, when he is in fact a victim of circumstance. And in the beginning it does seem that way; we were told that Hawke would be a legend, the most important character of the world in its current state. And he is, but when we play the game, Cassandra, the rest of Thedas, and the audience have initially been lead to believe that Hawke somehow engineered the Mage-Templar conflict. The truth of Hawke's story defies that expectation, which is frustrating for for many, but it was a bold and refreshing move for the gaming industry, or at least, I've never seen anything like that. I really hope the backlash doesn't discourage Bioware or other game companies from experimenting with this kind of story, because whatever the failings of Dragon Age 2 (and obviously some people think there are many), I think this style has great potential.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 avril 2011 - 03:58 .

[Plaintiff]

Faroth wrote...
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*

^_~

Actually, David Gaider has posted somewhere that they are considering re-using the "Origins" idea, at least for some future installments. I would love this to happen. The Origins stand out to me as great ways of fleshing out the world, establishing the status quo, introducing subplots and background conflicts before bringing the main plot to the fore. The mage, city elf and Dalish Origins are the best examples of this, I thought, although my personal favourite is Human Noble, due to the personal connection to Howe and, by extension, Loghain. Origins would be a great way of showing how people of different territories and races are coping during/in the wake of the mage-templar conflict.

As far as aesthetics; I'll agree that DA2 feels almost like a complete revamp. But honestly? I think it was needed. Despite how it may appear from my posts, I was borderline in love with Origins, but speaking objectively, purely in terms of aesthetics, it is a seriously ugly game. There is so much grey and brown and it gets really monotonous before long. The buildings look like they're held together with spit and prayers. Clothing is even worse. Even the "light" armor is bulky and each kind only comes in like, three colours: all of them hideous. Games are a visual medium and as such I think graphics, while by no means priority one, deserve consideration. I hate to bring up JRPGs in a thread like this (I suspect some of their more vicious detractors would attack me for doing so) but if there is one thing they do well; it's creating lush, vibrant, detailed environments that are a joy to explore, purely for the sake of looking around. I'm not saying Thedas needs a forest made of crystal, or whatever. But despite the improvements made in DA2, they could definitely stand to expand their colour palette.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 avril 2011 - 03:50 .

[LobselVith8]

Majspuffen wrote...

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.

That's because the Circle of Kirkwall was killed for an act they had nothing to do with, and Hawke's support of the Right of Annulment was an example of their "brutal oppression" (as Varric said). Hawke is a hero to the templars and a villain of the mages, and they rise up to free themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

[Faroth]

Plaintiff wrote...

As far as aesthetics; I'll agree that DA2 feels almost like a complete revamp. But honestly? I think it was needed. Despite how it may appear from my posts, I was borderline in love with Origins, but speaking objectively, purely in terms of aesthetics, it is a seriously ugly game. There is so much grey and brown and it gets really monotonous before long. The buildings look like they're held together with spit and prayers. Clothing is even worse. Even the "light" armor is bulky and each kind only comes in like, three colours: all of them hideous. Games are a visual medium and as such I think graphics, while by no means priority one, deserve consideration. I hate to bring up JRPGs in a thread like this (I suspect some of their more vicious detractors would attack me for doing so) but if there is one thing they do well; it's creating lush, vibrant, detailed environments that are a joy to explore, purely for the sake of looking around. I'm not saying Thedas needs a forest made of crystal, or whatever. But despite the improvements made in DA2, they could definitely stand to expand their colour palette.

Though this isn't story-based discussion, I'll tap it once.

I agree the overhaul in graphics was due.  I'm sure Origins was working with outdated technology by its halfway completion point (let's face it, a game is nearly outdated by the time it's announced with technology's advancement).  However, I think the earthen tones worked for Origins.  Grey and brown is pretty common. Take a look around old areas. Look at old Westerns, ruins of the Incas and Aztec.  Grey and brown stone.  Wood is brown.  In a realm like Ferelden, you aren't worried about sprucing up your house with paint.  Clothing?  Leather is brown, though it could be stained, but you'd likely see that for more costly armor.

I liked the armor in Origins with the earth tones for leather and the plate being basic silver.

JRPGs tend to be more fantastical worlds, though.  Origins isn't. It's a dark, drab, foreboding world in Ferelden. They've barely thrown off Orlesian oppression and then the Blight hits.  I think having that country be more dull and dreary was a good point for Origins.  By contrast, Kirkwall is more arguably "well off" financially, though I still saw mostly tan and earthen tones throughout the city.  It didn't really have colorful flair, though again with the construction materials, should it?

Dirt ridden streets are going to be dingy.  Clothes will likewise get dirty fast.  I think it's appropriate and fitting.  Now, if we get to Antiva and Orlais, I'd expect color.  Colorful garments, elaborate robes and gowns on NPCs, drapes and curtains, silks of green, purple, red, almost jarring in its contrast to Ferelden and Kirkwall.  And I do hope we get to these places eventually.

But what I generally meant about the aesthetics was the drastic changes to races.
Elves went from being humanish with "knife ears" (admittedly generic Tolkienesque elves) to looking, as one poster put it, like human/navii (Avatar) hybrids.  I didn't feel it was necessary.  Characters I recognized, like the Clan's Keeper looked drastically different...in fact younger with time.

The qunari went from large humans, which I presumed they were a "fantasy barbarian physique" humans with a vastly different culture in Origins, not a different species, to being basically ogres (I unashamedly said they look like WoW's draenei with plated foreheads and horns and blue/gray skin).  Look at how much the Darkspawn corruption alters humans into hurloks and dwarves into genloks in Origins. Now compare the ogre to the qunari. It feels they just get larger with worse teeth compared to the drastic transformation the Origins version had. 

I'll retract that. After looking at the current qunari and the ogres, I do see how they "fit" creating ogres better.  However, I feel Bioware didn't put enough effort into the "new" qunari's explanation.  Simply put, I would have accepted the revelation that Sten and the Origins mercenaries were in fact large, very muscular humans who had accepted the Qun, thus making them Qunari as much as the actual race of the same name.

Flemeth I can accept, but still seemed unnecessary for her to seem like some warrior woman battle mage.

Worst of all, the darkspawn. I despise the Skeletor darkspawn. I preferred Origins "disfigured orc" monstrosities of varying appearance.  Introduce the zombie-esque version, fine, but nothing but that one type was disappointing.

I didn't feel each race needed a visual difference. They were all similarly humanish, but the cultures were different and that's what interested me about the way the races were handled.  I did like giving the daelish a different accent though.

But I'm not sure the aesthetics contribute to the story, so I won't ramble further on them.

I think regarding the story itself, Plaintiff, I could probably agree with you. Pacing may indeed be what I felt lacking and that's why I dislike DA2.  It certainly doesn't feel like a decade of time, at least not for content, and could have been 3-5 years easily.  Missed opportunities to expand on the development of characters and, like you said, a more foreboding, oppressive nemesis with the templars.

Honestly, outside of conversation, I felt the Templars didn't seem to be that bad in what we saw, only what we were told.  Meanwhile, it seemed every mage in Kirkwall was a blood mage and died by my sword.  It did make it hard to say "These guys need more freedom" when every single battle had some mages trying to blow me up!

While Origins may be formulaic, I think people's love for it and their views of its greatness don't come from the game's story being original so much as it did put the different choices and multiple endings into the game, a formula that isn't employed in RPGs anymore.  I don't remember a notable RPG with multiple different endings since Chrono Trigger on SNES.  Origins gets extra praise for being a breath of fresh air in a market of identical style JRPGs.

It's sort of like all the MMOs that come out basically copying WoW.  You don't succeed copying what's already on the market in strength.  I'm hoping EverQuest Next offers a different take on the MMO instead, though I admit...I had been hoping Star Wars: The Old Republic would give Bioware the clout for a Thedas MMO in the far future.

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 05:27 .

[graavigala85]

I have said same things as OP many times, not as thoroughly
And I agree, the story is just a huge joke that cant be taken seriously and I bet thats the point. We dont need or even want to take it seriously

[EternalPink]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Majspuffen wrote...

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.

That's because the Circle of Kirkwall was killed for an act they had nothing to do with, and Hawke's support of the Right of Annulment was an example of their "brutal oppression" (as Varric said). Hawke is a hero to the templars and a villain of the mages, and they rise up to free themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

Except its not, if you side with the mages ( as i did ) you still have the exact same ending where you have to kill everybody and exactly how you can be a rally cry to other circles is not explained since the only none dead people are the characters party, the character himself and a templer.

About the only thing that varrics story conveys to me is the futility of ever getting involved in anybodies problems

[IanPolaris]

Faroth wrote...

Honestly, outside of conversation, I felt the Templars didn't seem to be that bad in what we saw, only what we were told.  Meanwhile, it seemed every mage in Kirkwall was a blood mage and died by my sword.  It did make it hard to say "These guys need more freedom" when every single battle had some mages trying to blow me up!

This was deliberate.  DA2 was specifically written to try to make the mages look worse than they really were and the templars look better than they really were because the Devs were upset that people were picking mages "almost by default".

Again more bad writing, and they even hide the reason (Kirkwall Hellmouth) why it's so hard to be a same mage in obscure codex entries that few players will actually read.

-Polaris

[Faroth]

They definitely should have shown the ugly side of both groups in more detail. I learned of the "hellmouth" (nice reference, btw) after completing the game. I missed some early clues to get all of those entries.

[LobselVith8]

@EternalPink, I don't dispute how linear the storyline is. All I intended was to address that a pro-templar Hawke who helps Knight-Commander Meredith isn't a hero to the mages but to the templars. Besides addressing that there were "many survivors" if Hawke doesn't massacre mages from the Circle because of the act committed by an apostate, I agree that the endings are almost identical.

[Persephone]

klarabella wrote...

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.

Wow, Klarabella, we rarely agree on anything except Alistair, but this is an EXCELLENT post IMHO. Your Canon Warden and mine have several things in common (Not just their last name either, heh!). Well said!<3

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

I completely agree with you, DA2 is not epic nor is it good story telling, it is just advertising and plot with no real substance.

[nuclearpengu1nn]

i miss my warden

[Carmen_Willow]

Excellent posts from one and all on both sides of the issue.

I would just like to add my own thoughts to this thread. IMO, there were two areas of the game that disappointed me.

The first has been discussed at length -- no choice I made really seemed to matter. No matter what I decided to do, the outcomes were the same. I am replaying the game now simply to build a better mage, rogue, or warrior not to see how the story changes. Because it never changes; not really.

My second issue was lack of depth in the companion characterizations. In Origins, by the time Alistair gave me the rose, I really knew the guy. Through our conversations, I knew how he felt about his childhood. I knew how he felt about Duncan and his death. His conflicted feelings for Arl Eamon. His rage at Loghain.

Through his interaction with my other companions I knew about his basic distrust of Morrigan. I knew that he liked Wynne. I knew he was okay with Leliana. Through his behavior, I knew he was smarter than he knew. I knew he had the potential for leadership but was unwilling to discover it. I also knew that he really liked being a Grey Warden. I knew that they were the family he'd never had. All this took place before Alistair ever handed me that flower. The same could be said of the other companions. I knew them well.

I cannot say the same about Fenris, Anders, Isabella or Merrill. Through plot devices, Fenris can't remember and Anders and Merrill aren't telling. The only two characters I really felt I knew well were Varric and Aveline. Heck, I didn't even really know my sister (or brother) that well. I've heard various explanations as to why this is so. For me, there simply wasn't enough information given to me through direct interaction with the characters. In short, I missed the ability to have a conversation with my companions. There also was a distinct lack of behavior that told me about their character as opposed to their quests. Think about it: It was through Wynne's behavior (and dialogue) that she became the "preachy schoomarm" of Dragon Age. Leliana liked to talk, and talk, and talk. Oh and she adored fashion. And she was religious. We learn this through direct conversation, companion conversation and through her behavior. And even if we learn that her entire persona in Origins was an act--- even THAT would make sense given what we knew of her in Origins. Origins companions were well fleshed out people. They were people I cared about.

Sure the Hero's story was an old tale. It was an archetypal tale. But it was told very well. It was told so well that after seeing the different Alistair outcomes in DA:2, I will never harden Alistair or make him king again in Origins. It is clear that his best outcome is to be the Grey Warden he was meant to be. And I can't deny my pixelated friend the future he deserves. After all, I really liked the guy. And he gave me a rose.

[Gavinthelocust]

Story structure, if DA2 focused just on the mages vs templars(or the Qunari) for the whole game it would have been more coherent. There's little build up, we just get plopped in a year with a bit of information on what happened in the past three years and a situation we have to fix. Fragmenting the story just seems like Bioware trying to get all these ideas squeezed in there until it makes no sense.

[TerraMantis]

@Gavinthelocust

I'm worried for Hawke's next tale. Hopefully it will not have the same structure...or hopefully it will, and actually tie up all of the lose ends that DA2 opened up. Honestly though i hope it does not have another scattered storyline with the conclusion to the Qunari and templar/mage conflict, i would rather it focus on a more brilliantly concluded singular aspect. We will see.

[valkulon]

Plaintiff wrote... Pure Awesome Post.

You nailed it on the head for pretty much everything I could possibly respond to the OP's post.

So +1 from me.

[pallascedar]

I really disagree with a couple things: first your analysis about the defeating the ogre story. First: something we all have to understand is that gameplay isn't completely synonymous with story. Hawke and the warden both fought waves of darkspawn and an ogre. Neither would be able to take on the whole darkspawn horde. Both would have died had they not fled the horde. This argument just seems silly.

Secondly, Flemeth, while I agree with you DAII just set up a Flemeth storyline, DA;O did the exact same thing. I don't think they put Flemeth in as a cheap gesture to Morrigan lovers, they put her in because they wanted to progress her story within the world.

All-in-all, I think DA:II's storyline had a great deal of potential. Abnormally talented refugee just trying to live his/her life and inadvertently setting into motion tons of crazy events is a lot more fresh of a storyline than abnormally talented member of persecuted order goes on epic journey to save the world for evil.

The real problem with DAII was that the story was told too quickly, there were definitely parts where it should have slowed down, at the end of DA:O I felt the Warden had real relationships with all his companions. Even though I liked the friendship/rivalry system more than approval system, the game and its relationships, felt rushed (though I loved Aveline). I talked to each companion once or twice per act, and didn't really get to know them well. My choices felt like they made a much smaller difference in the world as well. 

The story had a lot, lot of potential, the writers and development team just failed to capitalize on that potential like they did in DA:O, in many ways that lots of other people have already mentioned.

Modifié par pallascedar, 08 mai 2011 - 07:31 .

[Foolsfolly]

I read your entire first post, OP.

And I find myself agreeing with you most of the time. No big disagreement. But I have to say, this post is the first time I've seen a good look at the Idol.

That's not dwarven. That person on it is elven or human, not dwarven.

[In Exile]

[quote]Yellow Words wrote...
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.[/quote]

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. 

[/quote]

Without getting bogged down in this debate (which I had a lot of times prior to the release of DA2) I also find that Hawke was a more gripping and relatable protagonist, because Hawke was active in scenes versus passive.

Now, content wise, the Warden shaped the world more than Hawke did... but the Warden had no actual voice or action within the story.

It is impossible for the to relate to what, practically, is a silent and motionless doll the same way I would to a speaking person. And I mean this as my character. Not as a character.

To clarify, I wouldn't see (say) the progagonist from Fallout 3:NV as a person, just as a player avatar that is a souless automaton.

[In Exile]

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.

So here you go:

Adrian Hawke: sarcastic, altoghether laid back and lazy mage. Talented, but disinterest and a smartass. Wants power and wealth, but doesn't want to do anything to earn it. Even as a mage, he supported the templars with his brother Carver as a
way to avoid their pursuit. The Deep Roads were an opportunity and the situation was desperate. Afterwards, there was no need to do anything. Involvement with the qunari was a fluke - just another way to pass the time with his friends, causing who knows what trouble around Kirkwall for the sake of a laugh. Irresponsible to the last, Adrian Hawke was made champion by sheer circumstance and forced to defend the Circle due to Meredith's insanity and her inevitable decision to kill Hawke once she finished with the Circle.

Malcon Hawke (II) was a good person. Always wanted to help, always wanted to do the right thing. Family was the most important thing in his life, and Bethany was what he lived to protect. The Deep Roads were for her sake; he couldn't bear to leave her in Kirkwall, and he almost lost his sister to the darkspawn if not for Anders. When Leandra died due to blood magic, Malcom Hawke decided that every mage was responsible - his hatred for them became all consuming. When Anders insanity became clear, and Meredith finally took action against the mages, Hawke revelled in it.

That's just two variants. I have more.

With the Warden, I always felt locked into the identity of the Warden, no matter how much I wanted a different character. After Ostagar, you couldn't be reluctant; you could blame Duncan or hate the order. A Cousland couldn't become King alone...

I felt much more trapped identity wise, and had a much harder time relating to, the Warden versus Hawke.

[pingupower]

Well my issue with DA2 was the gap in years. 3 years pause and one year awesome in fact made me wonder what happened in those years. This hurt the game more than it did good. The settling had to be kept but in turn this became inconsistent with the rest of the story. In 3 years the relationships should have evolved, the equipment too and some things must have happended. In DAO the story was real short like a year so you could keep track and there was no unanswered blank time.
The voicing brought a lot of immersion on the other hand. Selecting a line of dialogue really brought something to the personality compared to origins where dialogues felt less natural.

But I liked DA2 and found it satisfying. I think most people misinterpret the story, like the OP. In DAO you are the hero of Ferelden. You are in a crisis, have to think first short term and know that your actions will have longer term consequences. But the Blight cones first and you know you are the only one who can do something. You are epic and decisive whether you like it or not. The choices you make are necessary for the sake of the greater good, no matter which they are. You are meant to shape the world.
In DA2 you are not the champion but Hawke. The distinction is important. You are not meant to shape the world. You're first goal is sruvival (Prologue) and material safety (act1). You act not to shape the world or for some big purpose you first act to protect yourself and your family. Indeed the epic of DAO was contributed to the fact you were alone with your crew of awesome fighters and had no burden nor tie to anyhing or anyone. In DA2 you have a mother you have to sustain who is a burden you have to think about. Also you become important only in the course of the game. Here many are disapointed that the consequences of choices do not import enough. But that's the whole point. You are actor of the events not playwrite. You act in a world that revolve on its own. In act 2 the war is certain, you know it from the first conversation. Whatever you will do you know you will fight. If Hawke could destroy all zealots against the Qunari would it be realistic (it means zerking a quarter of the city's population)? Zerking the Qunari would be no more (if it was, the templars would have done it). The war could have been avoided yes: Elthina, the Dunmars or the Arishok could have avoided it had they acted differently. But they did not, and you are only a pawn in the game of the powerfull. In act 3 same story except it is far more explicit. You can only take sides in the war. Althoug this time you are in the same position as the hero (or nearly): you matter and decide who wins.
What I liked in DA2 is that subplots would affect the future. Small secondary quests would find their sequel years later based on what you did. While they would not change the face of the world they add flavour and a sense of coherence to the story.

In short the Hero shapes a new world, the Champion lives in a world and does the best he can out of it.

[Faroth]

Pingupower,

I can agree with your view of DA2, but if that's what we were supposed to expect, Bioware shouldn't have advertised Hawke as one of the most important people in shaping Thedas and that your choices will shape the world over the course of a decade.

The fact of the matter is Hawke is irrelevant. Hawke's decisions make no difference and do nothing.

Anders changed the course of history. He's the real catalyst for change in the story.

And Varric's the show stealer, imo.

I'll give DA2 another play through and stomach the hack n' slash splattery with a completely different outlook on Hawke.

I'm afraid, however, I'll remain disappointed that, as In Exile describes, Adrian and Malcon had very different views and very different motivations.....but they both slaughtered every mage and templar in sight through Kirkwall before killing Orsino and Meredith with last minute plot reasons ("Oh, Meredith bought the idol for some reason and put it on her sword. She's truly is crazy now" and "I was supporting blood magic all the while and now I'll use it myself.")

I just don't see the branching paths in Origins appearing in DA2, though I see a plethora of opportunities for those branching paths, even if they lead to the same final conclusion of rebellion by the Circles in Thedas.

And I agree Origins didn't let you completely negate the entire game and leave Ferelden (wouldn't that have been...10 hour game?) you did have options to express your distaste. I remember asking Alistair if we could let the Wardens handle this, go find them and leave it on their lap. Alistair explained why it wasn't feasible. I remember having some really nasty options when Alistair talked about Duncan for those who didn't want to be Wardens (I didn't choose it...Duncan saved my butt from being dead).

I'm not complaining that Hawke is forced to go to Kirkwall, forced to become Champion, or forced to side with Mage/Templar at the end. Those are the rails we have to follow, just as the Warden had to follow the rails to become Hero of Ferelden by slaying the archdemon.

My frustration is that Bioware offered little deviation from those rails in side paths.
Every decision in Act I, you lose your sibling. Is that necessary? Would the story's conclusion be altered had the sibling stayed with you?

Why give the option of helping Anders when it all leads to Anders doing his quest regardless? More importantly, why leave that whole "separation from Justice" plotline hanging with NO FOLLOW UP AT ALL? Seriously, did Hawke just forget WHY they were gathering things for Anders?

Resolutionists plotline. Why open this plotline, have your sibling (my Gray Warden sister was kidnapped from her room, but the Wardens aren't in Kirkwall now?) kidnapped, go there, only to have them turn on you after you say you agree with them? Why set it up and not follow through?

I really would have expected, based on Origins, the following paths at the end after the Chantry is destroyed:

Side with Templars, march into the Circle and slay Orsino. Meredith goes on to suggest furthering the strict handling of mages in other Circles, more use of Annulment and Tranquil rites, leading to rebellion.

Side with Mages, defend against the Templars, defeat Meredith and your name becomes synonomous with mage freedom, leading to rebellion by Circles around Thedas.

Side with the Resolutionists. Defeat both Orsino and Meredith and begin to establish a new Order in Kirkwall of Mages policing themselves with Templars assisting in stopping mages going rogue. With the Chantry no longer present, this Order functions differently and becomes a beacon other Circles want to move towards, leading to rebellion of the Circles in Thedas.

Quite different roads but they'd all lead to Rome, and that's just what I would have expected in the final decision. I'm sure many more could have been woven into the game in other areas.

Alternatively, if they would have dealt with political intrigue more heavily throughout the entire game, cut scenes not involving Hawke (like we saw Loghain's activities in Origins), betrayals from within, another family working against Hawke's rise to High Town, etc. would have drawn me in.

Final Fantasy Tactics, for example, has a fantastic "kingdoms at war" story with a lot of political aspects....then it all goes "rawr, monsters, destroy the world" and I got a little disappointed. DA2 should have been more political intrigue and maneuvering than adventuring if they wanted the Champion's rise within the city as the focus.

But now I'm really rambling. Lemme sum up...again:

Hawke is irrelevant. Anders changed the course of history.
Varric steals the show.

Modifié par Faroth, 09 mai 2011 - 01:10 .

[cdtrk65]

My Dragon Age 2 story in a nutshell:

Hawke was a mage, and romanced Anders and agreed with pretty much everything he did and said. How could she not? She had been free for all her life, while other's with magic where inprisioned it felt like a duty to help free them. She always tried to act for the good of others, of course it didn't hurt if she got a little cash for doing so. She felt blackmailed (and told Anders so) when he got her to distract the grand cleric. She suffered doubts about her convictions when her mother was killed and not to mention everytime a mage she helped came back with evil. Finally when Anders blows up the chantry, it wasn't only a terrorist act, it was an act of betrayal. It always cast her between a rock and a hard spot. She had to choose, not between the templars and the mages, but her own ambition (freedom for mages, love) or the safety of the city. She hestitantly sided with the templars, and against her own desires.

This ending was very much like the ultimate sacrifice in my mind. I'm not surprised, even though she was named viscount that she left Kirkwall. The viscount title would be something of a sad reminder of everything lost.

---

Now, though I think the biggest weakness of the story is that it is too scattered, and not focused enough. Is it about a rise to power? A qunari envasion, or mages vs templars. Where orgins had a single focus and that was to eliminate the darkspawn threat.

The warden can be ruthless, a true paragon or somewhere in between. And I think that is another area that many here are lamenting. Origins had more replay ability in that the warden could be a very different character form one play through to the next.

Still though I have enjoyed both games, and I dont understand all the hate on for DA2. Both stories are good, however I like Hawkes better, and I for one hope that it's not over.

[Plaintiff]

I'm gonna take a shot at responding to some of these.

Faroth wrote...

My frustration is that Bioware offered little deviation from those rails in side paths.
Every decision in Act I, you lose your sibling. Is that necessary? Would the story's conclusion be altered had the sibling stayed with you?

Necessary? I guess not. Personally I think it's more interesting. I think there are options enough in regard to how your sibling leaves you, and I think putting in a way to keep them would've been a mistake. The point of the choices is that they are supposed to be difficult to make. If they want to maintain "grey & grey" morality, putting in an obvious "right" choice is a cop-out. IE, the situation with Connor. They set up a difficult moral decision only to then tell you "Ooooor you could just go to the Circle tower and get the mages there to help and everyone will be happy. It's cool, we'll totally wait for you."

Not to mention, that particular fork in the road leads to several branching paths later on. A pro-Templar Hawke can allow Meredith to execute a weeping Bethany, just as an example.

Why give the option of helping Anders when it all leads to Anders doing his quest regardless? More importantly, why leave that whole "separation from Justice" plotline hanging with NO FOLLOW UP AT ALL? Seriously, did Hawke just forget WHY they were gathering things for Anders?

Actually, you do get a follow up. On the Rivalry path he may choose to tell you himself in dialogue, but either way it's made pretty clear that Anders was lying and the ingredients he asked you to gather were always going to be for a bomb. Currently there is no known way to separate Anders from Justice, that is the resolution of the plotline, I don't like it either but it's not flawed in a technical, story-telling sense.

As for why Anders goes ahead and does the quest without you... well, the blowing up of the Chantry is a major plot point, and why shouldn't he go out and do the quest on his own? He's a big boy, he can handle himself. This also marks a significant difference in the stories of both games.

In Origins you have one goal, namely, defeating the Archdemon, and that one missions supercedes all others. Your party members joined you to stop the Blight, and have all essentially pledged to travel with aid you, first and foremost, to the exclusion of personal issues. It makes sense that they wouldn't make a move without your approval.

But in DA2, the associations with your companions are much more informal, they all have their own hangouts when they're not with you and dialogue and party banter makes it clear that they all possess a certain degree of autonomy and have their own lives when they're not following you around. There are other instances where your companions will do things without you if you refuse them. Decide not to give Merrill the arulin'holm? She finds a way aroud that. Refuse to help Aveline expose Jeven? She gets promoted to guard captain anyway.

Resolutionists plotline. Why open this plotline, have your sibling (my Gray Warden sister was kidnapped from her room, but the Wardens aren't in Kirkwall now?) kidnapped, go there, only to have them turn on you after you say you agree with them? Why set it up and not follow through?

This was frustrating for me too, but I think you're a bit confused on plot details. I didn't see anything to indicate that the mages who kidnap Bethany were "Resolutionists", maybe in terms of their beliefs, but I doubt there's any political affiliation. That they don't recognise you as an ally is annoying, I have nothing to say to that. But as I understand it, they're being led by Grace, who has manipulated the others into believing they're fighting for mage freedom when in reality she's only out for revenge against Hawke. When Thrask attempts to bargain, she kills him to force your hand.

[Medhia Nox]

- I would have had the first act in Lothering.

- I would have made the game about one, of several, plotlines:

- The Arishok
- The Kirkwall Killer (my primary choice)
- Meredith and Orsino

- I would have made every quest deal with a companion (side quests) or the main plotline and I would have likely had the companion quests far outnumber the main plotline quests.

- I would have removed the terrorist plotline and let Meredith and Orsino's rage do enough damage to Kirkwall to cause the events of the background story.

- I would have made Anders side with Orsino if the inevitable mage rebellion took place, but only if...
- You did not separate him from Justice. ((Which of course means that his claim of a ritual to do so would have been genuine)).
- Or if you do separate him from Justice, but you side with Orsino.

- I would have made Meredith and Orsino twisted because of human reasons - not magic.

- I would "save" this storyline from magical mind control idols - and spirits - because I feel it's an abuse of fantasy elements that really damages this stories relevancy.

- I would remove the Arishok altogether if I wasn't going to make that storyline "the" storyline.
- Or I would make the Qunari part of Companion character's story. But - not as implemented. I would have probably followed the better story of the Viscount's son and his interest in the Qunari ways and how that would cause a huge scandal in the city.

======

Honestly - there's so much I would change - and none of it turns the game into a "save the world" storyline.

As a "slice of life" game - I feel Dragon Age 2 fails even worse than if it were to be passed off as "heroic fantasy".