214 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

Dragon Age has always been a game that has pushed the idea of tragedy. When we first discussed having Alistair sacrifice himself out of love of the Warden, there was debate over whether players would find that moving or just be frustrated that he made a decision they couldn't control. We decided to go with what we all reacted to in our guts as a cool emotional moment, and it became a defining part of DA:O for people who experienced it.

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned. But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people. I think it's particularly hard to judge the tragedy-per-square-foot sweet spot in a game, since the pacing is very different if you play it over a few days, a few weeks or a few months. I imagine the faster you play, the more saturated it seems.

That said, it is important to us on the team that Dragon Age continue to push the bounds of what a videogame can make you feel. And for that, sorrowful or touching events are a far better guage than happy ones. If your character gets everything he wants, are you feeling happy because you genuinely empathize with him, or just because you've "won" the game? It's when you stop to help a character that you get no benefit from just because you care about him as a person, or mourn the loss of someone like Leandra, who had no game benefit, that we've really reached past the limits of the game with the story.

So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost.

I understand that outlook, but personally, I am more emotionally invested in an RPG character than the protagonist of a book.  While I love GRIMDARK fantasy authors like GRRM and Joe Abercrombie (and Melanie Rawn too, awesome to find another fan), I don't have the same investment in the fate of Ned Stark or Rohan as I would in my Warden or Hawke.  I am being told the story of the Starks, while I am experiencing the story of Hawke.

Thus, when I play the game, and I am constantly frustrated by my inability to make any impact in the story, I don't feel rewarded.  Gaining levels and getting epic loot is nice, but it's not why I'm playing an RPG.  I don't necessarily need to end up ruling a kingdom or sitting on a pile of gold with my LI by my side, but a sense of accomplishment would be nice.  I don't feel a sense of accomplishment at the end of DA2.  I felt frustrated, sad, and confused.  Will my Warden and Hawke suffer the same fate as the Hero of Neverwinter, Revan, and the Exile, being sent offscreen to some vague, unsatisfying fate, never to be seen again?  That's not the way I want to feel at the end of a well written story, whether it's dark or not.

I guess what I'd like is closure, good or bad, especially if the current protagonist is not going to be the hero of the next game.  There is no reason to leave my character hanging in a nebulous void, if you're not planning to let me play her again.  That's way more depressing than "rocks fall, everyone dies."  At least to me.

[Dave of Canada]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned.

+50 Friendship

So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost.

+150 Friendship

I won't be ashamed to admit this is the first time I squee'd at a forum post.

[Ryzaki]

There's a point where an abundance of tragedy just makes it all pointless to me. 

At a certain point I go "...your life sucks that much? I really don't see why or how you find the will to carry on." and find myself not caring about the PC anymore. 

Nothing is good in excess. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 août 2011 - 03:27 .

[TEWR]

I agree Ryzaki. Tragedy is fine, but its not without its costs when it's used too much.

And I didn't like how the game required me to metagame in the hopes that I'll care about a sibling's death

[Satyricon331]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...
Dragon Age has always been a game that has pushed the idea of tragedy. When we first discussed having Alistair sacrifice himself out of love of the Warden, there was debate over whether players would find that moving or just be frustrated that he made a decision they couldn't control. We decided to go with what we all reacted to in our guts as a cool emotional moment, and it became a defining part of DA:O for people who experienced it.

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned. But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people. I think it's particularly hard to judge the tragedy-per-square-foot sweet spot in a game, since the pacing is very different if you play it over a few days, a few weeks or a few months. I imagine the faster you play, the more saturated it seems.

That said, it is important to us on the team that Dragon Age continue to push the bounds of what a videogame can make you feel. And for that, sorrowful or touching events are a far better guage than happy ones. If your character gets everything he wants, are you feeling happy because you genuinely empathize with him, or just because you've "won" the game? It's when you stop to help a character that you get no benefit from just because you care about him as a person, or mourn the loss of someone like Leandra, who had no game benefit, that we've really reached past the limits of the game with the story.

So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost.

I really want to thank you for this post; it's very illuminating for a non-writer like me.  I just thought that fantasy writers used a lot of gore, torture, and violence simply out of a reaction to the genre's classic characterization/stereotype of being a children's genre.  I simply thought the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction out of reactionism, as sometimes happens in these things, and we were just in the midst of a fad.  Even that Ryan Kwenton (mmmm) movie that's coming out - "Knights of Badassery" or something - bills itself (pradoxically imo) as a comedy-horror, and I've wondered whether fantasy in general hasn't begun taking a turn towards horror, which I wouldn't be into at all.  It's good to know there's some deeper thinking behind the shift.

Personally I liked many of the opportunities you had to help characters that provided no gameplay benefit in return.  I remember things like giving money to that elf family in Lothering, things like that.  DA2 was a bit too bleak for me, and there was a bit of that fatigue factor you mention, even to the point of numbness.  I want a dark game, but personally I need to have things that make it worthwhile to keep going.  I mean, if it's just pure tragedy it reaches the point where you'd rather have the character commit suicide at the beginning just to avoid the unproductive suffering down the road, like Ryzaki says.

[thats1evildude]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned.

I can relate. I tend to prefer characters who are a little wounded by their experiences. I like bittersweet endings where the protagonist may achieve his goals but goes through hell to do so, or that the victory is ultimately a hollow one because of the sacrifices they've made. DA2 does a pretty good job of putting the hero through such a story, but it lacks the triumph that makes it meaningful.

Happy endings are not inherently bad if there's a sense of accomplishment to go with them. Why should you form attachment to characters you know you're going to lose? If the hero's struggles never amount to anything, then what's the point of the journey? We need fiction to escape the dreariness of our everyday lives.

I think you dismiss the value of escapism in video games at your own peril.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 11 août 2011 - 05:27 .

[Dave of Canada]

thats1evildude wrote...

On the other hand, if the hero's struggles never amount to anything, then what's the point of the journey? Why should you form attachment to characters you know you're going to lose?

I know I'm in the minority when I say this, though I'm actually a bigger fan of the hero's struggles not achieving some better end. Hell, my favorite protagonist is probably Hawke because of it.

Roleplaying Hawke as somebody who's trying his hardest to stop the inevitable and dealing with it all despite not being able to change much was probably one of the best experiences I had with a Bioware protagonist (imo). Siding with the Templar to try and stop Anders and his plans, only to fail and have it happen anyway, left me incredibly satisfied as I imagined Hawke looking upon the world with horror as he failed to achieve what he wanted.

Many might disagree, though I'm a big fan of bad and/or bittersweet endings.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 août 2011 - 04:10 .

[thats1evildude]

I'm a little weird in that I play games for the satisfaction of having left the world slightly better than where I started off. I tend to go out of my way to achieve some good, or at least to punish some evil; for example, I always side with Athenril in the prologue because her quest involves kicking a crooked shopkeeper out of the Gallows, and the Loose Ends quest allows me to help that poor kid on the Docks.

Origins was superior in that it offered up more opportunities to do some good, or at least to bust up a few baddies. The Blight needed to be defeated. The werewolf curse was a wrong that needed to be righted. The demonic invasion of the Circle Tower needed to be stopped. Arl Howe needed to be stabbed and gutted and his head paraded through the streets. I'm more than happy to fill that role.

I don't have a problem being involved in the mage vs. templar dispute because that was ultimately a conflict that needed to be driven to a resolution at some point or another. There was no question that the issue was coming to a head. Plus, a few bastards who really needed someone to put the boots to 'em got what they deserved. But I didn't come out the other side feeling like much of a hero.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 11 août 2011 - 05:28 .

[Ski Mask Wei]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

Dragon Age has always been a game that has pushed the idea of tragedy. When we first discussed having Alistair sacrifice himself out of love of the Warden, there was debate over whether players would find that moving or just be frustrated that he made a decision they couldn't control. We decided to go with what we all reacted to in our guts as a cool emotional moment, and it became a defining part of DA:O for people who experienced it.

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned. But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people. I think it's particularly hard to judge the tragedy-per-square-foot sweet spot in a game, since the pacing is very different if you play it over a few days, a few weeks or a few months. I imagine the faster you play, the more saturated it seems.

That said, it is important to us on the team that Dragon Age continue to push the bounds of what a videogame can make you feel. And for that, sorrowful or touching events are a far better guage than happy ones. If your character gets everything he wants, are you feeling happy because you genuinely empathize with him, or just because you've "won" the game? It's when you stop to help a character that you get no benefit from just because you care about him as a person, or mourn the loss of someone like Leandra, who had no game benefit, that we've really reached past the limits of the game with the story.

So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost.

This is definitely one of the more reassuring posts I've seen from a Bioware employee and  I'm glad Bioware is going this route.  As I get older I want to play more mature games that deal with the harsher and more complex realites of life.  The "power fantasy" is getting a bit old and games will never mature unless they start to explore more grown-up themes and characters.  How many times can you be spectre x who saves the world, gets the girl, and has the biggest **** in the land?  Games are such an awesome medium to tell stories it'd be a shame if that's only story that gets told.     

[Morroian]

Ryzaki wrote...

There's a point where an abundance of tragedy just makes it all pointless to me. 

I agree with that, its 1 reason why I don't regard A Song of Ice and Fire as highly as a lot of people do.

But I never reached that point in DA2.

[esper]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

Dragon Age has always been a game that has pushed the idea of tragedy. When we first discussed having Alistair sacrifice himself out of love of the Warden, there was debate over whether players would find that moving or just be frustrated that he made a decision they couldn't control. We decided to go with what we all reacted to in our guts as a cool emotional moment, and it became a defining part of DA:O for people who experienced it.

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned. But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people. I think it's particularly hard to judge the tragedy-per-square-foot sweet spot in a game, since the pacing is very different if you play it over a few days, a few weeks or a few months. I imagine the faster you play, the more saturated it seems.

That said, it is important to us on the team that Dragon Age continue to push the bounds of what a videogame can make you feel. And for that, sorrowful or touching events are a far better guage than happy ones. If your character gets everything he wants, are you feeling happy because you genuinely empathize with him, or just because you've "won" the game? It's when you stop to help a character that you get no benefit from just because you care about him as a person, or mourn the loss of someone like Leandra, who had no game benefit, that we've really reached past the limits of the game with the story.

So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost.

This is so good to hear and I agree with with you, and I did feel for mhy poor Hawke when Leandra died. I wanted to hug her and tell her it would all be all right.

[Cutlass Jack]

Ryzaki wrote...

There's a point where an abundance of tragedy just makes it all pointless to me. 

 

I'm inclined to lean this way. Tragedy is best when used sparingly. Think of it like the exploding bodies bug. If a body occasionally explodes into a fine paste because you did some incredible hit, its fun. But when each and every body explodes because you glanced at it harshly, it loses any entertainment value.

Though I will admit I prefer happy endings being possible in games. I can get enough tragedy in the real world. I play RPGs to escape and feel empowered. Which isn't to say a happy ending can't come at a cost. That's fair.

[dgcatanisiri]

LobselVith8 wrote...

coldlogic82 wrote...

5.  The Keeper takes in the demon:  The Keeper of the Dalish clan sacrifices herself to save Merril because she is wise where Merril is niave.  The death of the Keeper was a tragic scene, and it's made a lot worse if you have Fenris or Anders in your party, or even worse than that, both.  They say horrible things like the world is a horrible place she died and not Merril, while Merril obviously wishes more than anything the Keeper didn't pay her price for her.  Choose 2 of 3 options upon exiting the cave and you get the even more depressing task of wiping out an entire Dalish Clan.

Merrill's naive while the Keeper's wise? How wise is it to become an abomination and not tell anyone? Merrill brought Hawke to take care of her if anything bad happened, while Marethari just risked the lives of everyone in the camp. And I honestly didn't find the 2 options depressing - I didn't really feel bad protecting Merrill from a group of people who decided to commit suicide by Hawke.

Agreed. I don't consider Marethari wise. She's intelligent and knowledgable, sure, but I find her even more frustrating than Meredith and Orsino. They, at least, could justify their issues, Meredith, the dangers of magic, and Orsino, the crackdown of the templars. But with Marethari, all she does is decide to cast away this knowledge (and her job is to remember the legacy of the Dalish people), and without saying why. First of all, even the dangerous knowledge should be kept in a fashion, if only to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. And on top of that, Marethari would not say WHY the magic of the Eluvian is dangerous, only that it is. Then, of course, there's the fact that she insists Merrill return to the clan when every other member of it hates her because she let their rumors spread. Did Marethari really believe that it would only take a few words from her to undo six years of dark rumors and fear?

Frankly, throughout the game, I came to see Merrill as the wiser of the two, and Marethari the more naive. Merrill takes precautions to keep her choices from harming anyone but her by bringing Hawke with her to the demon's cave. Marethari just goes, without leaving any warning or order to the effect of 'I made my choice, these people are not responsible' for the hunters and expect them to just let Hawke and party walk away with the Keeper of the clan dead behind them. Marethari's death scene is tragic because Merrill has to kill her mother figure and it's followed up by being forced to kill everyone that she grew up with and cared about (or exiling her from ever seeing the clan ever again, so, basically, same results). But it's not tragic on the basis of why Marethari died.

[Quething]

JohnEpler wrote...

Yeah, there's a reason why that particular moment is the one I'm most conflicted about in DA2. Even what I consider to be the weakest scene I did (Grace killing Thrask - I should have set it up so there was more of a reason why the player didn't intervene, which I feel was a big problem with how I did that scene) doesn't cause me as much consternation as the sibling death. The problem was - I had (and still have) a hard time visualizing a scenario that wouldn't A) seem contrived and cheesy, or  would work with all the personalities.

I'll probably never stop second-guessing that one, but I learned some good lessons from it.

I think it was the right call, for a couple reasons. First, because as you say, the personalities are an issue - even if you did three different scenes for the three different dominiant personalities, it still wouldn't serve, because what if you're an Aggressive Hawke who makes Diplomatic exceptions for your beloved little sibling, or a Diplomatic Hawke who's always been Snarky when things are at their worst?

Second, because of something I call the Mass Effect Headshot Factor. In ME1, there are a huge number of dialog moments and cutscenes where people get shot. And in every single one of them, the camera is on the shooter. You never see anyone actually take the executioner's bullet. For most of the game the first time I played it, I figured this was a ratings concession or a design choice to save the animators some hassle... right up until the very last five minutes of the game, when Saren puts a gun to his jaw and blows his skull out. I about fell out of my seat. The incredible impact that moment earned by its uniqueness was a big part of what sold the entire Saren plot to me.

By the same token, the sibling death in the Deep Roads earns a lot of power by its offscreen nature. I think it might have benefited from a *little* more allusion, like watching Hawke pull out the murderknife and then a slow pan away or something, but the impact of not seeing that death in a game where we see every single other in blood-spattered detail is worth something big, IMO.

As for the actual topic of the thread, yeah, the game was pretty relentlessly tragic. I think Leandra's death is probably the step too far. A protagonist with an involved, living family as part of the story is much more interesting and potential-laden than the thoroughly overused orphan that comprises 99% of RPG leads, and Gamlen alone does not provide that dynamic. Also, Leandra's presence in Kirkwall and fixation on the Amell legacy gives Hawke a frequently much-needed excuse not to just be like "frak this noise, I'm going home" and hopping the next boat to Ferelden.

Modifié par Quething, 11 août 2011 - 08:57 .

[Satyricon331]

Quething wrote...
Gamlen alone does not provide that dynamic. 

When I first realized he was sticking around in the game, I strongly suspected the game would later try to rehabilitate him simply because I sensed a pattern in the game that seemed to try to pervert the outcomes relative to their most "natural" expectations, and at first they really tried to make you hate him.  I guess that might have been a Prozac moment.  

(Come to think of it, I didn't have the same expectation for Carver, I guess because his friendship-rivalry thing left his outcome partly in your hands.)

[Gervaise]

It's not about having a totally happy ending.  The first time I played through Origins, I rejected Morrigan's offer, even though I knew from the moment Riorden said he would take the dive that he was not going to make it through that far.  When he died and the cut scene shows the Warden hang his head and slump in despair, I really felt that and from then on I'm playing through, knowing that every step takes me nearer my death.  And then at the end with the Archdemon on the ground, Alistair turns to me and says "I never wanted to be king, I'll be a rotten king, please let me do this one thing I can as a king, a grey warden and your friend," and suddenly all my resolve drained out of me and I said "okay".  So things didn't work out as I had wanted them to but I was totally emotionally involved and actually felt quite drained.  And I thought brilliant game.  In fact I hadn't felt that way about a game since Planescape:Torment, and that doesn't have a happy ending either and is quite a dark fantasy all the way through.  I also replayed the end, with me going through with my death and the funeral speech by Alistair also had me totally moved, particularly when he mentions the bit about being loved and then you see the look on Zevran's face and are told that not only does he not love again but never has sex again!  That blew me away.  I was totally engaged with these characters.

I don't know what it is but DA2 just did not have that same emotional punch for me.  Some bits of it do - Leandra's death, romance with Fenris, Isabella's change of heart, but the Last Straw ending just made me angry, in an "I feel used and manipulated by the writers sort of way", rather than an emotionally engaged sort of way.  And during the game my character even gets the dialogue option to say "just one time I'd like to walk in and not find an insane mage" which believe me is exactly how I felt most of the way through.

 I think I would have been more involved if the ending had been a case of Orsino admitting what he had done regarding Quentin but then going down in a blaze of glory trying to defend the other mages by normal means in a one to one with Meredith, followed by your confrontation with her.   It really felt as if the Harvester bit was put in so that people supporting the Templars would feel better about themselves.    I didn't need that, it was patronising.  I'd made my choice and I had to live with it.  And if I supported the mages, there had already been enough examples of bad mages throughout the story for me to know that in doing so I might be inadvertently allowing some "guilty" ones to get away.  But if you must bring in the Harvester then please ensure that it is clear who killed the mages that he used and why he suddenly despairs at that point because I know I was doing everything in my power to keep between the Templars and surviving mages and succeeding, yet for some totally inexplicable reason, Orsino chooses that moment to freak out.  In a way, ditto the lyrium idol sending Meredith mad and giving her magical superhuman power - so there is an excuse for her behaviour and a reason why the Templars suddenly decide to get a conscience, and more importantly why they don't arrest you like they originally intended once the battle is over.

Finally the epilogue assuming that if you support the Templars, you are pro Templar and will have influence over them, if you supported the Mages then you are pro Mage freedom and will have influence over them.   No possibility that your decision in Last Straw has nothing to do with the wider issues but the simple fact that you didn't want innocent people to die.   And also that there is no opportunity for post quest reflection with your companions, just one line of narration saying everyone bar love interest leaves.  And would the Templars really bow the knee to a mage (especially if they were a blood mage) and allow them to be made Vicount?    Would the people really be that eager to allow it?  And why, if a companion has said they value your friendship and want it to continue, do they suddenly go back on this and abandon you with no reason given?   It is very hard to keep emotional engagement when you are puzzling as to how you have been made to fit with a certain scenario.

So I don't want Bioware to start making "happy endings" because that would not have been appropriate either.   I like being faced with difficult choices which may well be mortally ambiguous but can be consistent with how you have played the game.  This was true of Origins and there were a variety of ways in which it could end, depending on the choices you made, with regard to your character, their companions and the wider world.  But in DA2, even if you accept that no matter what you do, war was inevitable, there are only two possible outcomes for your character, neither of which may accurately reflect who you are and what you have done in the game.     In a way, for me it would have been better for it to have ended with the defeat of the Arishok because nothing you do in Act 3 makes much difference to what happens at the end, so your character is essentially pointless to the story.

[Macropodmum]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I didn't feel much of anything when anyone in the family died. My first playthrough didn't make me care for Carver when the Ogre killed him, nor did I feel anything for Leandra (it didn't help that she flopped around during the battle. That made me laugh).

While tragedy is good, I feel that if you do too much tragedy and too much death, it becomes annoying, repetitive, and just makes a person not really care anymore.

I feel like the siblings should've lived and Leandra's death would've sufficed for something that happens no matter what (no happy ending), and there could've been more emotion if Carver became a Grey Warden while Bethany is taken to the Circle.

Or Bethany becomes a GW and Carver becomes a Templar.

Or Carver dies in the DR and Hawke and Bethany watch as he dies with tears in their eyes (or Bethany dies. It could've been dependent on whether you brought a warrior character or Merrill with you to determine who dies, since Anders is the only way for someone to become a GW).

So much death really just made me go "....meh".

Human tragedy shouldn't be done into oblivion imo, which is how DA2 made me feel. But that's just specific to me.



EDIT: meant for in the family. I did however feel sad for other characters and for Bartrand. As much of a bastard as he is, I can never bring myself to kill him (after I stop playing the Embellishment scene over and over again)

Totally agree...in DAO Alistairs sacrifice to save the warden was understandable (especially if your warden was his LI) it would also have been heartbreaking to watch (still can't bring myself to play this path yet) due to our interaction with him.. 

Carver dying during the escape was understandable but emotionless for me, Leandra's death wasn't really understandable and I felt nothing most likely owing to the fact I didn't know her, there really needed to be more interaction with her to have more impact ( I will say that the end scene in Legact made up for it and did bring a tear to my eye).  First time I took Bethany to the deep roads I didn't take Anders, her death choked me up because I had grown attached to her.

I do think in the end it was just "bleh, death, death and more death".  More interaction for the characters we are meant to feel for would be more beneficial if you are aiming for tragedy

[Sanguinerin]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people.

I was actually quite happy with all of your response, Ms. Hepler, and I wanted to focus on this part. I'm glad that there seems to be some recognition in this particular area, because the tragedy was probably the killing blow to my experience. I actually like tragedies as well, or, at least to a certain degree. They can really bring you into something, especially if you've come to care about the particular person, situation, etc. However, I do feel like there was just a bit too much tragedy in DAII.

In truth, the more that I played the game, the more that I didn't want to keep going. There were so many instances where you couldn't save people, or those moments where you killed someone that you earlier saved. I really couldn't see Hawke as a champion--a real champion would have made a difference instead of shuffling along and watching so many people die.

I think two of the saddest plot deaths for me were Nyssa and Saemus. I can understand Saemus, as much as I hated that it happened, because we didn't get there in time. Nyssa, however, was killed while Hawke stood idly by. Thrask as well, if I recall correctly. Maybe mother, Saemus, and at least one sibling have to die... But I would have at least liked to save some of these other (I don't want to say insignificant, but lesser plot-oriented, perhaps?) NPCs would have been nice.

I'm conflicted over the end-game choice purely because of one cutscene. While I completely disagree with siding with the Templars, it's the only instance where you get satisfaction of actually saving any mages.

I understand plot-driving deaths. I understand that everyone can't be saved. If I want to see people get killed in a way where I have no way of intervening, then I'll go watch my Doctor Who DVDs (while I love the show, I've discovered that I easily get attached to secondary characters and, well, a lot of them never seem to survive past one episode...). When playing a game where choices matter, I really want to be a little more decisive, and have a few more options of intervening.

Actually, I wouldn't even mind if we had "interrupts" where we tried to intervene and failed. If Hawke could have at least tried to stop Huon, for example, instead of standing off behind the scene and just watching... That would have helped considerably. I think, while reflecting on this issue right now, it's more the inactivity we have on our part as Hawke to not just do something, but to not even try.

Whether anything changes or not, from reading your response it seems like this particular issue has been noted already. Thank you.

Edit: Additional discussion:

On family, that's another area that made me upset. Who are we left to care for in Kirkwall? On my first play-through, after losing my mother and siblings, I really wanted to connect more with Gamlen (and later Charade) as all that Hawke had left. The scene with Gamlen post-Leandra's death was wonderfully done, but then it kind of felt like the same situation as before. If we get any more family-centric DLC, can the option to at least invite Gamlen to come stay with you be a possibility? I know that some people will still have a sibling left, but for those who don't, it would be nice to bond with those family members that are left.

Quething wrote...

As for the actual topic of the thread, yeah, the game was pretty relentlessly tragic. I think Leandra's death is probably the step too far. A protagonist with an involved, living family as part of the story is much more interesting and potential-laden than the thoroughly overused orphan that comprises 99% of RPG leads, and Gamlen alone does not provide that dynamic. Also, Leandra's presence in Kirkwall and fixation on the Amell legacy gives Hawke a frequently much-needed excuse not to just be like "frak this noise, I'm going home" and hopping the next boat to Ferelden.

I agree very much with this. That's why I wish that the relationship with Gamlen could have been really improved-upon post-Leandra's death. She did give Hawke a very compelling reason to actually stay in Kirkwall. Other than, "this is how it was written, this is how it should be," I can't see why Hawke actually stayed in the city after Leandra was murdered--especially if both siblings were dead.

You could argue that Bethany is in the Circle, so Hawke stays in the city to at least be close to her, or the same with Carver and the Templars. However, if all three of them are gone... Why not just leave and be done with Kirkwall and the pure insanity therein?

Cutlass Jack wrote...
Though I will admit I prefer happy endings being possible in games. I can get enough tragedy in the real world. I play RPGs to escape and feel empowered. Which isn't to say a happy ending can't come at a cost. That's fair.

I had to say how much I completely agree with this.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 11 août 2011 - 12:23 .

[Anthreya]

Gervaise wrote...

It's not about having a totally happy ending.  The first time I played through Origins, I rejected Morrigan's offer, even though I knew from the moment Riorden said he would take the dive that he was not going to make it through that far.  When he died and the cut scene shows the Warden hang his head and slump in despair, I really felt that and from then on I'm playing through, knowing that every step takes me nearer my death.  And then at the end with the Archdemon on the ground, Alistair turns to me and says "I never wanted to be king, I'll be a rotten king, please let me do this one thing I can as a king, a grey warden and your friend," and suddenly all my resolve drained out of me and I said "okay".  So things didn't work out as I had wanted them to but I was totally emotionally involved and actually felt quite drained.  And I thought brilliant game.  In fact I hadn't felt that way about a game since Planescape:Torment, and that doesn't have a happy ending either and is quite a dark fantasy all the way through.  I also replayed the end, with me going through with my death and the funeral speech by Alistair also had me totally moved, particularly when he mentions the bit about being loved and then you see the look on Zevran's face and are told that not only does he not love again but never has sex again!  That blew me away.  I was totally engaged with these characters.

I don't know what it is but DA2 just did not have that same emotional punch for me.  Some bits of it do - Leandra's death, romance with Fenris, Isabella's change of heart, but the Last Straw ending just made me angry, in an "I feel used and manipulated by the writers sort of way", rather than an emotionally engaged sort of way.  And during the game my character even gets the dialogue option to say "just one time I'd like to walk in and not find an insane mage" which believe me is exactly how I felt most of the way through.

 I think I would have been more involved if the ending had been a case of Orsino admitting what he had done regarding Quentin but then going down in a blaze of glory trying to defend the other mages by normal means in a one to one with Meredith, followed by your confrontation with her.   It really felt as if the Harvester bit was put in so that people supporting the Templars would feel better about themselves.    I didn't need that, it was patronising.  I'd made my choice and I had to live with it.  And if I supported the mages, there had already been enough examples of bad mages throughout the story for me to know that in doing so I might be inadvertently allowing some "guilty" ones to get away.  But if you must bring in the Harvester then please ensure that it is clear who killed the mages that he used and why he suddenly despairs at that point because I know I was doing everything in my power to keep between the Templars and surviving mages and succeeding, yet for some totally inexplicable reason, Orsino chooses that moment to freak out.  In a way, ditto the lyrium idol sending Meredith mad and giving her magical superhuman power - so there is an excuse for her behaviour and a reason why the Templars suddenly decide to get a conscience, and more importantly why they don't arrest you like they originally intended once the battle is over.

Finally the epilogue assuming that if you support the Templars, you are pro Templar and will have influence over them, if you supported the Mages then you are pro Mage freedom and will have influence over them.   No possibility that your decision in Last Straw has nothing to do with the wider issues but the simple fact that you didn't want innocent people to die.   And also that there is no opportunity for post quest reflection with your companions, just one line of narration saying everyone bar love interest leaves.  And would the Templars really bow the knee to a mage (especially if they were a blood mage) and allow them to be made Vicount?    Would the people really be that eager to allow it?  And why, if a companion has said they value your friendship and want it to continue, do they suddenly go back on this and abandon you with no reason given?   It is very hard to keep emotional engagement when you are puzzling as to how you have been made to fit with a certain scenario.

So I don't want Bioware to start making "happy endings" because that would not have been appropriate either.   I like being faced with difficult choices which may well be mortally ambiguous but can be consistent with how you have played the game.  This was true of Origins and there were a variety of ways in which it could end, depending on the choices you made, with regard to your character, their companions and the wider world.  But in DA2, even if you accept that no matter what you do, war was inevitable, there are only two possible outcomes for your character, neither of which may accurately reflect who you are and what you have done in the game.     In a way, for me it would have been better for it to have ended with the defeat of the Arishok because nothing you do in Act 3 makes much difference to what happens at the end, so your character is essentially pointless to the story.

   



I totally agree

[cdtrk65]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

rak72 wrote...

We can save Feynriel????

Yes, though he then becomes a Tevinter magister's apprentice.  I'm not sure that's going to end happily for him. 

Does he sort of reappear in Who Needs Saving (act 3)..?? I think it was reference to him, though I wasn`t completely certian... That would add to your doubts...

[Sister Helen]

I agree with the OP's top 10 depressing moments in DA2.

I would like to add the following, for your consideration:

11). When that sweet elf servant (Oriana?) tells Hawke that Fenris's old enemy (the apprentice to his owner) has killed off her Papa and the other servants, and she doesn't know why, because they always tried to be good and the mage had liked Papa's soup... If you take Fenris in, it's a master class in animating a character's look of dawning horror.

12). When the young elf girl (middleschool age?) pleads with Hawke not to hurt her rapist/kidnapper, because the guy felt bad about what he was doing to her and it wasn't his fault, a demon made him do it. That ripped at me.

In both cases, the worst things happened off screen and Hawke was not the victim. But the depressed the hell out of me.

[jds1bio]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned. But I have also experienced tragedy-fatigue (parts of GRRM, or the second Melanie Rawn Dragon trilogy come to mind), and I'm sorry if DAII reached that level for some people. I think it's particularly hard to judge the tragedy-per-square-foot sweet spot in a game, since the pacing is very different if you play it over a few days, a few weeks or a few months. I imagine the faster you play, the more saturated it seems.

That said, it is important to us on the team that Dragon Age continue to push the bounds of what a videogame can make you feel. And for that, sorrowful or touching events are a far better guage than happy ones. If your character gets everything he wants, are you feeling happy because you genuinely empathize with him, or just because you've "won" the game? It's when you stop to help a character that you get no benefit from just because you care about him as a person, or mourn the loss of someone like Leandra, who had no game benefit, that we've really reached past the limits of the game with the story.

It's not just about experiencing victory vs. tragedy.  As it is we don't get everything we want because there aren't enough levels to max out all the abilities, or we have to accept a particular party configuration, or a party member's death or permanent departure from the party from time to time.  But to say that sorrowful events are a better gauge of feeling than happy ones sounds like you are imposing a limit on role-playing that no gameplay mechanic ever could.

I always thought that in these types of games, we "win" when we can successfully play a role to its fullest potential.  You could write the story as if every day is a wedding celebration or a coronation of a conquering hero, but if the player has no agency then it's all just a show, emotionally moving as it may be.  Same goes for a story where every day is a new tragedy. 

I thought that Leandra was there to remind us that we are roleplaying as someone's son or daughter, and certainly Leandra's last scene gave us the best opportunity to do so since the game's opening scenes.  Sure, Leandra wasn't attached to any of the game mechanics like friendship/rivalry, but to say she had no game benefit undercuts the role-playing aspect of the gameplay.  For some, Leandra's death shaped their whole feelings towards Orsino.

You want to reach past the limits of the game with the story, and that is what we typically celebrate about BioWare.  But with RPGs we want to at least stretch the limits of the story with the game, if not reach past them ourselves.  And no matter the pacing or rate of tragedy, in DA2 we couldn't do this enough.

Modifié par jds1bio, 11 août 2011 - 02:39 .

[Jennifer Brandes Hepler]

Thanks for the discussion, guys. As a writer, I find it very informative to see a (civil) discussion of flaws people found in the story that aren't mixed up with criticism of gameplay and art. From what people are saying here, I think you'll like what's currently in the works.

[jamesp81]

2.  The Chantry destroyed:  As if Sister Petrice hadn't cause enough bloodshed in the Chantry, not to mention Anders tranquil made friend, the final incredible act that no one saw coming and no one could believe
actually happened was the destruction of the Chantry with the Grand Cleric inside.  Aside from all the innocent victims apart from potentially innocent templars, sisters, and mothers (Ulric and Petrice represent the worst, not the norm), the death of the only person with any power showing continual wisdom, compassion, and reason is beyond tragic.  The wisest and most stable person in the entire city died in an act that is in perfect alignment with modern definitions of terrorism. Calling the rite of annulment was a foul play, and so you can still side with the mages in good conscience, but that was pretty much the end of Anders as a "good guy" and a horrible, unbelievable moment all around.

Going to have to disagree in part.

The templars are not innocent.  Some are better than others.  Ulric, Petrice, and Meredith represent the worst of the worst, so to speak, but templar SOP in that town is "abuse mages all we want".  That they eventually reaped the whirlwind is not surprising, and I have no intention to of saving them from the consequences of their actions, nor seeking revenge on their behalf.

It is unfortunate what happened to Elthina, but she wasn't totally innocent either.  She had a responsibility to reign in Meredith AND Orsino and she utterly failed to do so.  The result was more or less inevitable.  If it hadn't been Anders, it'd have been somebody.  I do not agree with how Anders handled it.  But I'm not going to kill him for it, either.  A man has a right to fight for his freedom, and as the erstwhile commander of the templars, Elthina was not an illegitimate target.  The truth is that innocent people die in EVERY war.  That DOES NOT mean the war is not worth fighting, or the cause should be abandoned.

It's all kind of funny because I like the Chantry and roleplay my Hawke as a devout believer.  Being a believer doesn't mean chantry officers get to commit criminal acts against mages and get away with it, though.

Modifié par jamesp81, 11 août 2011 - 03:44 .

[Nerevar-as]

The problem with victory vs tragedy in DA2 is I never felt the former. Most of the time, Hawke just watched and stayed alive. There wasn´t anything I could compare to good ending of Nature of the Beast (very bittersweet IMHO), or defeating the AD cheating that jerk of a Maker´s rules through the DR but losing Morrigan anyway. Actual victories, but also with a cost. In DA2 Hawke pays the price, but usually nothing of worth is gained through it.