203 réponses à ce sujet

[Hydwn]

I'm one of the few people who really liked both Origins and DA2.  It helps, I think, that I think of them as completely different genres - not really comparable because they're completely different kinds of stories.

 

I think we needed Hawke's story at least once - the story of the more-or-less ordinary people in Thedas.  The non-hero.  It makes sense as a pallet-cleanser between epic adventures.  Otherwise, Thedas does start to feel like it lurches from one enormous supernatural calamity to another.  Kirkwall's seven years represent a period of relative peace between two grand adventures. 

 

I didn't mind that it wasn't the Monomyth/Her's Journey, though I understand why people would get upset about that.  if you're buying it because it's fantasy, it's probably not the kind of story you're looking for.  If you're buying it because you like the world, it's kind of neat to spend a few years in the life on a non-hero.

 

That said, I think when it comes down to the story (rather than gameplay/environment criticisms) I can see one aspect that is a bit complicated.  It seems a step back in the construction-deconstruction.reconstruction thing:

 

• Construction: The pure-hearted hero-knight rescues his lady-love from a dragon, using his force of skill and the purity of his soul to overcome the evil.
• Desconstruction: This myth is sexist, and treats the unknown and different as monsters.  Either the knight is crazy and killing the princess's pet, or the knight's battle with the dragon destroys a town and the knight doesn't care, or the princess doesn't want to be rescued.
• Reconstruction: The knight is innocent, and pure, and kind - and kind of childish and goofy, because he was raised in a monastery.  He's alsso not a great knight.  He and his lady-love will slay the dragon on top of a tower together, because she's strong like that.  But he'll take the last blow that will kill him as well, because he's chivalrous and pure of heart.

Dragon age Origins was all reconstruction.  It took all the cliched tropes, and tried to look at them with thought and psychological realism.  In the end, it modifies them but it doesn't destroy or ignore them as deconstruction does.  Deconstruction takes them apart and so it's a first step, but reconstruction is the final stage.  It remakes them for a modern age, and so takes the best of the old and the best of the new.

 

Dragon Age 2 stopped with deconstruction.  Meredith imagines herself the hero, Orsino the villain.  The Arishok imagines himself the hero, too.  There's no reconstruction here.  The tropes are just dismantled.  And I think most people are just tired of deconstruction.  It's a necessary midway step, but it seems more and more about the self-importance of the author and contempt for the audience.  Not that I think that's true with Bioware, but in most cases the deconstructing author clearly thinks the audience it too stupid to come up with these things themselves.

 

Besides, sometimes you just want the hero to be good and win the day.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's the story we've always told

 

So I can see how that would be a step back.  I still love it, though.

[Mistic]

I think we needed Hawke's story at least once - the story of the more-or-less ordinary people in Thedas.  The non-hero.  It makes sense as a pallet-cleanser between epic adventures.  Otherwise, Thedas does start to feel like it lurches from one enormous supernatural calamity to another.  Kirkwall's seven years represent a period of relative peace between two grand adventures. 

 

I didn't mind that it wasn't the Monomyth/Her's Journey, though I understand why people would get upset about that.  if you're buying it because it's fantasy, it's probably not the kind of story you're looking for.  If you're buying it because you like the world, it's kind of neat to spend a few years in the life on a non-hero.

 

I agree. It wasn't a bad turn of events to have this calm before the storm. Another thing is marketing, who sold the storm instead of the calm. I played DA2 years after its release, so I knew what I was getting into, and enjoyed it for it.

 

However, even before dwelling into Deconstrucion and Reconstruction of the themes, the execution itself was lacking. It felt more like DA2 wasn't sure of what gender it wanted to be. The story of a city can be told better. The story of an unknown "hero" can be told better. The story of a conflict in which you can't win can be told better. In games too. I always had the feeling that it tried to be the Planescape: Torment to DA:O's Baldur's Gate. But Bioware didn't write Planescape, and so far they're better at the monomyth. Kudos for trying, though.

[txgoldrush]

Now, I love ME3 and all, but better told and better woven than DA:O?

 

Nuh-freakin'-uh.

 

Because the main threats weaved in with the side stories. This does not happen in DAO.

[Cheech 2.0]

When you're old like me, and played a ton of games everything is a little cliched. My fave genre is JRPG and it's cliche as f*ck. I think of it as comfort food and western RPG's are a little different seasoning on that food. I don't mind I always like visiting those worlds to get away from the real one even if it's just for a little while.

[BlazingSpeed]

Sorry TC DA2 had gaping plot holes, ugly npc design no female dwarfs, time paradox's (Anders...) and more bad stuff that being said it's already to late with Hawke and what I suspect to be the Orleisan Warden from Awakening appearing at the end of the enemy of thedas trailer the cliches have already risen.

 

There are some good points in DA:I though I like the way that archer flipped backwards and then shot an arrow in one of the demo vids I want to mod stuff that into DAO's archers.

 

The "Bad guy" is also an interesting mystery I just wish I could rent the PC version instead of the PS3 version of this game though.

[Hiemoth]

I'm one of the few people who really liked both Origins and DA2.  It helps, I think, that I think of them as completely different genres - not really comparable because they're completely different kinds of stories.

 

I think we needed Hawke's story at least once - the story of the more-or-less ordinary people in Thedas.  The non-hero.  It makes sense as a pallet-cleanser between epic adventures.  Otherwise, Thedas does start to feel like it lurches from one enormous supernatural calamity to another.  Kirkwall's seven years represent a period of relative peace between two grand adventures. 

 

I didn't mind that it wasn't the Monomyth/Her's Journey, though I understand why people would get upset about that.  if you're buying it because it's fantasy, it's probably not the kind of story you're looking for.  If you're buying it because you like the world, it's kind of neat to spend a few years in the life on a non-hero.

 

That said, I think when it comes down to the story (rather than gameplay/environment criticisms) I can see one aspect that is a bit complicated.  It seems a step back in the construction-deconstruction.reconstruction thing:

 

• Construction: The pure-hearted hero-knight rescues his lady-love from a dragon, using his force of skill and the purity of his soul to overcome the evil.
• Desconstruction: This myth is sexist, and treats the unknown and different as monsters.  Either the knight is crazy and killing the princess's pet, or the knight's battle with the dragon destroys a town and the knight doesn't care, or the princess doesn't want to be rescued.
• Reconstruction: The knight is innocent, and pure, and kind - and kind of childish and goofy, because he was raised in a monastery.  He's alsso not a great knight.  He and his lady-love will slay the dragon on top of a tower together, because she's strong like that.  But he'll take the last blow that will kill him as well, because he's chivalrous and pure of heart.

Dragon age Origins was all reconstruction.  It took all the cliched tropes, and tried to look at them with thought and psychological realism.  In the end, it modifies them but it doesn't destroy or ignore them as deconstruction does.  Deconstruction takes them apart and so it's a first step, but reconstruction is the final stage.  It remakes them for a modern age, and so takes the best of the old and the best of the new.

 

Dragon Age 2 stopped with deconstruction.  Meredith imagines herself the hero, Orsino the villain.  The Arishok imagines himself the hero, too.  There's no reconstruction here.  The tropes are just dismantled.  And I think most people are just tired of deconstruction.  It's a necessary midway step, but it seems more and more about the self-importance of the author and contempt for the audience.  Not that I think that's true with Bioware, but in most cases the deconstructing author clearly thinks the audience it too stupid to come up with these things themselves.

 

Besides, sometimes you just want the hero to be good and win the day.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's the story we've always told

 

So I can see how that would be a step back.  I still love it, though.

 

I actually disagree heavily on your argument here, although to be fair I am also somewhat confused as I thought you were earlier arguing for the necessity of the monomyth in these kind of stories, so I might not be completely understanding your point correctly. Also, I am already in advance sorry if I come across as too combatitive in my arguments. Not my intention, it's more due to my style of raising counter-arguments.

 

First of all, I don't think that Dragon Age Origins any kind of reconstruction. The racial histories in the game were tweaked, some more than others, and there were elements of the history that had great new takes on things, but the story itself was as classical hero's journey as it gets. And there is nothing wrong with that, it was what it was and was told from that perspective, but it didn't call in to question any of those story elements or, to use your terms, deconstruct them, instead it just went ahead with that setup. Arguing it to be a great example of reconstruction is thus really misleading to me, and again, this is not to bash the game itself or claim one shouldn't like it.

 

Second, I am somewhat baffled by your argument concerning DA2. In it, Bioware managed to create on awesome antagonist in the Arishok and one antagonist with great deal potential in Meredith by framing themselves as the heroes of their own stories. What exactly is the reconstruction you are arguing for in these cases? That Arishok was actually a fraud and didn't really believe in the Qun, but rather used as a passage way to power? That Meredith actually desired the power of the mages so that she could be as powerful as them instead of desiring to protect people from that power? Those changes would have fitted the reconstruction theme, but it also would have robbed those figures and the story of almost all the impact and drive just to give the player a simply evil character to battle.

 

Third, the argument that people are getting tired of deconstruction always puzzles me. If I were to now walk to the local book store and randomly grab a fantasy book, it would pretty certainly be about the Hero's journey, which would be your Monomyth. Most descriptions of fantasy television shows are somehow about the Hero's journey. Despite the increase in deconstructing the Hero's Journey in games, still majority of games out there are the very simple Hero's journey, with some tweaking it by having it possibly be the Villain's journey instead, but even that is just the Hero's journey with evil choices. I would fault no one wanting to feel like a hero at the end of the story and they should continue to advocate for games they enjoy, but somehow the argument that deconstructing is everywhere and has become so tired opposed to the Hero's journey, which apparently is somehow completely unavailable to anyone, just makes me scratch my head in puzzlement.

 

Furthermore on that, arguing that fantasy games, or even games in general, should always be about that Hero's journey and giving the player a warm fuzzy feeling inside is, to me, insanely limiting. Not just because if argues that fantasy stories should really be only about this one thing instead of trying new things within the genre. And not just because it argues that people who read fantasy can only accept this one kind of story. To me it also limits what it means to be a hero by arguing that Hawke desperately trying to save people and keep the peace as forces beyond his/her control march towards an inevitable confrontation is somehow less heroic than the Warden doing the classical Hero's journey.

 

As for the OP, I don't even know where to start with that besides you really can't win when writing these games, can you?

[cjones91]

What's wrong with being cliché?

[Nefla]

Who cares? Every story ever told can be boiled down into a simple formula or trope. There is nothing new under the sun it's the details, the quality, the characters, the way it makes you feel that matter.

[ShadowLordXII]

Yes, it was a rushed title with reused backgrounds. It was also a step back from DAO in terms of hardcore RPG elements. ALL of these are reasons why people hated DA2. However, they aren't the only ones.

 

Another popular "hate" for DA2 was the fact that your "hero" wasnt as epic as the Warden and that he/she felt too....normal. 

 

Again, we the consumers are just too closed minded to accept anything different. Hence why Hollywood is the way it is and why the gaming industry is heading there as well.

 

Okay, I'm getting sick of that statement: "You hate it because it's different."

 

Different doesn't mean better. Just like "clique and formulaic" doesn't automatically equal bad. They're simply two sides of the same coin and both can be good if done well.

 

DAII had an interesting premise, but it's execution was flawed across multiple areas hence why people didn't like it. Especially when compared to it's clearly superior predecessor Origins. It has nothing to do with the fact that DAII was different and Origins was clique. It's that Origins managed to be a great game with great execution whereas DAII was a good, but heavily flawed game with muddled execution.

 

Hawke as a byronic hero in a more "realistic" pace of a story would work better if the story was riddled with many failed attempts at genuine drama which result in these attempts seeming forced for "plot reasons" (examples including: the Sibling; Marathari's idiocy; The red Lyrium idol; and Anders). Also, let's be honest, it's harder to be connected to a dark vs dark story which is what DAII eventually became. In the first two acts, the story's central conflict boiled down to Grey vs Grey, where the lines of good and evil, right and wrong were blurred. It was good there because the story's main plots revolving around the companions, Hawke's rise and the qunari were very interesting. Even the Mage-Templar conflict was handled well enough with vices and facts equal on both sides.

 

Then Act 3 came along and both mages and templars were basically flanderized versions of themselves that hyper-charged their negative aspects while the plot actively worked against the player in keeping the situation from exploding. This would've been fine if Hawke was at least given the choice to screw both sides and fight for himself and Kirkwall. But we were forced to choose between dark and dark instead with results that are largely the same.

 

Origin's story was more of a black vs grey/white story with a clear villain, clear antagonists and a clear journey towards a goal. True. But it was done so well that people didn't care that it was formulaic.

 

So long story short. Different isn't bad, it just has to be done well just like formulaic has to do. It doesn't matter if you used a sniper rifle, a shotgun, a pistol, a bow and arrow or a slingshot, if you missed the apple then you missed the apple.

[meganbytez]

i think being cliche/having lots of old tropes isn't so bad. i think what makes it, is if the story is done well weather its cliche or not. some of my fav story plots are cliche's with twist thrown in. but thats just me. 

[Maria Caliban]

How cliched and formulaic is DAI going to be?

Totally.

In fact, Mike told the writers that the goal was to be as cliche and unoriginal as possible. He is nefarious that way.

[Aezint]

No doubt it has been said before in this very thread, but I am not going to bother to read back; the tropes are always going to be present no matter what.  Nearly everything that can be done in a story has been done, it does not matter what it is about, but how it is about it.

 

The Hero's journey is the most unoriginal concept, especially in a fantasy setting, but why I thought it worked in DA: Origins is that it took a different approach from what I was used to.  It plays most of the standard fantasy setting straight on paper, except in an oppressively cynical way which focused heavily on deconstructing the genre and adding some surprisingly fresh splashes of reality into it.  It used a fantastical setting and cast to tell some human stories of love, loss, regret, redemption and explored what different people would do in extraordinary circumstances.

 

DAII lost so much of that.  It mostly was a standard fantasy story that took few risks in a narrative sense.  I can only hope DA:I does something fresh again.

[TTTX]

No idea's original, it's not what you do but how it's done.

it's all about execution.

[TheodoricFriede]

Frankly, id prefer a good old fashioned "Stop Big-Bad!" cliche' than I would another flaming train-wreck of a tone change like we got in a previous Bioware product.

[xelander]

@OP

 

Go to tvtropes.org and there you'll find every story ever told. If it's told well, it's great; if it's told badly, it's cliche.

 

DAO was classic.

 

DA2 had a very good idea IMO, but Bioware weren't bold enough and didn't expand on it enough. The whole idea of "fate is inexorable" and that even when you become the most powerful person in your corner of the world you can't stop the march of doom is quite appealing to me. Sadly, due to time limitations, it wasn't executed well.

 

Your assertion that ME3 story was better woven and told than DAO is to me, frankly, ridiculous. ME3 story was a total fustercluck, filled with cheap emotional thrills, not enough main story, had the biggest deus ex machina of all times and lifted its ending almost entirely from another game. Not to mention subverting the whole atmosphere of the game with the "AI vs. Organics" theme in so unimaginative way it leaves the word "cliche" entirely incapable of encompassing the magnitude of the failure of writing. Admittedly, deconstructing a Lovecraftian monster in a meaningful and engaging way is not the easiest of tasks, but still...

 

One could argue that DA2 and ME3 are mirrored reflections of failure of storytelling - one did not hammer in hard enough that your hero, although very powerful, cannot change fate, while the other took away your powers of influencing the galaxy in the crowning last act of the story (auto-dialogue, meaningless choices, etc.).

 

With all that said, given what I've seen so far from DAI, I have faith. It probably won't be some earth-shattering innovation of storytelling, but it certainly promises enough depth and sophistication. So let's wait another few months and hope for the best.

[txgoldrush]

No doubt it has been said before in this very thread, but I am not going to bother to read back; the tropes are always going to be present no matter what.  Nearly everything that can be done in a story has been done, it does not matter what it is about, but how it is about it.

 

The Hero's journey is the most unoriginal concept, especially in a fantasy setting, but why I thought it worked in DA: Origins is that it took a different approach from what I was used to.  It plays most of the standard fantasy setting straight on paper, except in an oppressively cynical way which focused heavily on deconstructing the genre and adding some surprisingly fresh splashes of reality into it.  It used a fantastical setting and cast to tell some human stories of love, loss, regret, redemption and explored what different people would do in extraordinary circumstances.

 

DAII lost so much of that.  It mostly was a standard fantasy story that took few risks in a narrative sense.  I can only hope DA:I does something fresh again.

Ummmm...no

 

DAII took so many risks, such as a party member going rogue and causing a huge problem.

 

And DAO far from took a different approach. Its basically KOTOR in Thedas. It was Bioware formula to the letter.

[txgoldrush]

@OP

 

Go to tvtropes.org and there you'll find every story ever told. If it's told well, it's great; if it's told badly, it's cliche.

 

DAO was classic.

 

DA2 had a very good idea IMO, but Bioware weren't bold enough and didn't expand on it enough. The whole idea of "fate is inexorable" and that even when you become the most powerful person in your corner of the world you can't stop the march of doom is quite appealing to me. Sadly, due to time limitations, it wasn't executed well.

 

Your assertion that ME3 story was better woven and told than DAO is to me, frankly, ridiculous. ME3 story was a total fustercluck, filled with cheap emotional thrills, not enough main story, had the biggest deus ex machina of all times and lifted its ending almost entirely from another game. Not to mention subverting the whole atmosphere of the game with the "AI vs. Organics" theme in so unimaginative way it leaves the word "cliche" entirely incapable of encompassing the magnitude of the failure of writing. Admittedly, deconstructing a Lovecraftian monster in a meaningful and engaging way is not the easiest of tasks, but still...

 

One could argue that DA2 and ME3 are mirrored reflections of failure of storytelling - one did not hammer in hard enough that your hero, although very powerful, cannot change fate, while the other took away your powers of influencing the galaxy in the crowning last act of the story (auto-dialogue, meaningless choices, etc.).

 

With all that said, given what I've seen so far from DAI, I have faith. It probably won't be some earth-shattering innovation of storytelling, but it certainly promises enough depth and sophistication. So let's wait another few months and hope for the best.

 

Absolutely and completely wrong.

 

Mass Effect 3 completely murders DAO. Why? Because DAO was not focused. In the middle of the game, the Darkspawn do not matter because all the side stories with their own threats and villains take over. It simply does not weave its main plot and its side stories properly, unlike ME3 where the Reapers play a role in just about everything.

 

And no, the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. how many times do I have to tell people this? ME3 is in fact, subverts the deus ex machina in a huge way, and really outright averts the device. And another thing...the ending simply is not about organics and synthetics. The motive of the antagonist doesn't always make the theme of the story. In fact the entire series about how people determine the destiny of others for various reasons, the conflict it creates, and how that's just a part of nature and in the end, unavoidable. There is no failure of writing here after the EC. You just don't like it.

[coldflame]

From ea/Bioware's point of view, if cliché makes most of your fans happy and more importantly, makes you lots of money, I'd say "cliché" away.

[TTTX]

Absolutely and completely wrong.

 

Mass Effect 3 completely murders DAO. Why? Because DAO was not focused. In the middle of the game, the Darkspawn do not matter because all the side stories with their own threats and villains take over. It simply does not weave its main plot and its side stories properly, unlike ME3 where the Reapers play a role in just about everything.

 

And no, the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. how many times do I have to tell people this? ME3 is in fact, subverts the deus ex machina in a huge way, and really outright averts the device. And another thing...the ending simply is not about organics and synthetics. The motive of the antagonist doesn't always make the theme of the story. In fact the entire series about how people determine the destiny of others for various reasons, the conflict it creates, and how that's just a part of nature and in the end, unavoidable. There is no failure of writing here after the EC. You just don't like it.

Ehhh no offence to you, but ME3 is about gathering an army while at the same time finding out what the Crucible last component is. DAO is about gathering an army to fight the Darkspawn and again you already have your weapon to save making yourself and Alistar much like ME3 although the one in DA works while the one in ME3 don't until the last few minutes of the game.

 

Not to mention ME3 also have some serious plot holes (Like the Reapers could have won as soon as they entered the galaxy, just take over the Citadel and turn of the Relays then the galaxy would be screwed it's how they have done in the past) granted DA:O have them too, but they seems less in your face then ME3's are and the DA:O ending feels more satisfying then ME3 depending on who are of course.

 

 

 the ending of ME3 and Deus ex machina looks pretty similar and this is the most reason Deus Ex Machina game.

 

The ending starts at 4:30 mark.

[ShadowLordXII]

Absolutely and completely wrong.

 

Mass Effect 3 completely murders DAO. Why? Because DAO was not focused. In the middle of the game, the Darkspawn do not matter because all the side stories with their own threats and villains take over. It simply does not weave its main plot and its side stories properly, unlike ME3 where the Reapers play a role in just about everything.

 

And no, the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. how many times do I have to tell people this? ME3 is in fact, subverts the deus ex machina in a huge way, and really outright averts the device. And another thing...the ending simply is not about organics and synthetics. The motive of the antagonist doesn't always make the theme of the story. In fact the entire series about how people determine the destiny of others for various reasons, the conflict it creates, and how that's just a part of nature and in the end, unavoidable. There is no failure of writing here after the EC. You just don't like it.

 

The ending to ME3 was bad. Don't even try wasting time defending it. Unless you can explain to me why the StarChild isn't a walking plothole, then just quit while you're behind. In any case, that's a topic for the ME3 forum. People don't hate it because they don't like it, they hate it because it's bad.

 

As for Origins ignoring the darkspawn? Hah! Were we playing the same game? Perhaps we don't constantly fight darkspawn, but believe me, they are the driving force behind that game's entire central conflict. Everything that you do in that game is done for the sake of stopping the darkspawn from destroying Ferelden and the world afterwards. Then the game culminates in the final battle where you stop the darkspawn by killing the Archdemon, perhaps with the cost of your life unless you made a deal with Morrigan to give her the OGB.

 

Origins certainly doesn't abandon it's genre, character focus, themes and central conflict in it's ending.

[xelander]

Absolutely and completely wrong.

 

Mass Effect 3 completely murders DAO. Why? Because DAO was not focused. In the middle of the game, the Darkspawn do not matter because all the side stories with their own threats and villains take over. It simply does not weave its main plot and its side stories properly, unlike ME3 where the Reapers play a role in just about everything.

 

And no, the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. how many times do I have to tell people this? ME3 is in fact, subverts the deus ex machina in a huge way, and really outright averts the device. And another thing...the ending simply is not about organics and synthetics. The motive of the antagonist doesn't always make the theme of the story. In fact the entire series about how people determine the destiny of others for various reasons, the conflict it creates, and how that's just a part of nature and in the end, unavoidable. There is no failure of writing here after the EC. You just don't like it.

 

If darkspawn were present in every subquest of the main story, it would be illogical and inconsistent. If all your potential allies had already to deal with the Blight, then you wouldn't need to recruit them, would you? In fact, the Blight was shown to gradually spread (darkening of the map and stronger darkspawn ambushes after each subplot of the main story is completed). The only way to make this more explicit would be by introducing time-dependent quests, which Lothering kinda was.

 

You misunderstand me. By deus ex machina I meant the introduction of the Crucible device. Hey, we have these incomplete plans for something that might fight the Reapers. We don't know what it does or how to build it, but let's pool together all our resources for it.... Seriously?! Not to mention that, given the fact that it survived through numerous cycles (and we know that Reapers are the main things that survive cycles), I expected almost until the end for it to be some kind of Reaper trap. Aside from being full of inconsitencies, the main story failed at its primary task - deconstructing the Lovecraftian race of monsters, because that is what you need to do in order to defeat an enemy which you cannot overwhelm by simple brute force (you need to find and exploit its weak points). That, or use a deus ex machina...

 

My contention is that the whole main story was a failure of writing, not just the ending, which was just the top of the iceberg. And no, the EC did not fix it. The EC and Leviathan (paid DLC!) were tacked on additions, trying to make sense of inherently incongruous storyline.

 

You are right, I do not like the ending. I do not like the whole ME3 story, either. Or the fact that my Shepard did not feel like my Shepard at all (thanks, auto-dialogue). I believe that is because there was a failure of writing.

 

Anyways, we could go on about this for days on end, and I don't think either of us will change their minds.

 

 

So, to get back on topic - whether DAI story is cliche or exceptional depends on the execution. And I like what Bioware accomplishes when they execute cliched stories. Most of the time... But so far, this particular instance looks promising.

[Tamyn]

But in THIS game, we get to explore 10 areas instead of 4 (treaties/planets/caves)!!

[olgaroni]

I enjoyed every Bioware game I played, but I think I don't really play them for the story. It's more the way the story is executed that makes Bioware game so entertaining. The likeable characters make me care for the normally very stereotypical save-the-world story. 

 

The exception is DA2 which has a story I really liked. For me it's not a typical escapism fantasy, where you play a hero and save the day, it's an example how political extremism and dichotomic world views can spirale out of controle and cause a lot of drama. The characters (Arishok, Meredith, Anders etc.) become more and more extreme in their opinions to the point of becoming caricatures. But that is realistic. Thinks like that happen in reality and they end badly.

Hawke is just as potent as the warden, but their enemies are very different. The warden can slay the demons and the world is safe.

Hawk's enemies are part of society and can't simply be killed. At first they all try to coexist, but it becomes clear that this won't be a possibility forever, because no group is able to accept  different ways of living. When society falls apart Hawke is free to fight the Arishok or Meredith openly, but at this point the damage is already done.

DA2 reminds me of many real world conflicts and I think it's one of the most mature games ever. It's not about violence or sex, but about the way the people behave in a situation like this. DA2 dares to make the player feel powerless and confronts him/her with tiring, political questions.

 

I don't think every story should be like DA2, but it was something new and it was nice to be challenged a little. 

If I had to compare DA:O and DA2 to films I would say DA:O is Lord of the rings and DA2 is Lord of the flies.

 

We will see how DA:I plays out.