I have to say I disagree with almost 80% of the article, but I also have to agree that if there's one thing that's bringing the game down, it's the lack of urgency or feeling of peril and the way there's really not all that much follow-through from your decisions... but on the other hand, it's something you only find out later by meta-gaming. The illusion of peril was really strong during my first play-through, and playing the game and doing the side-quests really did give me the feeling I was both slowly building up my Inquisition to be more powerful, and at the same time slowly disintegrating Corypheys' hold on Thedas by killing off Venatori and Red Templars, taking over strongholds, sabotaging his projects etc...
I do agree that it does take away from the replay value and motivates the player in a completely different way, but it also gives the player a bit more leeway with how they play the game, since there's no feeling of "do the follower-/side-quests or else" (eg ME2 all but forces you to do all the follower quests to get the best ending), and I have to say I have always kinda disliked games which force you to meta-game/100% content to get the good/best ending. Which inevitably leads to the "deserve your happy ending" discussion and to the question "should certain playstyles/decisions be favoured over others with more positive outcomes?", and I personally feel like there're no one correct answer to those questions. I really enjoyed the way the ME3 narrative reacted to my decisions, but I also know a lot of people were really mad they chouldn't sabotage the genophage cure and have Wrex on their side after they did that.
And the way people elevate DA:O's story into the "best game-story ever" -pedestal is kinda bewildering, particularly in this context since its story is pretty much exactly the same as DA:I's. Who you sided with doesn't really matter in the end in DA:O either, except for the epilogue slides (which I actually hoped there'd be more in DA:I, but I guess BW got into so much trouble from not "respecting" thoe rumours and the headcanons people drew from them). The basic premise is the same: you become a hero, you build up your army/organisation, you kill the (literal/proverbial) dragon, PARTY!, roll credits. The only difference here is that I felt like the implications of my decisions were much bigger in DA:I than in DA:O (I mean choosing Orzammar's ruler felt a lot smaller than choosing who's going to run Orlais, and choosing what to do with the Gray Wardens has a lot bigger implied impact than what to do with the Werewolves, IMO).
But, since I have already gone on record as the "I really enjoyed DA2's story and I still think that despite it's flaws it's one of the best gaming narratives to explore tragedy in recent memory" person, I've come to the conclusion that if there ever was one ultimate YMMV factor, it's found from the ending / choice in games / storytelling in video games discussion.
Retour en haut
