821 réponses à ce sujet

[Addictress]

That's just part of following through on having a dark world. You have to show how this world is dark and dangerous or else the sense of tension and underlying drama won't be as effective.

The reaper larvae was very dark and more so because the player sees first hand how it was created. You saw an abducted human get painfully broken down and reduced to juice for the larvae's creation. Thus, you know fully understand what the collectors are doing to their prisoners and why they have to be stopped.


If that's the case then the endings weaker for forcing Hawke to choose between crazy factions in a dark vs dark conflict.

It would have been a lot stronger to have either allowed Hawke to take a "reject path" and fight against both sides rallying his allies and the city guard. Hawke could either do this for their own power or to MAKE THEIR OWN ultimate good in the world. Or alternatively, Hawke should be able to just wash his hands of the madness and leave.

Instead, player agency is restricted for the sake of forced drama and the obvious forced angle makes the game less investment worthy and fun for the player.

Well, no. It's stronger because Hawke is forced - you are forced - to choose a side. Remember the tension of being forced to choose? When Meredith said "you are already involved."

That right there is the sweet spot of Bioware gaming feels, and it also legitimizes the rest of the narrative universe and all the conflicts your companions and everyone have been debating and slowly escalating beforehand.

To suddenly fly up in the air with a new ultimate good cheapens and destroys the legitimate viewpoints and positions of the universe created.

By being forced to partake in the universe, yes, it is choice but at the end it also solidifies the universe.

You want choice but you do not want to cancel out the depth of the world.

[Addictress]

And I know what you mean by your choice not having Impact but I think it does.

Hawke goes down as a mage rebel, or Templar defender. Varric's and Cassandra's retrospective storytelling consolidates that. Anders lives or dies. Companions fall out with you or don't. Doesn't change the larger world, though. The hero of the rpg makes decisions that influence a MANAGEABLE sphere of the world. Not the entire world. Too much power makes it ...less immersive. To be immersed, you need some forces larger than yourself which are too big to change.

[Mr Fixit]

Honestly I thought it successfully drove the point home that, the templars have a point - Mages will turn to blood magic when cornered. BOTH sides screw up. Just because you side with a faction does not turn them noble. The inherent darkness of both sides continue in spite of your picking a side.

Ultimately Elthina is correct - both sides have flaws and no one is right, and both sides' complaints about the other are also all correct.

That is why strife and differences of opinion exist. There IS no ultimate good in the world, and that is why Dragon Age 2 has an amazing ending.

 

Oh, I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. No easy solutions, shades of grey, PC who doesn't magically solve everything... I'd have loved to see that pulled off properly. The problem for me was that very little of this conflict worked in those terms. Meredith was just insane and the mages were almost all crazy abominations and blood mages. Speaking for myself, I can't look at the two sides and feel sympathy and sorrow after the tragic turn of events; all I can feel and think is to be flabbergasted at how totally INSANE everyone in this city is. If the feeling of tragedy and things spiraling out of control where both sides are right and wrong is what devs tried to accomplish, I'm not sure they succeeded as the prevailing opinion in the fandom seems to be "man, let them both burn, I'm outta here!" 

 

To juxtapose this with Act II, there's a reason why people appear to respond much more favourably to the Qunari storyline. The motives, prejudice, misunderstandings, political machinations of everyone involved make much more sense. I can feel the Arishok's growing frustration, I can understand Viscount's well-intentioned but feeble attempts to preserve peace and navigate precarious politics of the city, I get where the religious zealots are coming from... It's a complicated situation where both the Viscount and the Arishok don't want war, but are pushed into it by external forces (rogue Chantry elements, Isabela's meddling...) as well as their own inability to reconcile opposing internal factors (Dumar's weak-willed let's-not-displease-anyone-it'll-all-turn-out-okay policy and Arishok getting lost and short-circuited with seemingly opposite demands of the Qun). 

 

Now that was a well-done story arc!

[b09boy]

...no. it took me 1 playthrough. Like less than 1.

The quality of the writing in DA2 is apparent immediately, for many of us.

 

As terrible?  Yes.

[Addictress]

Oh, I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. No easy solutions, shades of grey, PC who doesn't magically solve everything... I'd have loved to see that pulled off properly. The problem for me was that very little of this conflict worked in those terms. Meredith was just insane and the mages were almost all crazy abominations and blood mages. Speaking for myself, I can't look at the two sides and feel sympathy and sorrow after the tragic turn of events; all I can feel and think is to be flabbergasted at how totally INSANE everyone in this city is. If the feeling of tragedy and things spiraling out of control where both sides are right and wrong is what devs tried to accomplish, I'm not sure they succeeded as the prevailing opinion in the fandom seems to be "man, let them both burn; I'm outta here!" 

Maybe my standards of sanity are different from everyone else because I come from a pretty insane family, but I thought Meredith and Orsino were both pretty reasonable until catastrophic events forced them into insanity. They are definitive breaking points:

 

Orisno is literally backed into a corner due to Rite of Annulment. THEN he resorts to blood magic, predictably.

 

Meredith isn't all that crazy until she is wielding the red-lyrium sword. Until then, she's just a very driven, opinionated character. Which is what characters should be - people with motives. And then the red lyrium sword turns up, which is great because we were wondering all along what happened to the idol, so there's that thread tied up.

[vbibbi]

The devs have said on record that the Orsino fight on a pro-mage ending was inserted because another boss fight was thought to be necessary. So...I don't know if that means that a pro-templar ending would have always had to fight a harvester, or if it was added to both endings as a gameplay-over-plot reason.

 

It almost feels like the harvester was intended to be part of some other quest in Act 3, and when the game's development time was squeezed so tightly, they stuck it in as Orsino. Based on what we learned of the harvester from GoA, it's more of a Frankenstein's monster than an abomination, so I think it would have made more sense as Quentin's pet than as something a mage can turn into.

 

I headcanon that Orsino never turned into that, he just died in the battle. Maybe he still knew blood magic, or at least had contact with Quentin, but he wasn't stupid enough to attack a Hawke who had been nothing but helpful to him.

[CardButton]

Oh, I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. No easy solutions, shades of grey, PC who doesn't magically solve everything... I'd have loved to see that pulled off properly. The problem for me was that very little of this conflict worked in those terms. Meredith was just insane and the mages were almost all crazy abominations and blood mages. Speaking for myself, I can't look at the two sides and feel sympathy and sorrow after the tragic turn of events; all I can feel and think is to be flabbergasted at how totally INSANE everyone in this city is. If the feeling of tragedy and things spiraling out of control where both sides are right and wrong is what devs tried to accomplish, I'm not sure they succeeded as the prevailing opinion in the fandom seems to be "man, let them both burn; I'm outta here!" 

Whats strange is how manipulative the end decision actually was.  Its almost like Bioware realized that because you can kill or fire so many of the more corrupt Templars earlier in the game, the Templars left had started appearing far more sympathetic after all the crap that the Mages have been doing.  They look desperate yet seem almost entirely justified in their actions, but because the decision to join them is Akin to mass murder and their boss is absolutely bonkers players are far less prone to do so; especially considering the alternative is to join a (AT FACE VALUE) a competent, yet stressed out Orsino who simply wants Freedom for the Mages of the Circle.  Yeah Orsino is just as nuts as Meredith and as a result proves that their are no good mages left in the Kirkwall Cicle, but the player doesn't know that before the decision is made. 

 

Honestly, if it had not been for Meredith and the Right of Annulment being part of the final choice, I don't doubt for a second that most player would have joined the Templars in the end.

[Addictress]

As terrible?  Yes.

Sebastian Vael: "You were given to the Circle. I was given to the Chantry. Hawke was driven away from home by the Darkspawn. None of us are free."

 

Come on dude, this one dinky banter line is like better than 90% of all the writing in DAI.

[ShadowLordXII]

Well, no. It's stronger because Hawke is forced - you are forced - to choose a side. Remember the tension of being forced to choose? When Meredith said "you are already involved."

That right there is the sweet spot of Bioware gaming feels, and it also legitimizes the rest of the narrative universe and all the conflicts your companions and everyone have been debating and slowly escalating beforehand.

To suddenly fly up in the air with a new ultimate good cheapens and destroys the legitimate viewpoints and positions of the universe created.

By being forced to partake in the universe, yes, it is choice but at the end it also solidifies the universe.

You want choice but you do not want to cancel out the depth of the world.

 

How exactly is Hawke forced to choose? After everything that Hawke has defeated and how powerful that the game has demonstrated as being, what is forcing Hawke to choose? What's stopping him from legitimately either saying "both of you are crazy, I'm defending Kirkwall from both of you" or saying "I'm done and I'm out?"

 

This is still an rpg and a game and thus player agency should be respected.

 

Also, neither side is legitimate at this point. Meredith is literally overstepping her bounds by seizing direct secular power in Kirkwall and antagonizing mages based on paranoia. Furthermore, she had no legit reason to declare the Rite of Annulment since Anders was right there. But since she's crazy, she decides to attack the Circle whom she knows had nothing to do with the destruction of the Chantry. She was literally looking for an excuse and acted on one when it presented itself.

 

Then there's the mages. It's annoying and laughable that nearly every single mage in this city is either an abomination or a blood mage. Even the seemingly sane and respectable Orsino is a blood mage and had aided a known serial killer. 

 

Why should the player be forced to pick a side that they have no reason to be invested in? That's literally a meaningless choice, especially when that choice leads to the same end regardless. There is no fun or engagement with a meaningless choice.

 

Mages: Fight templars; Orsino goes crazy and dies; Meredith goes crazy and dies; Hawke disappears; and Mage-Templar War begins.

 

Templars: Fight mages; Orsino goes crazy and dies; Meredith goes crazy and dies; Hawke disappears; and Mage-Templar War begins.

 

If the outcome makes the choice meaningless anyway, then you'd might as well let the player come to that end on their own terms. That makes the situation more immersive because you are able to act as your character sees fit.

 

The situation would be much stronger if Hawke tries to save Kirkwall from these two mad houses, but the rest of Thedas still erupts into war. It would also be an interesting deconstructive angle to have the so-called hero abandon the city that they're supposed to be saving because the hero didn't believe that there was anything worth saving.

[Mr Fixit]

Yeah Orsino is just as nuts as Meredith and as a result proves that their are no good mages left in the Kirkwall Cicle, but the player doesn't know that before the decision is made. 

 

Which reminds me: Bioware seems to have a habit of underexplaining conficts and motivations of key players. Like how you essentially don't know anything about Gaspard and Celene (someone on this thread had an intriguing idea of using Exalted Plains to flesh out the sides in conflict more fully: who they are, why are they fighting, who stands for what, etc.) or how the Harrowmont-Bhelen choice was also very sketchy. When I played DA:O for the first time, I remember having almost no info whatsoever on these two guys beyond bare bones. Even Loghain was somewhat ill served as his motivations and history only truly become apparent if you know a bit more than the base game is willing to share (i.e. Gaider's book, interviews, bits and pieces from Ostagar DLC, online speculation of fans, etc...)

[Addictress]

How exactly is Hawke forced to choose? After everything that Hawke has defeated and how powerful that the game has demonstrated as being, what is forcing Hawke to choose? What's stopping him from legitimately either saying "both of you are crazy, I'm defending Kirkwall from both of you" or saying "I'm done and I'm out?"

 

This is still an rpg and a game and thus player agency should be respected.

 

Also, neither side is legitimate at this point. Meredith is literally overstepping her bounds by seizing direct secular power in Kirkwall and antagonizing mages based on paranoia. Furthermore, she had no legit reason to declare the Rite of Annulment since Anders was right there. But since she's crazy, she decides to attack the Circle whom she knows had nothing to do with the destruction of the Chantry. She was literally looking for an excuse and acted on one when it presented itself.

 

Then there's the mages. It's annoying and laughable that nearly every single mage in this city is either an abomination or a blood mage. Even the seemingly sane and respectable Orsino is a blood mage and had aided a known serial killer. 

 

Why should the player be forced to pick a side that they have no reason to be invested in? That's literally a meaningless choice, especially when that choice leads to the same end regardless. There is no fun or engagement with a meaningless choice.

 

Mages: Fight templars; Orsino goes crazy and dies; Meredith goes crazy and dies; Hawke disappears; and Mage-Templar War begins.

 

Templars: Fight mages; Orsino goes crazy and dies; Meredith goes crazy and dies; Hawke disappears; and Mage-Templar War begins.

 

If the outcome makes the choice meaningless anyway, then you'd might as well let the player come to that end on their own terms. That makes the situation more immersive because you are able to act as your character sees fit.

 

The situation would be much stronger if Hawke tries to save Kirkwall from these two mad houses, but the rest of Thedas still erupts into war. It would also be an interesting deconstructive angle to have the so-called hero abandon the city that they're supposed to be saving because the hero didn't believe that there was anything worth saving.

Because Hawke was never a world leader in the first place. Hawke is a refugee who struggled to make a home in Lothering and build a circle of friends. As Hawke, I don't want to completely revamp the world. I'm just trying to survive. You fight big bosses... to survive. You go to the Deep Roads... to score coin. You don't go to the Deep Roads to revolutionize dwarven politics. You don't come to Kirkwall to change the structure of the chantry. You are really just a participant. Anders is the revolutionary, you are not. And by the end of the game, I felt like I was Hawke and I understood - yes, I'm forced to choose a side because I'm not going to be stopping both sides. I'm going to be caught in the middle and the sides are going to play out no matter what. Just because you dueled the Arishok doesn't change the fact that the Arishok was a rogue Qunari and the Qunari state didn't sanction his actions anyways - you were just a champion. A celebrity, really, not a viscount or politician. And when you defeated the Arishok, it made a statement like "yes the people of Kirkwall can fight back" and you became a symbol of the people, but really you're just one of the people.

 

That's another thing that worked too - your companions were honestly more impressive than you were. Aveline was a Guard-Captain, and yes you were a critical friend whose support ensured her station didn't get swallowed up by the templars, but that's what you were. A supportive friend. She was the Guard-Captain maintaining order and have a true station in that city. Anders was a leader of an underground mage rebellion and he was the one blowing up the chantry and you couldn't do anything about that. 

 

And I did feel player agency. I felt player agency because I could either be remembered in retrospect as someone who stood with the mages ,or someone stood with the templars, I could slay Anders or not (especially if romanced this was potent), my brother or sister could be a grey warden or dead or templar, etc, Merrill's entire clan could be slain, Merrill could see the error of her ways, or not, Aveline's life could be shaped by me, or not, Fenris could be sold back to slavery or not, honestly... all these influences were on the companion-level and I guess that's what the game was. It was a smaller sphere of influence about a refugee making a name for herself, it wasn't a godlike hero reshaping the world around her. Some people probably subjectively don't like that, but I did. I made choices I could within my sphere carved into a pre-existing world.

 

And I have EVERY reason to be invested in the choice. That's the thing about DA2 - I'm more invested in the choice than in any other game. Because I'm stuck in that world and for ten goddam years have seen my mother killed by a blood mage, templars going too far, my lover driven insane by mage-templar politics or magic in general, my brother or sister being consumed by either faction, my bestest friends each impacted in very serious ways by the various dynamics. 

 

Meredith isn't legitimate and IS going against policy, but what can you do about that? You're in the city and she's making the decision right there and then, the grand-cleric is gone, and you're surrounded by Meredith's templar forces. It's not like you can escape and go to Val Royeaux and gather an army - that's not really your personality or goal, there is no time, and honestly you're just a citizen of Kirkwall in the middle of trying to defend yourself and your home. If you don't choose a side you'll be slaughtered in the middle, that's all it is. Like Anders said, there can be no compromise. And then Merrill is like "nooo" and then you say "the choice was taken from us. Anders took away the choice." So there's that too.

[CardButton]

Which reminds me: Bioware seems to have a habit of underexplaining conficts and motivations of key players. Like how you essentially don't know anything about Gaspard and Celene (someone on this thread had an intriguing idea of using Exalted Plains to flesh out the sides in conflict more fully: who they are, why are they fighting, who stands for what, etc.) or how the Harrowmont-Bhelen choice was also very sketchy. When I played DA:O for the first time, I remember having almost no info whatsoever on these two guys beyond bare bones. Even Loghain was somewhat ill served as his motivations and history only truly become apparent if you know a bit more than the base game is willing to share (i.e. Gaider's book, interviews, bits and pieces from Ostagar DLC, online speculation of fans, etc...)

At least in these cases the goal was never leading these places. your just breaking a stalemate so you can get access to their resources for your own agendas. Yeah, it would be nice to not leave either nation in the hands of a psychotic despot, but if making that decision safely (and with all the required information) was possible then the people that actually live there would have made it long ago; and fundamentally not why you are there in the first place.  Plus, the lives of those peoples aren't directly in your hands with those choices (Gaspard/Celene/Briala) or (Horrowmont/Bhelen) like they are with the Mage/Templar Kirkwall conflict. 

 

It's not a great excuse I'll admit, but at least its an excuse as to why we don't know everything in those political decisions of Origins and Inquisition ... we the characters don't really need all the information to in order to get done what we need to get done. 

[ShadowLordXII]

Meredith isn't legitimate and IS going against policy, but what can you do about that? You're in the city and she's making the decision right there and then, the grand-cleric is gone, and you're surrounded by Meredith's templar forces. It's not like you can escape and go to Val Royeaux and gather an army - that's not really your personality or goal, there is no time, and honestly you're just a citizen of Kirkwall in the middle of trying to defend yourself and your home. If you don't choose a side you'll be slaughtered in the middle, that's all it is. Like Anders said, there can be no compromise. And then Merrill is like "nooo" and then you say "the choice was taken from us. Anders took away the choice." So there's that too.

 

What can I do about that? Leave or take a stand.

 

Maybe it won't work, but at least you're making a choice and dealing with its consequences. There is no engagement to be had from a meaningless choice inside of a heavily contrived situation between two dark factions that will end badly regardless of your decision.

 

That's why I like the idea of the Reject Ending in ME3. Let's face, all of those endings sucked because they were poorly written and were contradictory to both in-game information and the overall theme/story of the ME trilogy. But the Reject Ending was the only one where Shepard could stay in-character. It was the only one where they stood for what they believed in and fought for in the first place. Sure, he lost. But at least he lost on his terms rather than win on the Star-Child's. Additionally, the next cycle will be able to pick-up where Shepard failed and succeed in ending the reaper cycles once and for all.

 

What's the point in playing the game if my actions don't matter in the presented conflict? Why finish it if I'm being forced towards defeat regardless of what I do?

 

Also, Hawke's been slaughtering templars, mages, demons, dragons, qunari, assassins, darkspawn, dwarves, elves, and etc left and right for the past 7 years. Can you honestly say that Hawke couldn't fight his way out of the city if he wanted to? Or that he wouldn't stand a chance if he'd fought against both sides. "No compromise" would be stronger here since Hawke is taking a stand and refusing to compromise with the corrupt templars or the crazy mages. If he dies in the attempt, so be it. Like with the Reject Ending, it's better to die on your own terms than to live by someone else's.

[AFA]

And I know what you mean by your choice not having Impact but I think it does.

Hawke goes down as a mage rebel, or Templar defender. Varric's and Cassandra's retrospective storytelling consolidates that. Anders lives or dies. Companions fall out with you or don't. Doesn't change the larger world, though. The hero of the rpg makes decisions that influence a MANAGEABLE sphere of the world. Not the entire world. Too much power makes it ...less immersive. To be immersed, you need some forces larger than yourself which are too big to change.

 

Those big splash moves you made in DAI? Almost none of them will carry over. The small things carry over, because they are easy to write around. Very little that the HOF did translated later, the Dwarven King was about it, Ferelden's Monarch too. Their impact on Dagna made it though.

 

People do look over the fact that Hawke's reputation as an all-savin hero was somethign Varric made up, and Cas discovers this as the game progresses. Even she thought it was a Heroic Fantasy story at first.  

[Addictress]

What can I do about that? Leave or take a stand.

 

Maybe it won't work, but at least you're making a choice and dealing with its consequences. There is no engagement to be had from a meaningless choice inside of a heavily contrived situation between two dark factions that will end badly regardless of your decision.

 

That's why I like the idea of the Reject Ending in ME3. Let's face, all of those endings sucked because they were poorly written and were contradictory to both in-game information and the overall theme/story of the ME trilogy. But the Reject Ending was the only one where Shepard could stay in-character. It was the only one where they stood for what they believed in and fought for in the first place. Sure, he lost. But at least he lost on his terms rather than win on the Star-Child's. Additionally, the next cycle will be able to pick-up where Shepard failed and succeed in ending the reaper cycles once and for all.

 

What's the point in playing the game if my actions don't matter in the presented conflict? Why finish it if I'm being forced towards defeat regardless of what I do?

 

Also, Hawke's been slaughtering templars, mages, demons, dragons, qunari, assassins, darkspawn, dwarves, elves, and etc left and right for the past 7 years. Can you honestly say that Hawke couldn't fight his way out of the city if he wanted to? Or that he wouldn't stand a chance if he'd fought against both sides. "No compromise" would be stronger here since Hawke is taking a stand and refusing to compromise with the corrupt templars or the crazy mages. If he dies in the attempt, so be it. Like with the Reject Ending, it's better to die on your own terms than to live by someone else's.

You can't leave. it's your home and you want to defend your home.

The only way you can take a stand is by refusing to help either side and shutting yourself in or being killed in between which is suicide or reclusion.

 

Your actions DO matter - your actions define your character and how you are remembered. It's not a story about how the world was changed but how YOU were changed. It's a character drama, not necessarily a political drama.

[Addictress]

Those big splash moves you made in DAI? Almost none of them will carry over. The small things carry over, because they are easy to write around. Very little that the HOF did translated later, the Dwarven King was about it, Ferelden's Monarch too. Their impact on Dagna made it though.

 

People do look over the fact that Hawke's reputation as an all-savin hero was somethign Varric made up, and Cas discovers this as the game progresses. Even she thought it was a Heroic Fantasy story at first.  

So.. I'm not truly alone? Is there another DA2 fan out there? ;__;

[Al Foley]

So.. I'm not truly alone? Is there another DA2 fan out there? ;__;

*waves* Hi.  Make that two. 

[Addictress]

 

 

But I digress. Your post on why Origins is a superior game and how it trumps Inquisition is completely correct and it was a great blessing to read. I would rather see Inquisition get pwn'd in this thread.

[Al Foley]

But I digress. Your post on why Origins is a superior game and how it trumps Inquisition is completely correct and it was a great blessing to read. I would rather see Inquisition get pwn'd in this thread.

Why?

[AFA]

What can I do about that? Leave or take a stand.

 

Maybe it won't work, but at least you're making a choice and dealing with its consequences. There is no engagement to be had from a meaningless choice inside of a heavily contrived situation between two dark factions that will end badly regardless of your decision.

 

That's why I like the idea of the Reject Ending in ME3. Let's face, all of those endings sucked because they were poorly written and were contradictory to both in-game information and the overall theme/story of the ME trilogy. But the Reject Ending was the only one where Shepard could stay in-character. It was the only one where they stood for what they believed in and fought for in the first place. Sure, he lost. But at least he lost on his terms rather than win on the Star-Child's. Additionally, the next cycle will be able to pick-up where Shepard failed and succeed in ending the reaper cycles once and for all.

 

What's the point in playing the game if my actions don't matter in the presented conflict? Why finish it if I'm being forced towards defeat regardless of what I do?

 

Also, Hawke's been slaughtering templars, mages, demons, dragons, qunari, assassins, darkspawn, dwarves, elves, and etc left and right for the past 7 years. Can you honestly say that Hawke couldn't fight his way out of the city if he wanted to? Or that he wouldn't stand a chance if he'd fought against both sides. "No compromise" would be stronger here since Hawke is taking a stand and refusing to compromise with the corrupt templars or the crazy mages. If he dies in the attempt, so be it. Like with the Reject Ending, it's better to die on your own terms than to live by someone else's.

 

ME3 is a sterling example of players having a bunch of choices that make an impact, then make the main narrative untenable. With all the variables going in, spreading the narrative so thin, there was no way to get a real satisfying conclusion out of that. Plenty of great personal choices and outcomes that make an impact, but expecting writers to keep up with that many variables and make a super custom ending for that is not realistic.

 

You can still make little choices that have a big impact on characters, if not the world around them. Telltale's Walking Dead is a great example of the little things adding up, even as the unavoidable tragedy approaches.  

[CardButton]

So.. I'm not truly alone? Is there another DA2 fan out there? ;__;

No, while I wouldn't count myself necessarily a fan I very much respect quite a bit of what Bioware tried to do with DA2.  I'd be lying if I didn't say I thoroughly enjoyed the first two arcs of the game, or Hawke and his/her companions for that matter, and its mostly the third and final arc that I take issue with (essentially I'm disappointed and frustrated with how it was presented as the story could have easily worked with a more refined context).  

 

That being said I actually do approve of the main story quest centric style of the game and if you compare the base games of each installment so far: 10 quests for Inquisition, 13 for Origins and a shocking 26 for DA2, that is an amazing amount of focus on the core story line.  The same applies to the "Story Arc" method they used to present the tale of DA2, which I also liked and something similar could and should be used in the future if it is appropriate for the story they are trying to tell.  

 

The basic mechanics they used for Kirkwall itself, creating these sort of semi-explorable city zones that also served as quest hubs which changed slightly with each arc, proved to make the city more organic than any we've seen before or after; and if improved upon (and used in conjunction with a similar DA:I open world style for exterior zones) could be a great way for Bioware to flesh out an mostly explorable Minrathous if were going to Tevinter next game.

 

There are a few other things, but I don't really want to make a wall of text more than I already have.  In essence, while it may be my least favorite of the series thus far, that doesn't mean there aren't aspects that I admire and truly hope Bioware gets over themselves enough to take another look at for improvements to be used in future games. 

[ShadowLordXII]

But I digress. Your post on why Origins is a superior game and how it trumps Inquisition is completely correct and it was a great blessing to read. I would rather see Inquisition get pwn'd in this thread.

 

Thanks for the kudos.

 

For the record, you could call me a fan of DA2 as well. It has a lot of problems and being rushed by EA didn't help matters, but it still stands as good game despite all of that. Act 2 is especially what sold me DA2 at least being a good game and Act 3 is where I lost investment or care in the story. I can also appreciate that DA2 tried to do something different, they just didn't do it so well as to make the changes worthwhile.

[Al Foley]

Thanks for the kudos.

 

For the record, you could call me a fan of DA2 as well. It has a lot of problems and being rushed by EA didn't help matters, but it still stands as good game despite all of that. Act 2 is especially what sold me DA2 at least being a good game and Act 3 is where I lost investment or care in the story. I can also appreciate that DA2 tried to do something different, they just didn't do it so well as to make the changes worthwhile.

What I came on to say again.  Act 2 is one of the finest examples of writing in Video Game history.  It was about as close to perfection as you can get.  But then Act 3 came along and it was a steaming pile of Horse ****.  If Act 3 was anywhere close to the level of writing and engagement of Act 2 then DA 2, not Inquisition, would likely be my favorite game. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

What I came on to say again.  Act 2 is one of the finest examples of writing in Video Game history.  It was about as close to perfection as you can get.  But then Act 3 came along and it was a steaming pile of Horse ****.  If Act 3 was anywhere close to the level of writing and engagement of Act 2 then DA 2, not Inquisition, would likely be my favorite game. 

Not rly , unless you will wear blinders and ignore that Act 2 (as entire game) consist of massive idiocies in order to Hawke fail no matter what.

[Dabrikishaw]

I don't have a high opinion of Dragon Age ]['s story. I certainly don't think it's good just because it was different from what Bioware usually does, as so many like to do. There's a clear lack of connection between all 3 narrative acts, each being it's own story with only certain sidequests providing any continuity. And of course the unnecessary forced allegiance in the ending, where you can't just fight to leave the city instead of siding with mages or Templars (whose leaders both turn on you regardless). 

 

But I do agree with act 2 being the highlight of the plot, the thing that justified all the pre-release hype and developer commentary. If the whole game was just a longer version of act 2 I may have been able to overlook ]['s over flaws and issues and say it was a good game, but that's not what happened.