144 réponses à ce sujet

[ademska]

Blastback wrote...

I'll be the first to agree that a story with the hero failing is intresting, even good, but I just don't think that it is fun to play.  It's the sort of thing that I think should be reserved for books, or movies, or tv.  and in those mediums, I'd love it.  But it doesn't play to the strengths of a video game, where you are the one doing the failing..

And yeah, that's just my opinion.

i disagree, at least in the case of this one singular example. i'm certainly not looking for all games to emulate this kind of deconstructive approach to storytelling, oh god no. one or two is enough.

i romanced anders on my first playthrough, so i had the dual impact of building a sickly sweet relationship and conquering evil/being called a 'champion' all completely fall apart in a grand blaze (ohohoho) of absolutely no glory. it was striking, and hit me in a way origins never touched.

so, yeah, i'm not advocating for this kind of narrative in future bioware games, but for da2, i thought it was lovely. conversely, i understand why some people don't want that in a game.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:06 .

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

It's interesting you put it that way, because that's essentially how DA:O made me feel. The Warden was played the Flemeth, with the only option to get back at her to refuse her plan, and defeating the archdemon does nothing to really change anything about the darkspawn (the continue to exist) and the future of the blights (there are more archdemons, and we don't even know if killing all the archdemons will stop the blight). 

No, but at least we managed to save the nation of Ferelden.  to me, that was enough to make me feel like I had done something important.  And I get your argument about it being Flemeth's plan, but it never really felt that way to me. 

[Aaleel]

Blastback wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

It's interesting you put it that way, because that's essentially how DA:O made me feel. The Warden was played the Flemeth, with the only option to get back at her to refuse her plan, and defeating the archdemon does nothing to really change anything about the darkspawn (the continue to exist) and the future of the blights (there are more archdemons, and we don't even know if killing all the archdemons will stop the blight). 

No, but at least we managed to save the nation of Ferelden.  to me, that was enough to make me feel like I had done something important.  And I get your argument about it being Flemeth's plan, but it never really felt that way to me. 

Well for me stopping the rest of Ferelden and surrounding nations from ending up burned, blighted, and destroyed made me feel like I had made some sort of difference.  Bringing the races of the land together to fight the archdemon.  If you look at the damage caused by other Blights, you nipping Blight #5 in the bud saved a lot of people.

[Blastback]

Aaleel wrote...

Blastback wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

It's interesting you put it that way, because that's essentially how DA:O made me feel. The Warden was played the Flemeth, with the only option to get back at her to refuse her plan, and defeating the archdemon does nothing to really change anything about the darkspawn (the continue to exist) and the future of the blights (there are more archdemons, and we don't even know if killing all the archdemons will stop the blight). 

No, but at least we managed to save the nation of Ferelden.  to me, that was enough to make me feel like I had done something important.  And I get your argument about it being Flemeth's plan, but it never really felt that way to me. 

Well for me stopping the rest of Ferelden and surrounding nations from ending up burned, blighted, and destroyed made me feel like I had made some sort of difference.  Bringing the races of the land together to fight the archdemon.  If you look at the damage caused by other Blights, you nipping Blight #5 in the bud saved a lot of people.

Oh, I agree. 

[ipgd]

Blastback wrote...

I'll be the first to agree that a story with the hero failing is intresting, even good, but I just don't think that it is fun to play.  It's the sort of thing that I think should be reserved for books, or movies, or tv.  and in those mediums, I'd love it.  But it doesn't play to the strengths of a video game, where you are the one doing the failing..

And yeah, that's just my opinion.

Is this the recycled ipgd wall of text monster about player agency bat signal I see?

I think it actually draws a lot of its impact from its role as a sequel to DAO: specifically, the awareness of sequel-pattern expectations. A lot of the dramatic tension is derived from setting you up to expect significant player agency (through the player's familiarity with DAO, and a series of "illusionary" choice options early in the game such as Meeran/Athenril), and then denying it to you (e.g. as with Leandra, the Chantry, etc.) in a way that links the protagonist's in-narrative sense of helplessness to the player's own metagame "frustrations", if you will. Unlike DAO, which consistently offers the player choices that heavily impact the narrative, or at least enforce an illusion thereof, DA2 forgoes the illusion entirely as the game progresses and rubs it directly in your face. By the end, the player is made to empathize with Hawke's powerlessness in a way a purely linear series would not have been able to accomplish.

I think they actually did a fantastic job with the harsh limitations of the deadline and budget constraints. They could have tried to make a straight off Origins clone without the resources to really work -- instead, they constructed a narrative that works with the constraints and almost operates because of them. I definitely hope they're given more time to work in the future, but as a bit of an experimental detour, I think DA2 is wonderful.

[...]

Though all games are interactive, few games allow the player agency within the narrative. "Gameplay" and "story" are usually sharply divided; the player interacts with the game through mechanical sequences that may resemble combat, platforming, puzzle solving, etc. depending on the game in question, but these sequences rarely affect the story. The core narrative is typically told "on rails", allowing the player to get off and "play" at predetermined spots clearly delineated by the game. The player may act out the acquisition of a key plot item or the demise of a villain, ostensibly becoming a key participant in the important events that shape the story, but he ultimately remains at the whim of the narrative; he, in effect, is only able to do what the game tells him to do. Some games are extremely linear in this respect, while others allow a more meandering approach of variable chronology, but in practice, most games have a singular narrative.

Roleplaying games, Bioware games in particular, are quite different in that respect -- by making dialogue interaction part of the gameplay itself, the game allows the player to take an active role in the direction of the narrative. Instead of simply acting out certain sequences in the narrative, the game presents the player with several branching paths that each bring the story to a different place; though these paths are also limited in number, technically little different from games with singular narratives, the presence of choice gives the player the impression that he, the player (separate from, though often in alignment with, the fictional protagonist(s)), is a critical agent within the narrative itself. In reality, he is still only able to accomplish whatever the developers have laid out for him within the confines of the game, but this feeling of agency is incredibly critical to the genre. It is an additional layer of emotional engagement that is not available to most other mediums.

Contrary to the normal path of video games, Dragon Age makes agency the standard. Rather than giving us rare moments of player agency in order to make the player feel personally responsible for the event, we expect to have agency -- and when it isn't there, we notice. Because something had deviated from the standard, it makes us feel something that purely linear narratives couldn't; at no point do we ever expect to, say, decide whether Mario rescues the princess or joins up with Bowser at the end, and we don't feel frustrated or stripped of anything when we can't impact that decision. But with Dragon Age, we do, and through that denial, the game ilicits emotions in the player that mirrors Hawke's own powerlessness.

It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?

[...]

Hawke's failure is in his inability to truly impact anything -- he wants to save [oh this is the no spoiler forum, you know who], and he wants to resolve the mage/templar dispute, but because of narrative forces outside his control, he cannot. The player wants the same things Hawke does, but because of game restrictions outside of his control, he also cannot impact those events. Hawke is made to feel powerless by the narrative, and the player is made to feel powerless by the game; it creates a symmetry.

This certainly isn't the direction they had to have gone, like, as I've said, in Arrival -- there, Shepard has agency and impact on the events, whereas the player does not. They could have made Hawke important and impactful and just railroad the player to victory and glory, but they purposefully chose to mirror his narrative arc to the player's lack of agency.

[...]

I don't think they could [have made put more meaningful choice in the game]. I think there was a very limited amount of choice they could have put into the game operating under the time constraints; any choices that they would have had in place of the non-choices in which they utilize denial would have been illusionary ones at best. So, instead of making unsatisfactory fake choices, they took it away and hung a giant lampshade on it. Taking a different approach to the narrative wouldn't have given us more choices, realistically.

If this were a perfect world I'd like them to make a game with unlimited time and resources, but they can't, so I'm glad they took the direction they did rather than the alternative. Given the backlash I'm sure they'll have more time to work with in the future, which is good, but for what it is, I enjoyed DA2.

Modifié par ipgd, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:31 .

[FieryDove]

JaegerBane wrote...

and I don't remember anyone describing DA:O's splendid array of environments as a bad thing, so it begs the question why they thought removing all that was a good idea.

If you go back and dig up and watch a few of David Silverman's interview's marketing DA2 thats what he says. (read between the lines and ignore buzzword hype).

He said no one noticed details or cared about forests looking different than underground deep road caves so we've made everything with a *sameness* and spartan *sparse* look. Plus a quick nudge saying things had to be this way so everyone could play the game and have the same great graphical performance.

I also think there wasn't enough budget/time left after so much redesigning being done. That is just a guess on my part but seems reasonable.

I think Mike stated he was on board for DA3.

Whomever is involved will be under two-fold pressure, EA and fans. I don't envy them.

[ademska]

FieryDove wrote...

He said no one noticed details or cared about forests looking different than underground deep road caves

possibly because everything in dao was brown

i am

just saiyan

[FieryDove]

ademska wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

He said no one noticed details or cared about forests looking different than underground deep road caves

possibly because everything in dao was brown

i am

just saiyan

Fereldan wasn't that brown, the dirt and muck gave it character. (A reliable source told me this).

Modifié par FieryDove, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:37 .

[Morroian]

ademska wrote...

i disagree, at least in the case of this one singular example. i'm certainly not looking for all games to emulate this kind of deconstructive approach to storytelling, oh god no. one or two is enough.

i romanced anders on my first playthrough, so i had the dual impact of building a sickly sweet relationship and conquering evil/being called a 'champion' all completely fall apart in a grand blaze (ohohoho) of absolutely no glory. it was striking, and hit me in a way origins never touched.

so, yeah, i'm not advocating for this kind of narrative in future bioware games, but for da2, i thought it was lovely. conversely, i understand why some people don't want that in a game.

This.

And I doubt we'll see such a deliberate deconstructive approach again from Bioware. 

[Cutlasskiwi]

alex90c wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...

Firky wrote...

"Wow, this is just too different and I cannot handle it" is probably inaccurately paraphrasing what he said somewhere, out of context.

Nope, it's a direct quote. Here's the article.

In general, Mike's got the EA execs to answer to, who in turn have the EA shareholders to answer to. Since Bioware now comes under the EA umbrella, you're not going to see any real changes for the better any time soon. So you might as well get used to your corporate yes-men if you intend to stick with Bioware games in the future.

Although I disagree with the whole "Wow, this is just too different and I cannot handle it" stance that interview was just after the game released, and with all the feedback received things may have changed so I wouldn't take that as gods-honest-truth

http://www.eurogamer...ss-fan-feedback

Check the date: June 17, 2011

Now for the quote:

"But also there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins
who weren't as happy with it. Maybe they were looking for more of the
same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't
expecting.

So basically, Origins fans disliked DA2 because they can't take change or "innovation".

Well, to be fair he said that some people might say that. Not everyone who disliked DA2. And that a lot of people weren't happy with it. 

[Babli]

Would anyone agree with me, if I say that DA 2 story is good* but gameplay and other things dont let the player enjoy it? I mean, I was unable to finish the game second time because of all these fedex quest and repetetive wave combat. They felt like a filler between cutscenes.

*I think that story is good, but it had a lot more potential and many things could be presented and executed much better.

Modifié par Babli, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:52 .

[Nerevar-as]

Morroian wrote...

ademska wrote...

i disagree, at least in the case of this one singular example. i'm certainly not looking for all games to emulate this kind of deconstructive approach to storytelling, oh god no. one or two is enough.

i romanced anders on my first playthrough, so i had the dual impact of building a sickly sweet relationship and conquering evil/being called a 'champion' all completely fall apart in a grand blaze (ohohoho) of absolutely no glory. it was striking, and hit me in a way origins never touched.

so, yeah, i'm not advocating for this kind of narrative in future bioware games, but for da2, i thought it was lovely. conversely, i understand why some people don't want that in a game.

This.

And I doubt we'll see such a deliberate deconstructive approach again from Bioware. 

I really doubt most of that was deliberate. Not from the marketing, nor from the game. I´d probably have enjoyed what there´s of a plot if it had felt like that, but it didn´t to me. I got the idea the devs thought we would consider hawke as good as Shepard and the story epic.

[ademska]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I really doubt most of that was deliberate. Not from the marketing, nor from the game. I´d probably have enjoyed what there´s of a plot if it had felt like that, but it didn´t to me. I got the idea the devs thought we would consider hawke as good as Shepard and the story epic.

where on earth would you get that impression? you are crowned the "champion of kirkwall" after grandly defeating the most morally black enemy in the game - only 2/3 through, and well before the real climax/denouement. act 3 is about hawke, three years later, caught in the midst rapidly snowballing political tensions that he's completely unable to stop. no matter which side you take, the world is dicked.

the fact that, no matter your choices, you can't change anders' endgame actions really drives this home. if you've romanced him, a romance that starts out practically sickening in its sweetness and sincerity then declines so tragically, it's an even stronger point.

edit -  just look at the way the story is structured. you've two antagonists in the game: the qunari and the overall mage-templar conflict. one of those is soundly defeated, no room for gray, with a full third of the game left to go. hawke killed the bad guy, saved, the day, everyone fell in love with him. but the real story is mage-templar political conflict, and in the end, nothing hawke does matters, and he fails to make a difference in stopping the conflict.

it's really, really, really obvious.

you can say you don't like it, that's fine, but if you're going to make that kind of blanket statement, show me some real reasoning or evidence.

...and you know what? even if it wasn't intended, which i highly doubt, given that a professional writing team crafted it, who cares? that doesn't lessen its impact. examining a work beyond explicit author intent is the focus of a vast majority of lit studies, after all.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:22 .

[OdanUrr]

ademska wrote...

where on earth would you get that impression? you are crowned the "champion of kirkwall" after grandly defeating the most morally black enemy in the game - only 2/3 through, and well before the real climax/denouement. act 3 is about hawke, three years later, caught in the midst rapidly snowballing political tensions that he's completely unable to stop. no matter which side you take, the world is dicked.

the fact that, no matter your choices, you can't change anders' endgame actions really drives this home. if you've romanced him, a romance that starts out practically sickening in its sweetness and sincerity then declines so tragically, it's an even stronger point.

edit -  just look at the way the story is structured. you've two antagonists in the game: the qunari and the mage-templar conflict overall. one of those is soundly defeated, no room for gray, with a full third of the game left to go. hawke killed the bad guy, saved, the day, everyone fell in love with him. but the real story is mage-templay political conflict, and in the end, nothing hawke does matters, and he fails to make a difference in stopping the conflict.

it's really, really, really obvious.

you can say you don't like it, that's fine, but if you're going to make that kind of blanket statement, show me some real reasoning or evidence.

...and you know what? even if it wasn't intended, which i highly doubt, given that a professional writing team crafted it, who cares? that doesn't lessen its impact. examining a work beyond explicit author intent is the focus of a vast majority of lit studies, after all.

The problem with Hawke having absolutely no impact in Act III is that it stretches credibility. Hawke IS the Champion of Kirkwall after all, he did save all the nobles. One would expect him to have some political capital that would make him some sort of third unnoficial power in Kirkwall (though, truth be told, Orsino has very little political power). In fact, in my first playthrough I expected him to rally the nobles' support to become the Viscount himself. After all, no matter what power Meredith holds, she can't go against the nobles of Kirkwall. However, there are absolutely ZERO repercussions to Hawke being the "Champion of Kirkwall." At no point in Act III does Hawke try to make use of his position to make Kirkwall a better place. I would understand it if my character were some lowly peasant with no influence whatsoever on the higher echelons of society, but Hawke is the exact opposite.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:29 .

[DragonRageGT]

ademska wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

I really doubt most of that was deliberate. Not from the marketing, nor from the game. I´d probably have enjoyed what there´s of a plot if it had felt like that, but it didn´t to me. I got the idea the devs thought we would consider hawke as good as Shepard and the story epic.

where on earth would you get that impression? you are crowned the "champion of kirkwall" after grandly defeating the most morally black enemy in the game - only 2/3 through, and well before the real climax/denouement. act 3 is about hawke, three years later, caught in the midst rapidly snowballing political tensions that he's completely unable to stop. no matter which side you take, the world is dicked.

the fact that, no matter your choices, you can't change anders' endgame actions really drives this home. if you've romanced him, a romance that starts out practically sickening in its sweetness and sincerity then declines so tragically, it's an even stronger point.

edit -  just look at the way the story is structured. you've two antagonists in the game: the qunari and the overall mage-templar conflict. one of those is soundly defeated, no room for gray, with a full third of the game left to go. hawke killed the bad guy, saved, the day, everyone fell in love with him. but the real story is mage-templar political conflict, and in the end, nothing hawke does matters, and he fails to make a difference in stopping the conflict.

it's really, really, really obvious.

you can say you don't like it, that's fine, but if you're going to make that kind of blanket statement, show me some real reasoning or evidence.

...and you know what? even if it wasn't intended, which i highly doubt, given that a professional writing team crafted it, who cares? that doesn't lessen its impact. examining a work beyond explicit author intent is the focus of a vast majority of lit studies, after all.

I felt the same thing as Nerevar. And when I saw the drinking animation at the tavern in kirkwall I couldn't help but /facepalm. They definitely thought that going same track as ME2 would do Dragon Age any good. And I remember long before release when there were jokes about Dragon Effect of Mass Age or something like that. It didn't work, imho. ME is a fraking great game, like a A class movie but DA2 is a class C movie, one that if it were really a movie, the Director would use the Alan Smithee pseudonym.

[ipgd]

OdanUrr wrote...

One would expect him to have some political capital that would make him some sort of third unnoficial power in Kirkwall

Why? He's a celebrity, not politician or a particularly large noble family with established financial or social ties to other houses. What does he have to hold over the other nobles or the templars or the chantry or the viscount's office? His stock is entirely his name recognition.

After all, no matter what power Meredith holds, she can't go against the nobles of Kirkwall.

She can, and does. The game makes it pretty clear that the templars have always been the ultimate authority in Kirkwall, re: how they "dealt" with the last viscount that defied them.

[ademska]

OdanUrr wrote...

The problem with Hawke having absolutely no impact in Act III is that it stretches credibility. Hawke IS the Champion of Kirkwall after all, he did save all the nobles. One would expect him to have some political capital that would make him some sort of third unnoficial power in Kirkwall (though, truth be told, Orsino has very little political power). In fact, in my first playthrough I expected him to rally the nobles' support to become the Viscount himself. After all, no matter what power Meredith holds, she can't go against the nobles of Kirkwall. However, there are absolutely ZERO repercussions to Hawke being the "Champion of Kirkwall." At no point in Act III does Hawke try to make use of his position to make Kirkwall a better place. I would understand it if my character were some lowly peasant with no influence whatsoever on the higher echelons of society, but Hawke is the exact opposite.

well i'd argue that there are plenty of reasons it's plausible (mostly to do with roleplay and understanding political nuance that i won't get into unless you really push it), but most importantly...

this has no bearing on whether da2 is a deliberate deconstruction of traditional save-the-world-story-ended narratives of videogames. its only revelance is to your opinion of its success in execution.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:39 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Laidlaw has never been in charge of DA2. He's only the LD.

Mike Darrah is the head honcho.

If you want to complain, at least take the time to know what you are talking about.

[Morroian]

OdanUrr wrote...

The problem with Hawke having absolutely no impact in Act III is that it stretches credibility. Hawke IS the Champion of Kirkwall after all, he did save all the nobles. One would expect him to have some political capital that would make him some sort of third unnoficial power in Kirkwall (though, truth be told, Orsino has very little political power). In fact, in my first playthrough I expected him to rally the nobles' support to become the Viscount himself. After all, no matter what power Meredith holds, she can't go against the nobles of Kirkwall. However, there are absolutely ZERO repercussions to Hawke being the "Champion of Kirkwall." At no point in Act III does Hawke try to make use of his position to make Kirkwall a better place. I would understand it if my character were some lowly peasant with no influence whatsoever on the higher echelons of society, but Hawke is the exact opposite.

Hawke can side with the nobles against Meredith, he can explore the options to become Viscount but its all for nought because the templars hold the power. One of my readings of it is that Hawke is only one unaligned person but the real power resides in the institutions.  Also in DAO the Warden only has power by virtue of being part of the Grey Wardens.

[OdanUrr]

ipgd wrote...

Why? He's a celebrity, not politician or a particularly large noble family with established financial or social ties to other houses. What does he have to hold over the other nobles or the templars or the chantry or the viscount's office? His stock is entirely his name recognition.

Hawke does, in fact, help nobles throughout the game, perhaps most notably when s/he saves their lives from certain event in Act II. As I see it, one needn't be a politician to have political capital though, understandably, it's often associated with politicians.

ipgd wrote...

She can, and does. The game makes it pretty clear that the templars have always been the ultimate authority in Kirkwall, re: how they "dealt" with the last viscount that defied them.

I don't remember that bit of the Templars "dealing" with the last viscount, but I'll take your word for it. However, I believe that doesn't invalidate my point. The viscount is one man, the nobles are many. I doubt the Templars would incur in the mass murdering of non-mage civilians just to have their way with Kirkwall. If they did, I'm pretty sure no kingdom (or other form of government) in Thedas would tolerate Templar presence.

[Morroian]

RageGT wrote...

I felt the same thing as Nerevar. And when I saw the drinking animation at the tavern in kirkwall I couldn't help but /facepalm. They definitely thought that going same track as ME2 would do Dragon Age any good. And I remember long before release when there were jokes about Dragon Effect of Mass Age or something like that. It didn't work, imho. ME is a fraking great game, like a A class movie but DA2 is a class C movie, one that if it were really a movie, the Director would use the Alan Smithee pseudonym.

ME2 got criticised but not as badly as DA2 and the only reason it didn't get reamed as much as DA2 is that the ME series is regarded mostly as a TPS not an rpg. The changes to ME2 go beyond the changes to DA2. ME2 gives lip service to being an rpg (unlike DA2), the story is very weak and the shooter aspects of it are one dimensional. Its saving grace is some of its companions. 

[OdanUrr]

Morroian wrote...

Hawke can side with the nobles against Meredith, he can explore the options to become Viscount but its all for nought because the templars hold the power. One of my readings of it is that Hawke is only one unaligned person but the real power resides in the institutions.  Also in DAO the Warden only has power by virtue of being part of the Grey Wardens.

Power is an abstract concept. Do you mean to say they have strength in numbers? I don't know if this is true of Kirkwall, perhaps it is. But the Guard doesn't answer to the Templars and I'm sure the Circle of Kirkwall would jump at the chance of defying Templar authority. Any government based in strength by numbers alone eventually crumbles when faced with a larger enemy army.

The only institution left is the Chantry. I agree it seems determined in maintining any status quo where the Templars hold some measure of power over the mages. However, I don't think it can actually overrule the will of the ruling government.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:59 .

[ademska]

OdanUrr wrote...

Hawke does, in fact, help nobles throughout the game, perhaps most notably when s/he saves their lives from certain event in Act II. As I see it, one needn't be a politician to have political capital though, understandably, it's often associated with politicians.

in these discussion we've sometimes got a tendency to operate under videogame logic, ie having an innate ability to enact sweeping changes in simplistic, finitely-defined worlds.

hawke helped out a handful of nobles and defeated the arishok in combat, but for the reasons ipgd stated he's got no real political agency. the sources of conflict are institutions headed by single characters, but it's still an institutional issue. one man, even someone of hawke's status, cannot possibly realistically hope to cause as much change as people want from him.

if you don't want to look at da2 outside of a videogame narrative filter, then try this on: to make any sort of significant impact, hawke would have had to permanently sway elthina, meredith, and orsino's viewpoints. it's not something that can be done through combat, which is hawke's only real capital.

arguing with posters in this thread should be enough to convince you persuading people on issues is no easy feat.

[Aaleel]

Morroian wrote...

RageGT wrote...

I felt the same thing as Nerevar. And when I saw the drinking animation at the tavern in kirkwall I couldn't help but /facepalm. They definitely thought that going same track as ME2 would do Dragon Age any good. And I remember long before release when there were jokes about Dragon Effect of Mass Age or something like that. It didn't work, imho. ME is a fraking great game, like a A class movie but DA2 is a class C movie, one that if it were really a movie, the Director would use the Alan Smithee pseudonym.

ME2 got criticised but not as badly as DA2 and the only reason it didn't get reamed as much as DA2 is that the ME series is regarded mostly as a TPS not an rpg. The changes to ME2 go beyond the changes to DA2. ME2 gives lip service to being an rpg (unlike DA2), the story is very weak and the shooter aspects of it are one dimensional. Its saving grace is some of its companions. 

Honestly the saving grace is you're Shepard in the first game and you're Shepard in the second game, and pretty much anyone you ask, people like Shepard.  Some people did not like Hawke. 

Also you're trying to stop Reapers from invading in one game, and you're doing the same in the second game.  They brought back some of the companions from the first game, brought back the ship, the crew.

Bottom line in spite of all the changes it still feels familiar, and it's a continuous story.  I prefer ME1 personally.