59 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I just read that article too. He is right about the enviornments being stale, (lets face it, they were) but I disagree with the narrative being disjointed, mainly because the narrative to me was designed to be a bit off because of Varric and his compulsive lying. A lot of things in the story of Dragon Age II were so against the grain of what you would consider a "fantasy" story, that I think the issue became one of not understanding the narrative, vs not caring for it.

Were choices important in Dragon Age II. Of course they were.The ending stayed the same, a war no one wanted, but to be fair, the ending always stays the same to some degree in a BioWare game. But in-game, choices mattered who was alive and dead, who got what they wanted and where the pawns were placed for the next act of the series. And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point, along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

If Cassandra had caught Varric in a lie/exageration more often, I might agree.  As it is, I think she only interrupts him maybe twice for that.  

Whether or not the choices were important, they didn't feel important.  Even when they should.  I mean, Magistrate's Orders felt like something that should have had serious repercussions.  Bethany even brings that up when presented with the quest.  But nothing comes of it.  Similarly, it really doesn't matter how you deal with Grace, she will always do what she does in Act 3.  

Outside of what the companions think of Hawke, I can think of only two instances where I felt my choices really mattered:  Who to take into the Deep Roads in Act 1 and how I dealt with the Arishok in Act 2.  Those had tangible consequences

I do llike the friendship/rivalry system though.  It still needs some tweeking, but it is definitely nice to be able to stay friends with characters even if they disagree with Hawke on certain issues.  And that in turn alters the relationship.

[Fast Jimmy]

 

Renmiri1 wrote...

Do the Enigma of Kirkwall quest 

There is an ancient demon in the bowels of Kirkwall sewers.. and the veil is very thin there. They are like on "demon central" there. Everyone is a bit loco in that town 

 

The Enigma of Kirkwall excuse for why everyone is crazy is a total throw away, as per David Gaider.

Despite being one of the coolest story elements in the game (along with Sundermount, an entire mountain powerful in magic and which wars were fought over for unknown reasons), an element that could have made Kirkwall a truly interesting place to explore for seven years, which gave a reason behind the high prevalence of blood magic, demon possession, and which made Kirkwall the location of an incredibly interesting, ancient conspiracy (the streets of the city itself were spell forms and wards, for Pete's sake)... despite all of that interesting lore, it was only come up in the late stages of development as a way to have a few Codex entries explain why you fought so many blood mage/Abominations.

Horrible, HORRIBLE story-telling and waste of build up. I was convinced on my first playthrough that this was going to be the focus of the endgame, that Anders explosion and the subsequent massacres and mages turning to demons in droves would break through some sort of magical barrier held dormant in Kirkwall, releasing who knows what... which Hawke would need to conquer.

Instead... the story just ended with "everyone went crazy and killed each other and Hawke was one of the people left standing."

LinksOcarina wrote...

Were choices important in Dragon Age II. Of course they were.The ending stayed the same, a war no one wanted, but to be fair, the ending always stays the same to some degree in a BioWare game. But in-game, choices mattered who was alive and dead, who got what they wanted and where the pawns were placed for the next act of the series.

NO. The ending DIDN'T stay the same in DA:O. Sure, you killed the Archdemon, but the terms of how you did that were entirely up to you. Did you perform the Ritual, or complete the US? Is Anora queen, or Allistair king... or both? Did you kill Loghain for his crimes, or make him die, or have him lead the GWs? Did your friends love you and stick around for more of your adventures? Or was the bond not that strong and did they leave to pursue their own interests?

I'm not going to get into a discussion about how much better the endings of DA:O were (as I believe Bioware came close to perfecting the concept of how to handle endings with this game), but to believe that DA2 has any choices or consequences that are going to be "setting up the pawns" for DA3 is total insanity. Does anyone truly think that Anders, Fenris, Varric, Isabella, Merril or your sibling will have ANY bearing on DA3? Let alone Sebastian, the most worthless character to offer as DLC.

And Companions are the only people I mention because that is all DA2 let's you have any influence on. And the influence is minimal, at best. In regards to the end game choice of Mages vs. Templars, it doesn't matter, as outlined in the events of the book Asunder. In fact, Asunder pretty much says the events as they end in Kirkwall have next to nothing to do with why the Mage revolt really happens. So... "how the pawn pieces are set up" is a total joke. DA2 will have next to no impact on anything. Which is why I don't recommend it to anyone, because any event that happens in it can be explained and then forgotten within the first ten seconds of the DA3 intro cinematic.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:01 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Samsom the failed Templar defines the situation best.

Mages are people like you and me but when they get backed into a corner they have options you and I don't have.

If you were backed into a corner, to be executed and seeing all your friends being massacred.. and you could take a few with you by succumbing to demons, wouldn't you ? Maybe not you, but I am not sure most of us would have the self control to accept death and not retaliate with all we got.

Before you think I am making fun of you, let me wish you a good morning first. I really don't, but post like yours usually make me respond with this:

What are you talking about? My blood mage couldn't even raise a dead rabbit. Besides, I was lucky when templars even recognized I was mage. Wearing a silly hat and robe, plus waving a magic wand didn't even raise an eyebrow. Let alone hitting them with a fireball. At least somewhere at the end I understood that I was under Meredith's protection. But in the rest of the decade I only saw other mages being massacred. Most of the time it was me killing them, but I never got backed into such a corner.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[Detsaot]

coles4971 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I just read that article too. He is right about the enviornments being stale, (lets face it, they were) but I disagree with the narrative being disjointed, mainly because the narrative to me was designed to be a bit off because of Varric and his compulsive lying. A lot of things in the story of Dragon Age II were so against the grain of what you would consider a "fantasy" story, that I think the issue became one of not understanding the narrative, vs not caring for it.

Were choices important in Dragon Age II. Of course they were.The ending stayed the same, a war no one wanted, but to be fair, the ending always stays the same to some degree in a BioWare game. But in-game, choices mattered who was alive and dead, who got what they wanted and where the pawns were placed for the next act of the series. And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point, along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

Oh boy, here come the Varric excuses.

I like the guy, but each time I hear "it's ok for feature X of the game to be retarded because it's Varric telling the story", I like him a little less.

You don't get to complain about feature X being bad because they intended feature X to be bad.  I bet a lot of us would have been much less disappointed with DA2 had BioWare advertised it as an intentionally bad game.

'Dragon Age 2!  A crappy game because that is the story the Dwarf tells! Available on Xbox 360, PS3, and PC!'

I wonder which character is going to be the reason DA3 isn't very good...

[Fast Jimmy]

Detsaot wrote...

You don't get to complain about feature X being bad because they intended feature X to be bad.  I bet a lot of us would have been much less disappointed with DA2 had BioWare advertised it as an intentionally bad game.

'Dragon Age 2!  A crappy game because that is the story the Dwarf tells! Available on Xbox 360, PS3, and PC!'

I wonder which character is going to be the reason DA3 isn't very good...

I'm already going to say Cole. Just because people are already gaga over him.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point,

You mean rise to power by treasure hunting? Seem lame and cheap to me. I expected a lot more than that. I expected conspiracy, power struggle, plot twist etc.. 

LinksOcarina wrote...

along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

It's the most flaw morality-based system I have ever experience - for morality neutral diplomatic PC since you're forced to max friendship/rivalry system in order to gain any advantages - which mean you have to cheat all the way or not roleplaying accordingly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DA2 had some good ideas, but oor execution.

More personal story? Good idea, but there is no phase of "normal life" before s*** hits hte fan. No time to kno your brother/sister before they get killed.

Having a single ending really isn't that big of a problem for me. Raliroading in regards to story isn't THAT big of a problem. I was more pissed that the railroading was everywhere - in every aspect of the game.
There was no avoiding combat or sneaking past encounters. There was little strategy. There were too few options to deal with various situations.

The passage of time was done horribly, since nothing changed.
The family lacked the proper emotional impact, since it was either too distant or too cliche/cheese (mothers death).
Roleplaying suffered badly in this game.

Soem good ideas, some bad ideas, overall a bad implementation of said ideas.
And mechanics overall sucked.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

NO. The ending DIDN'T stay the same in DA:O. Sure, you killed the Archdemon, but the terms of how you did that were entirely up to you. Did you perform the Ritual, or complete the US? Is Anora queen, or Allistair king... or both? Did you kill Loghain for his crimes, or make him die, or have him lead the GWs? Did your friends love you and stick around for more of your adventures? Or was the bond not that strong and did they leave to pursue their own interests?

I'm not going to get into a discussion about how much better the endings of DA:O were (as I believe Bioware came close to perfecting the concept of how to handle endings with this game), but to believe that DA2 has any choices or consequences that are going to be "setting up the pawns" for DA3 is total insanity. Does anyone truly think that Anders, Fenris, Varric, Isabella, Merril or your sibling will have ANY bearing on DA3? Let alone Sebastian, the most worthless character to offer as DLC.

And Companions are the only people I mention because that is all DA2 let's you have any influence on. And the influence is minimal, at best. In regards to the end game choice of Mages vs. Templars, it doesn't matter, as outlined in the events of the book Asunder. In fact, Asunder pretty much says the events as they end in Kirkwall have next to nothing to do with why the Mage revolt really happens. So... "how the pawn pieces are set up" is a total joke. DA2 will have next to no impact on anything. Which is why I don't recommend it to anyone, because any event that happens in it can be explained and then forgotten within the first ten seconds of the DA3 intro cinematic.

And Asunder is canon because...?

And you never know. Zevran and Nathaniel showed up depending on how you handled them, as did Alistar.

As for the endings to Origins, they are mechanically the same. Of course the choices end-game matter, and they did do it better in Origins than in 2, but there were a number of similar choices made in Dragon Age II that were of that level of massive narrative, Fenryiel, the Arishok, who lives and dies out of the companions, how they were handled, hell,even if Varric has a piece of the damn idol or not might come up again.

I wouldn't dimiss it in the end, because you got to remember they are not just going for one game and a sequel, they are going franchise with the choices. 

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point,

You mean rise to power by treasure hunting? Seem lame and cheap to me. I expected a lot more than that. I expected conspiracy, power struggle, plot twist etc.. 

LinksOcarina wrote...

along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

It's the most flaw morality-based system I have ever experience - for morality neutral diplomatic PC since you're forced to max friendship/rivalry system in order to gain any advantages - which mean you have to cheat all the way or not roleplaying accordingly.

Which is all meta-game knowledge if you are looking to cheat, and there is no such thing as "not roleplaying accordingly."

And since you don't have to get the characters to 100% (only high approval, 60-75%) to get the benefits, i'm not sure what are you talking about.


As for the storyline, I mean the fact that its not a "save the world" type of problem is a breath of fresh air. 

[Renmiri1]

@Sacred_Fantasy

conspiracy - Petrice trying to turn the town against Qunary
power struggle - Mages x Templars, Petrice x pro-Qunari people
plot twist - Bartrand leaving you on deep roads, Chantry being blown up

Hello ? Were you awake while playing DA2 ?

[Blastback]

I'd rather have a cliche "save the world" type plot which was fun to play than a more unique one which was as unentertaining as DA2. The story just was not fun for me. I'm playing a virtually powerless witness to great events. Yeah, that's worth the money I paid....

[ledod]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point,

You mean rise to power by treasure hunting? Seem lame and cheap to me. I expected a lot more than that. I expected conspiracy, power struggle, plot twist etc.. 

LinksOcarina wrote...

along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

It's the most flaw morality-based system I have ever experience - for morality neutral diplomatic PC since you're forced to max friendship/rivalry system in order to gain any advantages - which mean you have to cheat all the way or not roleplaying accordingly.

Perhaps in the next game friendship/rivalry will open unique quests that yield some sort of character-specific benefit. I don't recall how it happened, but I liked the unique ability Wynne got at some point in DA:O Not only was it plot/character-relevant, but it aided in the 'uniqueness' of Wynne's character.

[Wulfram]

The thing is, if you're going to do something that's new and different, then you need to give yourself time to make sure it's really good, or you've got no chance of selling your new idea.

Whereas DA2 is obviously rushed, and the virtues of it's story line are submerged in stuff that is just plain bad, particularly in Act 3.

[ledod]

Blastback wrote...

I'd rather have a cliche "save the world" type plot which was fun to play than a more unique one which was as unentertaining as DA2. The story just was not fun for me. I'm playing a virtually powerless witness to great events. Yeah, that's worth the money I paid....

While DA 2 did not afford the player with the same scope of purpose that DA: O was centered upon, it, nevertheless, offered a more nuanced participation in the DA universe. Every plotline need not be about global crises, but rather can benefit from more intimate, low-key circumstances. For example, DA:O allowed the player to experience Thedas as a high-profile Grey Warden dedicated to the eradication of the Blight. DA 2 focused the player's attentioned on the life/journey of the common man. Is it a better/worse story? Depends primarily on what each respective player's M.O.

[Wulfram]

DA2 isn't intimate or low-key. It's still heavily focused on the epic (Fighting the Qunari King, Killing Dragons, the start of a continent wide war), and on telling the player that their character is epic.

[Blastback]

ledod wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I'd rather have a cliche "save the world" type plot which was fun to play than a more unique one which was as unentertaining as DA2. The story just was not fun for me. I'm playing a virtually powerless witness to great events. Yeah, that's worth the money I paid....

While DA 2 did not afford the player with the same scope of purpose that DA: O was centered upon, it, nevertheless, offered a more nuanced participation in the DA universe. Every plotline need not be about global crises, but rather can benefit from more intimate, low-key circumstances. For example, DA:O allowed the player to experience Thedas as a high-profile Grey Warden dedicated to the eradication of the Blight. DA 2 focused the player's attentioned on the life/journey of the common man. Is it a better/worse story? Depends primarily on what each respective player's M.O.

I am not inherently against the idea of playing a game where your not on an epic quest to save the world.  But it's easy for that to be a fun story to play.  What DA2 offered was an experance that for my money, just was not fun.  The whole game I felt powerless and ineffective, not heroic. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Renmiri1 wrote...

@Sacred_Fantasy

conspiracy - Petrice trying to turn the town against Qunary

Irrelevant. Nothing to do with Hawke rising to power.

Renmiri1 wrote...

power struggle - Mages x Templars, Petrice x pro-Qunari people

Irrelevant. Mage-Templars  Conflicts. Not related to Hawke rising to power.

Renmiri1 wrote...


plot twist - Bartrand leaving you on deep roads,

You called that a plot twist? It's treasure hunting. People betray each other for treasure. It's common sense. What else can you expect? Like I said earlier, it's cheap and lame way to rise to power.  

Renmiri1 wrote...



Chantry being blown up

Huh? And how does that related to how Hawke rise to power? Irrelevant to discussion.

See? DA 2 was suppose to tell the story about how a refuge suppose to rise to power, and here you go giving examples of how  mess up DA 2's story was.

Renmiri1 wrote...




Hello ? Were you awake while playing DA2 ?

Yup. Are you?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Which is all meta-game knowledge if you are looking to cheat,

 It is metagaming. DA 2 promote metagaming all the way right from the start. For example,  you already knew the war already started before you even start playing as Hawke. Thanks to Varric. 
So?

LinksOcarina wrote..

and there is no such thing as "not roleplaying accordingly."
And since you don't have to get the characters to 100% (only high approval, 60-75%) to get the benefits, i'm not sure what are you talking about.

My character friendships/rivalry never hit 20 points unless I forced my PC to be either pro mage or anti mage which are both not what I intended to roleplay. Instead, I compromise with both Fenris and Anders a lots. I agree on some but disagree on other things. But Anders and Fenris can't understand such compromisazation. They're just dumb AI. And as the result, Nothing triggers. No personal quest. No further dialogues. No character development. They're both as dull as dead trunk. 

Have you tried playing neutral compromizing character? You should. 

LinksOcarina wrote..
As for the storyline, I mean the fact that its not a "save the world" type of problem is a breath of fresh air.

Well... They screwed "Rise to Power" theme.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 septembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[Realmzmaster]

ledod wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
And if anything, the hidden brilliance of the Dragon Age II plot I think is the games greatest strength at this point,

You mean rise to power by treasure hunting? Seem lame and cheap to me. I expected a lot more than that. I expected conspiracy, power struggle, plot twist etc.. 

LinksOcarina wrote...

along with the friendship/rivalry system which I still maintain is the best morality-based system I have ever seen implemented.

It's the most flaw morality-based system I have ever experience - for morality neutral diplomatic PC since you're forced to max friendship/rivalry system in order to gain any advantages - which mean you have to cheat all the way or not roleplaying accordingly.

Perhaps in the next game friendship/rivalry will open unique quests that yield some sort of character-specific benefit. I don't recall how it happened, but I liked the unique ability Wynne got at some point in DA:O Not only was it plot/character-relevant, but it aided in the 'uniqueness' of Wynne's character.

Wynne died in the tower and was aided by a spirit of faith that inhabited her body to revive her. The spirit could not get back out. Essentially Wynne is an abomination like Anders.

[Realmzmaster]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Which is all meta-game knowledge if you are looking to cheat,

 It is metagaming. DA 2 promote metagaming all the way right from the start. For example,  you already knew the war already started before you even start playing as Hawke. Thanks to Varric. 
So?

LinksOcarina wrote..

and there is no such thing as "not roleplaying accordingly."
And since you don't have to get the characters to 100% (only high approval, 60-75%) to get the benefits, i'm not sure what are you talking about.

My character friendships/rivalry never hit 20 points unless I forced my PC to be either pro mage or anti mage which are both not what I intended to roleplay. Instead, I compromise with both Fenris and Anders a lots. I agree on some but disagree on other things. But Anders and Fenris can't understand such compromisazation. They're just dumb AI. And as the result, Nothing triggers. No personal quest. No further dialogues. No character development. They're both as dull as dead trunk. 

Have you tried playing neutral compromizing character? You should. 

LinksOcarina wrote..
As for the storyline, I mean the fact that its not a "save the world" type of problem is a breath of fresh air.

Well... They screwed "Rise to Power" theme.

Yes, I have played a neutral compromising Hawke and was able to get both Fenris and Anders over 50%. I have aslo played a diplomatic Hawke, sarcastic Hawke, aggressive Hawke and a combination of all three and did not have to metagame to do it.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Yes, I have played a neutral compromising Hawke and was able to get both Fenris and Anders over 50%. I have aslo played a diplomatic Hawke, sarcastic Hawke, aggressive Hawke and a combination of all three and did not have to metagame to do it.

Good for you.

It shows that your characters agree more than 50% of what Anders and Fenris believe in. My characters don't share such belief system. 
 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 septembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Yes, I have played a neutral compromising Hawke and was able to get both Fenris and Anders over 50%. I have aslo played a diplomatic Hawke, sarcastic Hawke, aggressive Hawke and a combination of all three and did not have to metagame to do it.

Good for you.

It shows that your characters agree more than 50% of what Anders and Fenris believe in. My characters don't share such belief system. 
 

Or disagree with them. I never said whether the 50% was on the friendship or rivalry side. You can get to 50% with either one and never have to agree with them.

[philippe willaume]

Well,
The way the way the story was told was perfectly fine from a narrative perspective.
Hawke is the cause of all the strife because of is "rise to power".
I mean that was quite novel the player/hero being the direct cause of one the game problem.

All that being said Act III is very weak and contrived compared to the two first Act.
the way the Qunary vs Chantry is presented forces you to invest in the story arc.
which might i had will end differently regarding on how you play it BUT will still have the same end result.

For 2 acts we have seen the good and the bad of both templar and mage.
but in act III,
Do we get to know Meredith or Orsino no not really.
Are decisions we have made about mage vs templar mater in the slightest no not really
As Hawke, each time we hear a cat, we look to see if there is not a little girl crying because her cat is stuck in a tree.
and yet as hawk we sat on our arses 3 years totally oblivious the situation in general and to a certain cat lover in particular.

It is not a matter of the chantry having to blow up and the conflict happening, It is a matter as how it is presented to us.

Phil

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

 

Renmiri1 wrote...

Do the Enigma of Kirkwall quest 

There is an ancient demon in the bowels of Kirkwall sewers.. and the veil is very thin there. They are like on "demon central" there. Everyone is a bit loco in that town 

 

The Enigma of Kirkwall excuse for why everyone is crazy is a total throw away, as per David Gaider.

Despite being one of the coolest story elements in the game (along with Sundermount, an entire mountain powerful in magic and which wars were fought over for unknown reasons), an element that could have made Kirkwall a truly interesting place to explore for seven years, which gave a reason behind the high prevalence of blood magic, demon possession, and which made Kirkwall the location of an incredibly interesting, ancient conspiracy (the streets of the city itself were spell forms and wards, for Pete's sake)... despite all of that interesting lore, it was only come up in the late stages of development as a way to have a few Codex entries explain why you fought so many blood mage/Abominations.

Horrible, HORRIBLE story-telling and waste of build up. I was convinced on my first playthrough that this was going to be the focus of the endgame, that Anders explosion and the subsequent massacres and mages turning to demons in droves would break through some sort of magical barrier held dormant in Kirkwall, releasing who knows what... which Hawke would need to conquer.

Instead... the story just ended with "everyone went crazy and killed each other and Hawke was one of the people left standing."

LinksOcarina wrote...

Were choices important in Dragon Age II. Of course they were.The ending stayed the same, a war no one wanted, but to be fair, the ending always stays the same to some degree in a BioWare game. But in-game, choices mattered who was alive and dead, who got what they wanted and where the pawns were placed for the next act of the series.

NO. The ending DIDN'T stay the same in DA:O. Sure, you killed the Archdemon, but the terms of how you did that were entirely up to you. Did you perform the Ritual, or complete the US? Is Anora queen, or Allistair king... or both? Did you kill Loghain for his crimes, or make him die, or have him lead the GWs? Did your friends love you and stick around for more of your adventures? Or was the bond not that strong and did they leave to pursue their own interests?

I'm not going to get into a discussion about how much better the endings of DA:O were (as I believe Bioware came close to perfecting the concept of how to handle endings with this game), but to believe that DA2 has any choices or consequences that are going to be "setting up the pawns" for DA3 is total insanity. Does anyone truly think that Anders, Fenris, Varric, Isabella, Merril or your sibling will have ANY bearing on DA3? Let alone Sebastian, the most worthless character to offer as DLC.

And Companions are the only people I mention because that is all DA2 let's you have any influence on. And the influence is minimal, at best. In regards to the end game choice of Mages vs. Templars, it doesn't matter, as outlined in the events of the book Asunder. In fact, Asunder pretty much says the events as they end in Kirkwall have next to nothing to do with why the Mage revolt really happens. So... "how the pawn pieces are set up" is a total joke. DA2 will have next to no impact on anything. Which is why I don't recommend it to anyone, because any event that happens in it can be explained and then forgotten within the first ten seconds of the DA3 intro cinematic.

. Well actually, doesn't Asunder pretty much say that Kirkwall was the reason the events of Asunder happened?  Or at least a major trigger is sending the relationship between mages and Templars spiraling for the worst?

[Renmiri1]

DAO - Blight starts and ends
DA2 - Mage / Templar war starts
DA3 - ??

Those are the main stories IMHO. You can chose your journey on HOW you end the Blight or WHO you support on the Mage Templar War but you can't change the fact that the war and the Blight happen.

DA2 prepares things for an epic DA3 story with Civil War and intrigue ^^