every other Bioware game, you are the saviour, self insert mary sue hero that everyone reveres and worships the ground you walk on, and the whole world basically exists to whack you off at how amazing you are.
In Dragon Age 2, I was a trash tier refugee just trying to survive and make a living. People even treated my like crap because I had no status and was a dirty poor immigrant. It felt far more human making your way up from there.
Conceptually, DA2 had a lot going for it. Really, a lot. I do hope they try something similar again, but with more time given to its execution.
Some people did whine about Hawke being a very passive protagonist, and they do have a point. But there is a sweet spot to hit between 'active, plot-critical protagonist' and 'Messianic Mary Sue the world revolves around'.
DA2 has the best story and best companion plot lines in my opinion.
The first time I played DA2, I was devastated when I could not prevent some deaths or tragedies. I loved Hawke since they have to work hard for what they achieve. Not as the Inquisitor who
Speaking of the savior trend, I think it really started with Mass Effect and DAO.
In old Bioware games, you sometimes start as nobody:
****** Spoiler Alert ******
1) BG1, when you start, you are so weak that fighting toe to toe against a common bear is suicide. You pretty much try to survive and get by. You fight the final boss because he's out to kill you.
2) BG2 is a continuation to BG1, but when you start you are still kinda nobody. You have to abide the city's law - break the law, you'll fight against law enforcement.
3) In NWN, you start as nobody. Depending on your race (dwarf, half-orc, halflings and so on), people may hate you and blame the city's problems on your race.
4) In NWN: SoU, you start as an apprentice to a reputable mage, but people do not worship you; they are just friendly and like you because they respect your teacher.
Speaking of the savior trend, I think it really started with Mass Effect and DAO.
In old Bioware games, you sometimes start as nobody:
****** Spoiler Alert ******
1) BG1, when you start, you are so weak that fighting toe to toe against a common bear is suicide. You pretty much try to survive and get by. You fight the final boss because he's out to kill you.
2) BG2 is a continuation to BG1, but when you start you are still kinda nobody. You have to abide the city's law - break the law, you'll fight against law enforcement.
3) In NWN, you start as nobody. Depending on your race (dwarf, half-orc, halflings and so on), people may hate you and blame the city's problems on your race.
4) In NWN: SoU, you start as an apprentice to a reputable mage, but people do not worship you; they are just friendly and like you because they respect your teacher.
To be fair, this is kind of misleading as the starting point doesn't really matter in this aspect. Yeah, you started as a nobody in BG1, but you were still the child of Bhaal and that was the reason the character was so important. It was also a destiny why Gorion had taken the character under his wing to begin wtih, so it isn't fair to indicate that BG1/2 had the character to really be a nobody. NWN I will, however, give you, but even this comparison ignores Jade Empire and KotOR.
Conceptually, DA2 had a lot going for it. Really, a lot. I do hope they try something similar again, but with more time given to its execution.
Some people did whine about Hawke being a very passive protagonist, and they do have a point. But there is a sweet spot to hit between 'active, plot-critical protagonist' and 'Messianic Mary Sue the world revolves around'.
I also really hope they try something similar, but at least with DAI they seemed to be so traumatized by the reaction to DA2 that at times it felt their design philosophy was almost literally 'Do it differently than in DA2'.
The passivity argument, though, is something I've always had a problem with as Hawke really isn't that much more passive than the Warden or the Inquisitor, who also solely react to outside influences. There are two large reasons for this perception, in my opinion, both which are important.
First, DA2 was a game about why something happened instead of being a game about what happened. In DAO/DAI the PC basically arrives when everything has already taken place and is given a limited number of choices by a third-party on how to solve the situation, basically guiding the PC towards selected choices. DA2, in turn, does have a lot of things happen, but it also does provide Hawke several ways to react to that and either try to have them fight against several criseses tearing Kirkwall apart or throw kindling to the fire. That is still reactivity.
Second, and this is where it gets complicated, DA2 is actually a really mature game in the sense that it doesn't have violence be a solution to every problem. Both in DAO and in DAI, basically everything solved by killing everyone except the people the PC is siding with. This does give a sense of reactivity, but it really makes every problem really simple as they can be solved by simply killing all the bad people. This is not true for the challenges of DA2 and really wouldn't be true for any game that tried to be similarly ambitious.
What I like about DA:2 is the story line first you are fleeing the Darkspawn, rescued by a witch and end up a poor refugee, kill refugees that attacked the captain of the guard,then kill a nobleman so you and your family can enter the city and then spend a year in a gang and strike out on your own, help a friend by killing bandits, try saving a elf mage by killing slavers and etc.
Seems poor old Hawke can't stay out of killing trouble and DA:2 reminds me of reading a Western novel.. No wonder I like DA:2 .
To be fair, this is kind of misleading as the starting point doesn't really matter in this aspect. Yeah, you started as a nobody in BG1, but you were still the child of Bhaal and that was the reason the character was so important. It was also a destiny why Gorion had taken the character under his wing to begin wtih, so it isn't fair to indicate that BG1/2 had the character to really be a nobody. NWN I will, however, give you, but even this comparison ignores Jade Empire and KotOR.
Ah, that actually explains why I dislike DA2 so much. I think that for a character to be strong/important, he/she needs to be special in some way.
In almost all other RPGs, it was in the background. Geralt is special because he's one of the last witchers and so much happened in the book; Nameless One is a pre-defined character who is unable to die; Revan is ... Revan; Exile is a wound in the force; Kalach-cha has a sword shard embedded in his heart that made him/her in tune with a powerful sword; Commander Shepard is special because of his/her various exploits even before the events of Mass Effect 1. NWN OC's PC is really nobody, but as a result, NWN OC's story is quite weak.
Hawke is nobody ... wait, Hawke is actually special. His background is the entire act 1.
That is why you are forced to complete every seemingly unrelated rumor in act 1 with little to no reasons. Rumors, which just happened to be important later.
Nach oben