Hey all!
We continue our series look at all the exciting world of Dragon Age, we already talked with Bioware lead writer David Gaider about Origins and how the franchise began.
Now it's Dragon Age 2, a much sadder interview about everything that could have been 
Transcript available below- BUT Listen and comment on the video if you can, it helps me out friends!
We were talking before about Origins, what that meant to the players. Now we’d love to talk more aboutDragon Age 2. How did that start? Why did you decide we’re going to Kirkwall now and it’s going to be more established characters.
David Gaider: Dragon Age 2 was a project that happened very quickly. It went through a number of initial iterations. As I recall, I don’t think initially when we were concepting the story it wasn’t necessarily going to be a stand alone game.
It happened so quickly that I’m not even sure my memory of it is quite correct in the order of events. My best recollection is that it just happened. I think it was born of Mike Laidlaw, who was the head of design. He put forward the idea of a game that could happen over a long period of time, so there would be time jumps involved. And I think that was the initial genesis of the story – something that would serve as a lead up to the conflicts to come, to establish what was coming with the mages and templars and plant the seeds of the Qunari.
Part of the worry at the time was, does that make it sort of an interstitial kind of plot? There was a lot of things that were going on with the time jumps. That this was a game that could occur over ten years I think was our initial challenge from, if you think back to Usual Suspects, a story that is told in recollection. So, the unreliable narrator of Varric, and as he’s thinking back to these important periods of a prominent character’s life. When Mike suggested that, it was like, okay, I can see what you want from this. And then our job was to jump forward and say, what would these individual pieces be?
When did you make the decision that instead of going with the introduction to the world that you did with the prologues in Origins, now you have a character that based on a very early choice in the game could have a very different experience, whether or not your brother or your sister dies?
When we determined that you weren’t going to have the same option of race, that this was going to be about a specific history, that was a weighing our options decision. Because where one involves more art content and thus we would have had to draw art time from other places when it was already pretty limited. Or do we do a set character which isn’t the experience from Origins but could have its own strengths as well? As soon as you go to a set character with a set past, we can focus on that and have that play more into the events that follow. Otherwise, if it was variable, then we’d have to have variable events that follow, each of which would require a certain amount of content.
So, it was looking at the pros and cons. We could have the things that are personal hoc play more into the crit path events, like the siblings. I think the siblings was an early decision, that you’re gonna have either a brother who is gonna give you more personal stake into the Templar side of things or a sister who’s gonna give you more of a personal stake into the mage side. Their perspective that you would acquire on the mage-templar conflict. That was the original envision for the roll they would play in the game.
At what point did you decide that it would have to be either one?
Early, that it would be one or other based on who you were. If you were a mage, you didn’t need Bethany to offer you more perspective on the mage-templar conflict. At least, that was the initial conception. I think we actually had if you were a mage there were supposed to be some mage-specific plots. Like, why do Meredith’s Templars not come after you as a mage? There was a long plot that explained that, but that got cut. A lot of things got cut in Dragon Age 2.
Can you name anything that was near and dear? We talked about before that you have to as the realities of game creating, but now can you look back at the things that you believe should have been in it?
The mage specific stuff was one of the later cuts that I felt a little keenly about because for anybody who afterwords thought about it closely… On the surface you didn’t talk about it, so a lot of people aren’t gonna think about it too much. But, if you thought about it, you’re like, well, I’m running around in robes and casting spells and whatnot and being fairly well known in the city, why is it that nobody pays attention to me when everybody talks about apostates, apostates, apostates? It’s on everybody’s lips. So, that was on that like, ugh.
That wasn’t one that was necessarily a content worry. It wasn’t a cut that was made because we didn’t have the resources. Not all of them are like that. It was one that the plot they revolved around was just too complicated and wasn’t really working. We keep hacking at it. And then it got to a point where it was like, its problem is not in its execution, its problem is a little more fundamental in what we were trying to do.
Because I think it involved the Fade and you getting possessed – I don’t even remember the details. But it was complicated. So we finally realized, okay, that initial idea behind the plot is not good. We need to do something a little plainer. We put together a treatment of, okay, we’ll do this. But at that point it was a matter of time. The realization came too late for us to actually go back and start over.
And there was a couple of other things. There was an entire plot arch that involved the coterie and involved Varric, the thieves guild in Kirkwall. The coterie gets mentioned from time to time, and that’s because originally it had its own plot arch. And various things like that. A lot of cuts in DA2, which were part of the schedule we had. That was the reality we had to deal with. But, again, they needed to happen.
Well, listening to you now, it seems like those cuts cut deep.
Yeah. I mean, they do. They always feel that way. If you talk to me about cuts, generally I always lean toward the writer side of things rather than the developer. In my head, I can understand the necessity. I was there. I understand what went into the cuts, why they had to happen. At the time, it probably involved a very nasty argument in a meeting room and I or another writer will walk out and we’re pissed off and we go back to our desk and say, this just ruins everything! We’re all passionate about what we do. You’d like to have everything.
The developer side, intellectually you can understand. The reason I’m not flipping over a table and stuff is because I acknowledge the reasons we had to do this are good. The reason it had to happen was because of something someone else did or somebody had to make a call as to which was more important and the writing department ended up on the downside on that particular day. At the time that always really sucks. Eventually, once you cool down, you realize the reasons behind it are absolutely legitimate. And the reason it happened is because you couldn’t come up with a counter argument that not only made sense but there was no counter argument.
So, something had to happen. And it’s like, well, I understand. So, I’ll get over it. And we focus on, okay, we made the cut, how do we solve what’s left? And it’s hard. Some part of me will wish shoulda, coulda, woulda. Could we have done something different? That’s the mind set you’re sort of stuck with, and it’s difficult because some part of me will wish that maybe if things had happened differently… But that’s how it rolls. That will always be the case. And there always will be fans that say, oh, you made the wrong decision. But I was there. I was in that meeting.
Well, speaking to that, when did the idea of the Qunari come in? Because you’re looking at the narrative progression. We seem to have an established sense of this mage-templar conflict, then they throw in the Qunari taking over in the second act. How did that get developed and does that speak at all to the cuts that you are mentioning?
The development of the mage-templar conflict was something the game was going to serve narratively in terms of building up what came next. But that wasn’t the whole purpose of what was going to happen in DA2. That was one of the three plots of the time jumps. Definitely right from the beginning it was decided each one of these time jumps was going to focus on something different.
The first one was going to focus on the Deep Roads and the expedition that would lead up to you becoming more prominent in Kirkwall. The second one was going to involve the Qunari because we wanted to develop the Qunari a bit more and see the Qunari not just from a single person. Because in Dragon Age Origins we had Sten. Sten was your prototypical Qunari. So now we want to see them in the world as Qunari, not as loners who aren’t connected to anything. So that was something we definitely wanted to do. And then in the third act, the simmering mage-templar conflict would come to a head.
So, the Qunari was our second act. And that was Lucas Christensen. That was his baby. There wasn’t a lot that got cut about the Qunari as I recall. That one actually worked out pretty well. At the end of the day, I think the second act of DA2 is probably its strongest. Had the game been longer overall, I could probably go back and say we could probably have stopped the game at the end of Act 2 with the Arishok as the ultimate conclusion. But that would have required a much longer lead up to the Qunari conflict. So, that’s a, if in another universe at another time, that could have worked out.
One thing that you introduced into DA2 that was represented in the first one but I think you really pushed it forward in the second was the idea of having relationships with different characters that weren’t always, oh, he likes me and now he’s talking to me. They can also have relationships where there is that grueling respect, and I remember exploring the storyline specifically to the character of Merrill that if you do have a relationship with her that was more “negative” you stop her from doing, in terms of the narrative, some pretty horrific things. So when was that choice introduced into DA2 in terms of having that duality with characters?
The rivalry/friendship system? Pretty early. At some point the writer team sits down and we discuss how we’re going to approach relationships in the game, what we did the previous game, what worked, what didn’t work, what would we like to try? I think one of the things was the idea in Origins of approval being if I just say things that character likes or approves of or give them gifts or whatever, you get their approval meter up, and then they’re in love with you, or you get the benefits of it. Because I think there were game play benefits as well.
So, what if we tried a system where we didn’t focus on there’s only one right answer to having a relationship with them, that the experience of that relationship will be different based on what is? And not that rivalry is negative, but it is a different type of relationship. It is more adversarial. Ultimately, they are still your friend. There is still respect, but it’s not born of they agree with you on everything that you do. It’s one that is we don’t agree but I respect your belief.
And Merrill is a classic example. I think some people expected if they just supported Merrill in all her crazy blood magic and stuff that eventually they’d be able to convince her to change her mind. In what universe is that the case? So, you have a friend and the way you are going to convince them to change their mind is to say; you’re awesome; that is the right decision; every that you’re doing, do more of that; oh, by the way, do something completely opposite now. That’s not what happens. The only way to get Merrill to consider honestly that she is wrong is to go down the rivalry path.
And I think in some ways when we look back on that, part of the problem was maybe in communicating how that worked to players. Especially for people that played Origins, they maybe went into DA2 and they were kind of confused that rivalry isn’t negative. I think that was a little bit confusing. If I was to look back and say what maybe didn’t work as well. But I did like the fact that rivalry and friendship could be very different experiences, both in terms of your friendship and your romance with characters. And I think some people were surprised if they replayed and realized, hey, if you have a rivalry with Merrill, if you don’t agree with her and you tell her that, she can be mad, she thinks you’re being an ******* but ultimately it sinks in, and it’s a completely different experience.
Looking at the characters in DA2 – we talked about Origins, the ones that resignate with you that you think really work – what was the characters that really resignated with you in DA2 that work and if you can think of any that fell flat in the definition that we’ve decided of them getting an apathetic response?
I don’t think any of the characters in DA2 actually engendered apathy, as I recall. They were all very controversial in some way. I really liked what Cheryl and Luca, two of my writers, did with the relationship between Isabella and Aveline. Especially, Cheryl’s treatment of Isabella was super in that Isabella is the kind of character that could have gone wrong in so many ways in the portrayal. But she took a character that could have just been – and on the surface, that’s exactly how she presents herself, a sort of floozy, right? That she doesn’t have any moral fiber. There’s lots of things that people could and have probably said about her. And took that and had Isabella make it a strength. I thought that was brilliantly done.
I really enjoyed Anders in terms of the role he played. I think in terms of, if you’re going to insist on a single character in DA2 that is iconic, it’s probably Anders. “Damn it, Anders” became a meme afterwords, and I think for good reason. The best – well, I don’t know about best – the most intense arguments from fans of DA2 generally seem to evolve around him over, was he a terrorist, was he right, should I have supported him, no I was happy to kill him. I think if any character alone spawned the most intense feelings for players of DA2, it was differently Anders. Some people loath him utterly and everything he stood for, and some people love him beyond all reason.
Looking back at what DA2 gave to the Dragon Age franchise – you talked about Origins, what that was meant to resignate with players and the greater themes that it represented – DA2, what did it do in those two circumstances?
You mean in terms of the overall Dragon Age experience? It was a gateway to a different part of the world. It was a character driven story as opposed to one that was driven purely by plot. I think that was ultimately doing something different. Not everybody wants something different necessarily, but it showed that Dragon Age wasn’t solely about epic battles and epic worlds and dangers. That sometimes it can be about the characters and their life, and there’s an epicness in that too. Here’s what happens to one person that rises in one city, and that can be a worthwhile journey as well. There’s also the sense that DA2 sets the stage for what comes afterword. The plot of DAI would not make sense without the ground work that DA2 laid. So that needed to happen as well. But I think in terms of broadening what DA meant, that we didn’t intend for every game to be about the darkspawn and about the Grey Wardens or about a single character, that this was a series that was about the world and not about just one character in it.
Good reading as always, Thanks for sharing.
The more DG talks about DA2 the more I wish a special edition could get made. Those cuts...
You can audibly hear the saddness in his voice too
Thank you Capone666. Fingers crossed for the DAI part 
I didn't like Hawke's story in DA2. There was a huge dissonance between the main story content and both side quests and combat. Outside of the main path Hawke can do anything; slay high dragons, kill ancient demons like Hybris and Xebencek, resolve all companions pressing personal issues. The main story is all about how Hawke can't do things, with little explanation as to why not. You must go to Kirkwall, and you need Flemeth's help to get there. You can't save your family. You can't stop Anders.
There are ways to make enforced player failure a good part of the story. DA2 was not one of them.
I said from the beginning that DA2 was about one character (written and owned by BioWare) and that we were just along for the ride. That's why I don't invest much of my personal effort or thought into Hawke. She is a narrator of sorts. The vehicle through which the player experiences the story.
Another thing Gaider mentioned was that the mage path didn't quite make sense in that everyone was worried about mages being apostates, blood mages, or just plain evil, and yet no one messes with a mage Hawke in the same ways. So it's either warrior or rogue (it was this anyway since Carver is so annoying), and honestly I think rogue is the best way to go. Also, female seems to make the story more impactful and more meaningful.
Interesting that near the end of the interview DG mentions that DA is about the world, not a single character. Most of us knew that already I suppose.
Still good to be confirmed for those that can't understand such a simple concept.
Too bad Gaider fails to understand that this "single character" is what made the game such a huge success. And we all understand the series is more than that character, but that doesn't mean they can't bring the character back or continue that character's story on the side.
Too bad Gaider fails to understand that this "single character" is what made the game such a huge success. And we all understand the series is more than that character, but that doesn't mean they can't bring the character back or continue that character's story on the side.
I agree. They need to bring Sandal back!
Its sad, this is still my favorite DA game and it could have been a great experience had they had more development time. The rivalry and personality system was a great concept and the idea of time jumps was really cool.
Too bad Gaider fails to understand that this "single character" is what made the game such a huge success. And we all understand the series is more than that character, but that doesn't mean they can't bring the character back or continue that character's story on the side.
It's true that Alistair was such a key part of DA:O, but Bioware came back to that with Cassandra's plotline.
It's true that Alistair was such a key part of DA:O, but Bioware came back to that with Cassandra's plotline.
...
They did? 
...
They did?
A single, mandatory character who is also a romance interest and - depending on the ending state - will end your relationship. All the things that made Alistair great and DA:O a success. Clearly. Mission accomplished.
It was a character driven story as opposed to one that was driven purely by plot. I think that was ultimately doing something different. Not everybody wants something different necessarily, but it showed that Dragon Age wasn’t solely about epic battles and epic worlds and dangers. That sometimes it can be about the characters and their life, and there’s an epicness in that too.
I've never tried the rivalry with Merril, because she is my preferred romance I typically always agree with her decisions just to get the approval but from what Gaider said in this interview the rivalry sounds awesome..
I've never tried the rivalry with Merril, because she is my preferred romance I typically always agree with her decisions just to get the approval but from what Gaider said in this interview the rivalry sounds awesome..
It is 
.
I love DA2, but it could have been so much better. Damn real life technicalities.
And Merrill is a classic example. I think some people expected if they just supported Merrill in all her crazy blood magic and stuff that eventually they’d be able to convince her to change her mind. In what universe is that the case? So, you have a friend and the way you are going to convince them to change their mind is to say; you’re awesome; that is the right decision; every that you’re doing, do more of that; oh, by the way, do something completely opposite now. That’s not what happens. The only way to get Merrill to consider honestly that she is wrong is to go down the rivalry path.
Then why did you change it?
They showed that they've found a solution to the whole "I hate the things you do, but I can only make you love me by not hating them", and then completely discarded it. It's not like it was perfect, but that is in my opinion 100% due to the way some interactions where handled mere choice wise, not because of the relationship system.
Especially in a game like Inquisition, where people understand they have to be around, so the only option is the be friendly or respectful. Not that this isn't the case, but it just completely returned to "hatred - less content / love - more content"
Why the hell did they throw out the rivalry and friendship system for DAI? It was sooooooooooo much better. Imagine how much better Sera's romance would be if you was able to actually disagree with her and get her to evolve her character thanks to your romance, like Merrill?
I think it's possible that one of the reasons they changed it is that many players reacted as if getting rivalry points was 'punishment' even though being a character's rival was usually just as engaging and interesting as being their friend. (If not more so - on the whole I prefer the rivalry romances to the friendship ones. Merrill is actually the only case where I prefer the friendmance.) You also ended up with situations where a character cared about multiple issues and Hawke agreed with them about one thing and disagreed about another, and therefore ended up stuck in the middle. That could easily happen with Anders if you were pro-mage freedom but also pro-blood magic and demons.
That said, I really wish they'd kept and refined the system instead of scrapping it . It was one of my favourite things about DA2, and I'm sad that we'll probably never see it again.
I think it's possible that one of the reasons they changed it is that many players reacted as if getting rivalry points was 'punishment' even though being a character's rival was usually just as engaging and interesting as being their friend. (If not more so - on the whole I prefer the rivalry romances to the friendship ones. Merrill is actually the only case where I prefer the friendmance.) You also ended up with situations where a character cared about multiple issues and Hawke agreed with them about one thing and disagreed about another, and therefore ended up stuck in the middle. That could easily happen with Anders if you were pro-mage freedom but also pro-blood magic and demons.
That said, I really wish they'd kept and refined the system instead of scrapping it
Agreed. They really need to bring it back. I loved rivalry paths, and they help to mix things up like going rivalry with someone on a new playthrough that you friended on your last playthrough. I remember one playthrough where I was an aggressive Hawke who rivaled everyone but Varric and Aveline (and only because not being Varric's friend didn't feel right and the fact that Aveline's life goes to crap if you rival her).
Retour en haut
