Aller au contenu

DA2 - an enviornment of utter powerlessness


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
5 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Guest_starlitegirlx_*

Guest_starlitegirlx_*
  • Guests

I just finished a mage run and realized something about this game that is a byproduct of how it is written. In the end, I really feel powerless if I have tried to help the mages at all unless I am a mage and then the moment I realize what Anders has done, that sense of oppression and powerlessness gets the middle finger beacuse I feel like I can stop TRYING to play some kind of balance and reason and just run with it - killing the templars and actively going after that crazy evil meredith who needed to be put down since long before I actually met her. Meeting her only made it clearer what had to be done. Such a shame I have to wait so long to do it and that so many people die needlessly because I have to wait. I wonder if other people felt this way?

 

I spent a huge part of this game helping other people with their annoying problems, most of them centered to some degree around mages and templars. They become a nuisance of helpless idiots that I kind of want to kill since I can't really avoid most of these quests and especially since I want Meredith gone as she's a raging lunatic... lyrium or not, this place was bad long before I went to the deep roads. And I can't just murder her and be done with it. Even I saw the writing on the wall for that in my first game.I knew that powderkeg was going to blow. Who among us did not? Yet I am offered no way to deal with her. I can see how Anders does have a point. I would not have gone that route myself, but I actually get it this run whereas I've killed him twice before. But running as a balanced and fair minded mage - at the end of the day if this act is the thing that pushes this all to implode so things can start new, then I'm going to roll with it and frankly, I really don't see how the stalemate would end otherwise given the writing. 

 

And we can't blame the Lyrium idol. Problems existed long before she had her hands on that artifact. The artifact just brought out the crazy that was already in her much like how Justice brings out that need for vengence that was already in him thought without Justice Anders never ventures into that area because that is not who he is until Justice becomes Vengence. He's an anarchist who escapes. Not violent by nature. Didn't even like killing darkspawn. A healer by nature with a cat he loved... I'm pretty sure Meredith was just a controlling zealot straight out before the idol.... And yet, playing as a mage who tried to be balanced and fair, to try to always find the middle ground and see both sides of the arguement (having not been oppressed by the templars and chantry at all as an apostate so there were no predjudices) I got really sick of dealing with ALL OF IT. Going the anarchist route was very satisfying by the end of the game running as a mage. I personally wouldn't have blown up the chantry. I'd rather have just killed meredith (which is totally justifed) but once Anders has done that and there is no going back, as a mage, fully immersed in that role, I feel like I get how it came to this for him with this Justice/vengence spirit who he allowed in him. I get that given all I have seen and the perfect middle of the role stance by the head of the chantry (which really only allows the stalemate to continue, sweet as she is and much as I like her, she IS the reason this has been status quo with Meredith and the templars taking more liberties as times passes). I used to think it was the mages but after running as a mage, I see the need to lash out at those who control. Look at Fenris... he hates the mages for their lashing out and turning to blood magic as a desperate way to empower themselves but in the fade, he will make a deal with a demon just as easily. And in his life, he justifies his actions quite well... wanting vengence for his enslavement even when it appears he is free. That's not just fear. That's revenge. He's a very angry elf. He is out for blood. Hides it well but let's not kid ourselves about what is really going on with him. He's no better than all those he so readily condemns for feeling he same as he does in similar circumstances.

 

Yet... as a game, I think that I really don't like that it brings out these nasty feelings in me. This is nothing like my natural state and getting immersed in a story where it becomes how I feel - some might say it was a success yet I can't say I'd agree with that. I don't roleplay to feel oppressed and feel like my choices are limited. That's the exact oppositite of what roleplaying is, tis it not? I didn't feel this way in DAO or skyrim, or oblivion, or ME1, ME2....  I knew I had things I had to do but even when some of them felt restricted by choices they never actually felt oppressive to such a degree where no matter what I did I could not seem to set the ship right. This game is guided by the heavy hand of its maker, the writer, and you are thrown into a role where it appears you have control, it likes to let you think you have conrol, but you are no better off than a mage in kirkwall's circle. It all leades down the same path. Yes you can side with templars or mages, and that probably will feel good to you because by some point that oppressive feeling will take over and you will have the need for a cartharsis. This does not make for good role playing. It really doesn't. Quality roleplaying feels free and fun no matter what character you are playng. It doesn't feel like you are backed into corners not of your own making. I have to wonder if they really ever truly tested role played this game when they made it or did they just go through the motions because if they did I'm kind of suprised that nobody would notice this and think something is not quite right there.... or maybe it's just me...

 

Perhaps this was the point of it all though. Perhaps this was the intention of the writers... to give you a hefty dose of what it is to be in the middle of it and have so little choice, to feel so totally oppressed, in which case it did succeed, but I don't think it should be considered a 'true' RPG... as it is forced on you from minute one.

 


  • Benjmn, Tommy6860 et DeathScepter aiment ceci

#2
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

I like this summary lots;

 

 

Perhaps this was the point of it all though. Perhaps this was the intention of the writers... to give you a hefty dose of what it is to be in the middle of it and have so little choice, to feel so totally oppressed, in which case it did succeed, but I don't think it should be considered a 'true' RPG... as it is forced on you from minute one.

 

Honestly, the game isn't an RPG in my eyes. I sometimes think the ME3 ending at least offered more of a choice though the effect was the same, it meant nothing to my actions throughout the series to which I invested hundreds of hours of happy gaming; kerplunk!. The first run for me in DA2, I sided with the Mages completely and unapologetically, only to have the top mage go berserk when the Templars started warring and I had to kill him then on to Meredith. OK, I thought, the writing intends something else with thre story arc, since Kirkwall is clearly a Templar stronghold and the Tevinters have it better elsewhere. So I did a second run, and I played a biased Templar side, only to see the same darned ending, WTH!!. I played it a third time just to get my money's worth by at least getting all of the cheevos as well as buying into the to major DLC, Legacy and MotA. Aside from the story arc and my actions in those runs having near zero effect, an RPG should offer the PC the ability to customize their companions with different outfits and armors; well we know that was out the door as well; nuff said.



#3
Helios969

Helios969
  • Members
  • 2 752 messages

It was designed to be a very constrained, oppressive story but not to give players the "middle finger."  It was about setting up the world conditions for the game to follow.  And I feel your pain, but there is little I can say that hasn't been said ad nauseam.  I still think it's a fun game to explore, but most definitely different than DAO.

 

As far as it being a RPG - not being an RPG, such is wholly subjective.  Too many people "role-play" from their comfort zone, in which case you are not really role-playing at all...you are engaged in an interactive movie.  Finished a mage-hating mage playthrough not long ago which was far from my norm...and it was fantastic fun.  You have to get out of your comfort zone and use a bit of imagination, but it's doable.



#4
Benjmn

Benjmn
  • Members
  • 12 messages

I hadn't thought to call the game's feel "oppressive", but it does fit.  It is a linear RPG set in a horrible place, where the player is presented with a series of "lesser of two evils" choices that result in a parade of horrors culminating in a civil war regardless of any player choice or action.  Which for me really reduces replay value, as the reason I replay single player games like this is to see how the story plays out if I do x instead of y.



#5
Guest_starlitegirlx_*

Guest_starlitegirlx_*
  • Guests

I hadn't thought to call the game's feel "oppressive", but it does fit.  It is a linear RPG set in a horrible place, where the player is presented with a series of "lesser of two evils" choices that result in a parade of horrors culminating in a civil war regardless of any player choice or action.  Which for me really reduces replay value, as the reason I replay single player games like this is to see how the story plays out if I do x instead of y.

 

Or to experience it from different reaces. Mostly I'm playing a human now in DAO which I'm still replaying. Getting the most out of it that way. I usually make the 'do whatever it takes' choices later down the line after I've tired of the good ones and try the other races after I've done it as a human enough that I want something new. Here, we are always a human. Being a mage vs a warrior is a bit different, but not really at all. Not sure why there couldn't have been an elf option given we see some elves in the game. Or a dwarf given there are dwarves. I really don't get that aspect why they couldn't have some variety there. Fenris and Merrill wander the city with you. It's not like they are thown out. So I just don't really get it. Also, though templars are human, mages are elves and human so it would not be a racial thing. As a dwarf, you might be the least bias as magic doesn't exist among them.

 

But yes, there really aren't many differences. I tried both so far and I'm done. I played a warrior twice and a mage once. I sided with anders as a mage and killed templars. I sided with Templars twice - once trying to side with mages but in the end, too tired of them proving me wrong, the other not giving them a chance as soon as I started seeing things they did. There's just not much difference. Now, linear stories can work well enough. Play Skyrim and you are always killing the dragons. Your path is set there. But you have all of skyrim to roam and many other quests to do. Most of them don't give you more than the set path, but you can do other things beyond that and play other characters. I think I have over 1000 hours in that game. I've been vampires who were good, ones who were blood thirsty, I've been a werewolf, I've been nearly all the races. I've played so many different ways that I'm bored of it now. Even DAO which I'm still new to (maybe had it three weeks or a month) and haven't been anything but a human and once an elf that I didn't finish yet. But there are so many more options. And that's not really the whole feeling of oppression. It's the air of it when it comes down to the final decision. You know you can't really win and it won't barely matter. The only victory is that Meredith is gone. As a mage, the oppression feels very strong though. Moreso than as a warrior. That's what I was mentioning as well.



#6
hw78

hw78
  • Members
  • 33 messages

The biggest problem with DA2 is that it railroads you to hell and back. Railroading is necessary sometimes and obviously if you're playing a Bioware game they want you to follow the story path, but the effect is basically what you said. I love it as a study in powerlessness -- there's something beautiful in the sheer bleakness of it all, in the fact that Hawke can choose to be extend kindness and be a good person in a terrible world -- but it reminds me of Dear Esther, which has a good overall narrative but doesn't have any replay value because no matter what choices you make, the ending is the same. There's simply no hope in Dragon Age 2, even if you become invested in the romances, because Hawke is doomed to disappear from Kirkwall no matter what he does or who he hitches himself to.

 

It's like the writers read Nietzsche and came to all the wrong conclusions. Being a sentient creature in a universe actively trying to devour you makes for a great horror novel but I'm truly puzzled why they wanted to make that plot into a game. 

 

I think the reason people enjoy Origins more (generally speaking) is because of the sense of agency. You could decide how to romance your characters. You could decide who got to kill the Archdemon. You could decide if Loghain lived or died. You could decide a great number of things and they had wild ramifications on the world around you. Yes, you always kill the Archdemon in the end -- but you decide how to go to its death. What it means for you, and for the relationships you've developed with your characters. What it means for Ferelden and Thedas.

 

That's not so in DA2, sad to say. It hits the numbers -- deciding whether or not to kill Anders, deciding to keep Isabela -- but it doesn't fill it out with the plot, and since the ending is the same regardless, it's almost as if to ask, what's the point? The actual plot of the game is boring as hell once you figure out the ending doesn't change. If you don't dig the characters then it's incredibly hard to enjoy. It's about Hawke and his super bomb clique and...that's it, really. It's hard to understand what the big deal about being Champion is when the Champion just sat on his hands and let the city blow up because the plot demanded it. Usually the romances can make up for the replay deficit in the plot but I haven't found any meaningful differences in friendmance vs rivalmance except how much of a douche Hawke decides to be -- because, again, nothing changes about the characters, they do what they do regardless of how Hawke treats them. It's one thing to make a game where not everything is about about the hero protagonist, but at the same time, being in love and committing to someone makes profound changes in your life. Why would that not be reflected in the game?

 

I like that on a certain level but at some point DA2 started feeling more like a mediocre dating simulator with cool combat than a real RPG. I guess the thing to take away from all this is that, like the reused dungeon maps, Origins hid the railroading a lot better

 

I hope they recover in Inquisition. We'll see, I guess.

 

I'll stop editing this any day now I swear, so last thing: what made Origins interesting is that the incredible agency you were given in regards to your teammates made the ending feel justified. That's the difference between the two games IMO.


  • Tommy6860 aime ceci