I like writing reviews sometimes and I'd done one on Origins (part 1: http://thaeonblade.d...s-1-2-480340129 and part 2: http://thaeonblade.d...s-2-2-481163335) in preparation/lead-up for an eventual review of Inquisition when it comes out.
So as part of this preparation/lead-up, I went on ahead and did a review of Dragon Age 2 as well. Whether I should have beat the dead horse is up to you, but I'm just glad to get this off my chest:
Would you be writing it because you think a potential buyer would get some practical use out of your review, or just because you want to write it?
If the former, don't bother. If the latter, go for it. I like having my opinions put down in print, and damnit if anyone has said it all before. Nothing wrong with that. Plus, it would bother me no end to have written a review for 1 and 3 but not 2. But I am totally anal like that.
Would you be writing it because you think a potential buyer would get some practical use out of your review, or just because you want to write it?
If the former, don't bother. If the latter, go for it. I like having my opinions put down in print, and damnit if anyone has said it all before. Nothing wrong with that. Plus, it would bother me no end to have written a review for 1 and 3 but not 2. But I am totally anal like that.
Retrospective/Informational/Personal Basis. If I wanted to write it for a potential buyer, it would be done around the time that the game was first released. If I'm going to do Inquisition, then I might as well do DA2 as well.
Plus, I've yet to hear anyone talk about how utterly horrible the prologue of that game is due to it's contrived drama (especially concerning that Ogre), rushed paced and lack of context, and how this gives a poor impression of the rest of DA2 due to a confusion in mood and tone.
I wrote my review of Dragon Age 2 fairly recently and it's one of my most viewed reviews.
http://unitedfederat...e-2-review.html
On my end, I'd like to read it.
BTW, liked your other review of Origins. However, part 2's link doesn't work.
I would review a specific aspect of it. I know I would enjoy a review of the story and side missions but you could review play mechanics and builds.
Make your review for Dragon Age fans by a Dragon Age fan.
I wrote my review of Dragon Age 2 fairly recently and it's one of my most viewed reviews.
http://unitedfederat...e-2-review.html
On my end, I'd like to read it.
BTW, liked your other review of Origins. However, part 2's link doesn't work.
Try this link for Part 2: http://thaeonblade.d...-2-2-481163335)
Also, loved your review.
Thanks!
I read the review's second part and approve of it as well.
I think you'd do well getting into the nitty gritty of why you didn't like Dragon Age 2 and what parts you did.
A lot of reviews touch on generalities but few touch the things only fans would be irritated by.
Thanks!
I read the review's second part and approve of it as well.
I think you'd do well getting into the nitty gritty of why you didn't like Dragon Age 2 and what parts you did.
A lot of reviews touch on generalities but few touch the things only fans would be irritated by.
It is going to be long, but I'm worried that it will be too long.
Would it be best to split the review into two parts or just try to get away with 1 really long part?
It is going to be long, but I'm worried that it will be too long.
Would it be best to split the review into two parts or just try to get away with 1 really long part?
I enjoy Multiple parts personally but it's your call.
beating a dead horse?
you know, you really should wait for DAI. play it through and through and write the review.
a good one you know? not 5 minutes of gameplay review but a real one.
beating a dead horse?
you know, you really should wait for DAI. play it through and through and write the review.
a good one you know? not 5 minutes of gameplay review but a real one.
I do plan to write an authentically long and lengthy review of Inquisition when it comes out.
But even though reviewing DA2 would essentially be beating a dead horse at this point, it's still odd to skip it and just go straight to Inquisition. That's also not fair to ignore the game because it has some things of merit and it's flaws should be remembered to keep from repeating them.
Also, I went on ahead and beat the dead horse anyway! What's wrong with beating things that can't fight back? It makes for decent practice I guess.
"Refer to OP for links"
But when beating the dead horse, I tried to be as fair as possible even when talking about the bad things.
I appreciate you doing this review and really enjoyed both this review and the one you did for Dragon Age: Origins. I look forward to reading your review for Dragon Age: Inquisition too. However, frankly, I don't agree with a lot of your complaints as they strike as the same sort of ones which were used for "Why does Alistair dump me" and "why does Alistair get to kill the Archdemon instead of me if I romanced him?"
On a very real level, most of the complaints boil down to the player's lack of control about their surrounding environment. Apostate Bethany, for example, is brought up as something Hawke can do. The problem is it ignores what the game uses Circle Bethany to illustrate: That Bethany does not want to BE an apostate.
She wants to be a Circle mage because she hates being a soldier, a criminal, and a wanted figure. Similarly, the issue "dying in the Deep Roads" is listed as contrived, then you give a dozen other reasons why your Companions don't get the Taint in Origins versus showing why it's dangerous here. Yes, it's a scripted event but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
On some level, I think there's a good argument that Dragon Age 2 overdid the "controlled helplessness" of Hawke as he is frequently stymied and frustrated in his goals. He cannot prevent Leandra's death, the Mage-Templar War, or save his siblings from various fates. I took some of this to be thematic, however, as Hawke is meant to be a deconstruction in some respects of the Warden who shapes all of history.
Hawke is every bit as skilled as the Warden but is a figure who "the problems of don't mean a hill of beans" in the grand scheme of things. He can't change the tide of history no matter how hard he tries but he can ride it--which is what Varric's story is all about to Cassandra and why it's the framing narrative. Varric is trying to show
Cassandra via the "badass opening" versus the reality of fleeing refugees that stories aren't always black and white or even a connective narrative. I maintain that it works best as a kind of Fantasy Noir with Kirkwall as Chinatown. Jack Nicholson's character does many heroic things but is ultimately unable to impact the events in a meaningful way.
Some gamers, of course, may hate that.
Otherwise, I quite liked the review.
I appreciate you doing this review and really enjoyed both this review and the one you did for Dragon Age: Origins. I look forward to reading your review for Dragon Age: Inquisition too. However, frankly, I don't agree with a lot of your complaints as they strike as the same sort of ones which were used for "Why does Alistair dump me" and "why does Alistair get to kill the Archdemon instead of me if I romanced him?"
On a very real level, most of the complaints boil down to the player's lack of control about their surrounding environment. Apostate Bethany, for example, is brought up as something Hawke can do. The problem is it ignores what the game uses Circle Bethany to illustrate: That Bethany does not want to BE an apostate.
She wants to be a Circle mage because she hates being a soldier, a criminal, and a wanted figure. Similarly, the issue "dying in the Deep Roads" is listed as contrived, then you give a dozen other reasons why your Companions don't get the Taint in Origins versus showing why it's dangerous here. Yes, it's a scripted event but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
On some level, I think there's a good argument that Dragon Age 2 overdid the "controlled helplessness" of Hawke as he is frequently stymied and frustrated in his goals. He cannot prevent Leandra's death, the Mage-Templar War, or save his siblings from various fates. I took some of this to be thematic, however, as Hawke is meant to be a deconstruction in some respects of the Warden who shapes all of history.
Hawke is every bit as skilled as the Warden but is a figure who "the problems of don't mean a hill of beans" in the grand scheme of things. He can't change the tide of history no matter how hard he tries but he can ride it--which is what Varric's story is all about to Cassandra and why it's the framing narrative. Varric is trying to show
Cassandra via the "badass opening" versus the reality of fleeing refugees that stories aren't always black and white or even a connective narrative. I maintain that it works best as a kind of Fantasy Noir with Kirkwall as Chinatown. Jack Nicholson's character does many heroic things but is ultimately unable to impact the events in a meaningful way.
Some gamers, of course, may hate that.
Otherwise, I quite liked the review.
Thanks for the input. I guess my problems with the game that I brought up are this: I could see what the game was trying to do, but it's execution was too flawed for it to be accepted as non-contrived or artificial at several points. So whether than actually feeling the full impact of the conveyed theme, I'm more annoyed at being rail-roaded.
Apostate Bethany, for example, is brought up as something Hawke can do. The problem is it ignores what the game uses Circle Bethany to illustrate: That Bethany does not want to BE an apostate.
She wants to be a Circle mage because she hates being a soldier, a criminal, and a wanted figure. Similarly, the issue "dying in the Deep Roads" is listed as contrived, then you give a dozen other reasons why your Companions don't get the Taint in Origins versus showing why it's dangerous here. Yes, it's a scripted event but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
Also, where does it come up that Bethany wanted to be a Circle Mage?
I never got an indication that Bethany would want to be a Circle Mage. Sure, I got the whole being "tired of running" thing. But why should she willingly condemn herself to the Circle after hearing/witnessing all of the things that Meredith and her templars are doing there? There's wanting a home and then there's throwing yourselves to the wolves and nothing indicated that Beth was that weak-willed. This is a shame because this and the deep roads thing make Bethany/Carver seem more like a plot tool for drama than an actual character.
Also, where does it come up that Bethany wanted to be a Circle Mage?
I never got an indication that Bethany would want to be a Circle Mage. Sure, I got the whole being "tired of running" thing. But why should she willingly condemn herself to the Circle after hearing/witnessing all of the things that Meredith and her templars are doing there? There's wanting a home and then there's throwing yourselves to the wolves and nothing indicated that Beth was that weak-willed. This is a shame because this and the deep roads thing make Bethany/Carver seem more like a plot tool for drama than an actual character.
I think it makes perfect sense given everything we know about Bethany. When you listen to her party banter, she talks about how uncomfortable she is with bodies, with adventuring, and with crime. The life of an apostate is the life of a mercenary or a smuggler at the start of it. Bethany is more or less Lawful Good being forced to be Chaotic Good (at best). I think part of the problem is everyone assumes the Circles are pretty much a draconian police state in Kirkwall when it seems it's more like a "normal" Circle plus abuses.
I was sold on Bethany in the Circle when it described her job as being, basically, an elementary school teacher. That is a position denied her in the quote-unquote real world yet available in the Circle.
The sad thing is if Bethany had been in ANY OTHER CIRCLE THAN KIRKWALL, she'd probably have been a Loyalist Mage. In the end, the Templars force a harmless mage into becoming a dangerous apostate.
Ironic.
Poor Bethany will never get to teach wizard children the letter K or how to count.
I think it makes perfect sense given everything we know about Bethany. When you listen to her party banter, she talks about how uncomfortable she is with bodies, with adventuring, and with crime. The life of an apostate is the life of a mercenary or a smuggler at the start of it. Bethany is more or less Lawful Good being forced to be Chaotic Good (at best). I think part of the problem is everyone assumes the Circles are pretty much a draconian police state in Kirkwall when it seems it's more like a "normal" Circle plus abuses.
I was sold on Bethany in the Circle when it described her job as being, basically, an elementary school teacher. That is a position denied her in the quote-unquote real world yet available in the Circle.
The sad thing is if Bethany had been in ANY OTHER CIRCLE THAN KIRKWALL, she'd probably have been a Loyalist Mage. In the end, the Templars force a harmless mage into becoming a dangerous apostate.
Ironic.
Poor Bethany will never get to teach wizard children the letter K or how to count.
But the part about the Kirkwall Circle sucking isn't really an assumption. Just about everyone at this point knows that it's essentially a prison thanks to Meredith and only gets worst as more mages are forced to become tranquil or being abused/harassed by their templar jailors.
The idea that Bethany would willingly go into this hornet's nest just for some comfort makes her appear weak. I mean, didn't she listen to her father's tales about the Circle? Didn't she see what the templars did to Karl? Is her desire to stop running so great that she'd willingly place the shackles on her own body and sacrifice her freedom? To quote Ben Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
But the part about the Kirkwall Circle sucking isn't really an assumption. Just about everyone at this point knows that it's essentially a prison thanks to Meredith and only gets worst as more mages are forced to become tranquil or being abused/harassed by their templar jailors.
The idea that Bethany would willingly go into this hornet's nest just for some comfort makes her appear weak. I mean, didn't she listen to her father's tales about the Circle? Didn't she see what the templars did to Karl? Is her desire to stop running so great that she'd willingly place the shackles on her own body and sacrifice her freedom? To quote Ben Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Bethany seems to just flat out DISAGREE that this is what the Circles are like. It's not that she's afraid, she WANTS TO BE THERE.
Which just makes her choice inexplicable.
Not weak.
Why they appeal to her is the real question as she isn't afraid of the Templars per say.
Bethany seems to just flat out DISAGREE that this is what the Circles are like. It's not that she's afraid, she WANTS TO BE THERE.
Which just makes her choice inexplicable.
Not weak.
Why they appeal to her is the real question as she isn't afraid of the Templars per say.
I suppose it's inexplicable in a very similar way to how an battered spouse goes back to and defends their abusive husband/boyfriend. Nothings going to change by going back, things are still going to suck, but it happens anyway and there's no logical, practical or moral reason as to why it makes sense.
Hence why it's harder to feel sorry for someone who constantly and knowingly puts themselves into that position. If Bethany really did choose to join the Circle (the game more implies that she was forced into it and just made the best of things), then how can it be viewed as anything other than dumb or weak considering what she knows about the place?
PS: I'm having a lot of fun discussing with you, Willow
That's the weird thing, Bethany shows no signs of being abused either.
It's dissonant with the way the Gallows are portrayed.
That's the weird thing, Bethany shows no signs of being abused either.
It's dissonant with the way the Gallows are portrayed.
That is weird, maybe Meredith ensured that Bethany wasn't harmed to keep from antagonizing Hawke (especially in Act 3).
But you can't tell me that the constant fear or threat of being tranquil wasn't something that kept Bethany up at night.
Maybe, or perhaps for mages who keep their heads down and their voices quiet the circle can at least be predictable. An apostate might be ratted out at any moment and lives their lives constantly looking over their shoulder (and have few protections if caught). At least in the Circle you know what the rules are.
Bethany doesn't want to fight and adventure. The fact that she chooses that stability shouldn't be surprising.
Retour en haut