125 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[ShadowLordXII]

Look, I don't know what it is. Maybe too many people are conditioned to only want blockbusters. Maybe not enough people have been exposed to different styles of storytelling, or theater, or other forms of media.

Dragon Age 2 doesn't deserve the bad rap or got. People either get its brilliance or they don't.

I got you, Bioware. And I'm sorry that the people who didn't get it are commercially pushing you into a direction of ever crappier storytelling. It's truly sad.

I weep. Publicly.

 

DA2 could have been brilliant, but it had inherent problems.

 

DA2 wasn't even meant to be a main-series installment. It was originally meant to be a side game under the name of Dragon Age: Exodus to be the tie-in between Origins and a proper sequel with proper time for development, writing, content and etc. But something happened and Exodus became the rushed and watered down DA sequel that we know today.

 

What is the something that happened? I don't know for certain. But if I had to take an educated guess, it would be that EA pull their nonsense and forced Bioware to rush out Exodus as DA2 to make a quick buck from Origins' lingering popularity before people forgot about it. Considering EA's bad rep for pulling this on several game developers that they buy, I'm won't be surprised if that's what actually happened.

 

BW can certainly be commended for making a decent game with the mess that they had to work with. But true brilliance can't be rushed. Being different with good ideas isn't a substitute for good execution or for giving proper room for those ideas to flourish.

 

For example, the mage-templar conflict is a really engaging one and making this grey-grey conflict the central conflict of the game is risky, but can be rewarding. But due to the rushed and down-sized nature of DA2's development, the conflict doesn't have time to show all of the nuances and details that make it grey and grey. Instead, it quickly devolves into a dark vs dark conflict with no incentive to be invested or to care about either side because both sides are wrong, both sides go crazy and both sides are inherently destructive, at least as far as Kirkwall is concerned. Even Gaider admits that the team went too far and should've shown more moderate templars and mages.

 

Also, Hawke is pretty much irrelevant to the entire Dragon Age story now. BW tried to make a tragic byronic hero, but they undercut themselves by severely crippling player agency for the sake of drama. Yet, they also wanted Hawke to be a powerful and epic hero much like the Inquisitor and the Warden. There's a way that you can be both epic and byronic (look up Guts), but BW went the wrong route in regards to managing the scales. At the end, it seems like Hawke's actions didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, so what was the point? Especially when you advertise that your choices will matter and determine your place in history? And how is that an incentive for player involvement?

 

So yes, DA2 deserves half of the bad rep that it gets because of its inherent problems and rushed development. Not to mention it's objective downgrades from Origins in terms of the gameplay, interface systems and environments. It can still be called good, but brilliant is not a denotation that it deserves.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 DA2 is my favorite of the series, but I couldn't possibly call it the best written game. I think it can be argued pretty easily as being the least of the three.

 

 

Its my favorite, though, because I happen to value highest the things it does better than the other two games, pretty much across the board.

[Jedi Comedian]

Good writing and voice acting will not be enough to salvage a bad story and dismal setting in any game. Case in point, Order 1886 (the game).

Dragon Age 2's problem was that Kirkwall was not made into an interesting local that warranted staying put for 10 years and barely reflected the passage of time. The story structure was also difficult to enliven no matter how much effort the writers and voice actors put into their work.

The scope and scale of Dragon Age Origins was not present, or else Dragon Age 2's writing would indeed have stolen the show. As it stands, when curtains fell, no one was left to watch the cast members bow.

In my sincere opinion: DA2>>>>The Order 1886

[Akrabra]

No, he and I gave actual reasons that DA2 is an underrated game, based on writing quality.

You did, but none of yours is what i would consider good enough reasons for me to see the game as you do. I respect your opinion, but i will never see this game as anything else than a poor attempt at making a sequel for one of the most acclaimed RPG's ever made. 

 

EDIT - I actually talked about this recently in the Andromeda forum, in terms of world building. And DA:O was just superior at that point compared to both DA:II and DA:I, that actually counts alot towards the writing. You actually feel like you belong in the setting in DA:O. I never felt like Hawke, i felt like i was watching a character named Hawke, that is not the same. 

 

EDIT again - Also your examples at the front page about strong dialogue in the game. Yes there is some, but comparing that to the Landsmeet, or the Orzammar story arc, well then it is kind of bleak in comparison, atleast to me. 

[Dutchess]

I always nearly fall off my chair when the writing of DA2's (or DAI's, for that matter) story is praised. Only the companion characters I would consider good, and they too suffer from the rushed acts and the time skips. They were the game's saving grace for me, because the actual "story" is a mess that can be summarized as: everybody went crazy. Meredith, Orsino, Grace, Decimus, Quentin, Bartrand, Nameless Crazy Elf in Blackpowder Courtesy, Huon, Evelina. All these characters are found in primary quests. All of them do bad stuff because they are insane, and then Hawke gets to kill them, Bartrand being the drooling exception that can be spared. 

Anders blew up the Chantry because merging with a spirit is not good for your mental health and even the Arishok had to suffer a moment of temporary insanity to break him out of his Qun character and have him throw a temper tantrum because he wants to go home. These two were handled better than the others and I can live with their touch of insanity pushing them to extremes. The Qunari plot clearly received the most attention and polish and was fairly well done (but still hinged on railroading stupidity such as letting Petrice skip right out of that hovel to go about her anti-Qunari business). 

 

A truly insane antagonist can be interesting and intimidating if done well. But DA2 abused the crazy to throw a series of mini-antagonists at you who just end up attacking you so they can be put down. That is NOT good writing. 

[gibsongoeskablaa]

There's a hell of a lot that's really excellent about DA2. That's not to say it's the best game; far from it, but the writing is generally excellent. Notably, Hawke isn't some saviour of the world, chosen one, or anything like that. He's an everyman with  ambition and drive and street-smarts. And nearly all the characters seem like people, multidimensional, with their own motivations and desires, as opposed to... tropes, which is what I felt a lot in DA:I. In fact, I think Meredith would've been even better had she not been driven mad by the red lyrium (if she was just a run-of-the-mill rabid zealot that we hear about every day on the news). And I feel Orsino's character was wasted a bit in the end. But those are minor quibbles.

 

I keep wondering: how awesome would DA2 have been if it was built using the engine used in Inquisition? An open world fully open-world Kirkwall, along with the Wounded Coast, the Deep Roads, and Sundermount. Like, a Skyrim-style single open world. That would've been unbelievable. 

[Biotic Apostate]

DA2 wasn't even meant to be a main-series installment. It was originally meant to be a side game under the name of Dragon Age: Exodus to be the tie-in between Origins and a proper sequel with proper time for development, writing, content and etc. But something happened and Exodus became the rushed and watered down DA sequel that we know today.

And Inquisition was not meant to be a full game, but a DLC with Hawke as the main character. Because of Varric, Cassandra, and Corypheus, DAI gave the impression of being a repurposed story far more often than DA2 ever did.

[ShadowLordXII]

And Inquisition was not meant to be a full game, but a DLC with Hawke as the main character. Because of Varric, Cassandra, and Corypheus, DAI gave the impression of being a repurposed story far more often than DA2 ever did.

 

Inquisition was planned to be DA3 as far back as 2011 and wasn't released till 2014. That sounds like a planned main installment to me. It even has the impression of one due to having proper time to refine and develop its content and story. There are problems, but at least the game actually feels like it wasn't released till it was actually done.

 

DA2 was announced in 2010, released in 2011 and was only developed for at least 8 months to a max of a year and a half. What you refer to is Exalted Council which was cancelled when BW decided to prioritize Inquisition. Which is a shame, but probably the lesser of two evils.

 

With those facts in line, you tell me which game was meant to a full game and which one was clearly rushed.

[Biotic Apostate]

Inquisition was planned to be DA3 as far back as 2011 and wasn't released till 2014. That sounds like a planned main installment to me. It even has the impression of one due to having proper time to refine and develop its content and story. There are problems, but at least the game actually feels like it wasn't released till it was actually done.

 

DA2 was announced in 2010, released in 2011 and was only developed for at least 8 months to a max of a year and a half. What you refer to is Exalted Council which was cancelled when BW decided to prioritize Inquisition. Which is a shame, but probably the lesser of two evils.

 

With those facts in line, you tell me which game was meant to a full game and which one was clearly rushed.

Dragon Age 2 Exalted March (not council) was cancelled and folded into DA3:I around March 2012. It was definitely not planned as 3 in 2011. Hawke was supposed to take part in the inquisition, obviously, since he was the one to release Corypheus. Cassandra searching for him makes sense more if he was supposed to be the protagonist. BW themselves said many times that a lot of the story from the DLC was folded into the third game.

 

DA3 probably started development after 2 was released, just like DA4 has almost certainly started after they released Inquisition, but the story back then was very different. 2 got a short dev cycle, but let's not tell lies about the development of Inquisition.

[Cyrus Amell]

And Dragon Age: Inquisition has an actual word at the end of the title, just like Dragon Age: Origins. 

 

Dragon Age 2 only has a number at the end so it's not a full installment.

[vbibbi]

Are you kidding me? This thing is filled with plot holes and inconsistencies galore.

 

"Kirkwall is the Templar Capital of the World, so let's bring our apostate family there."

"The Templars round up every mage they find, NO EXCEPTIONS--except Hawke and his/her apostate companions. They've got plot armor."

"The Dalish never stay in one place for long--except Merrill's clan, who parked it in Sundermount seven years ago. (And no humans attacked them while they sat there, of course.)"

"The Dalish dislike and distrust strangers and 'shemlen'--except Merrill's Clan, who trust Hawke (a stranger and a shem) more than Merrill, a member of their own clan whom they've known all their lives."

Cullen: "Why hello, robed, staff-wielding, fireball-throwing citizen. If you happen to see any mages around, please direct me to them."

Leandra: "Moving to Hightown will magically protect my mage children from being arrested by Templars, despite how being noble-born didn't stop my cousin's dozen or so mage babies from being taken to the Circle, nor did being the son of a prominent Kirkwall noble stop Emile de Launcet from being taken to the Gallows (and then reclaimed after he escaped)."

Fenris: "Danarius has been hunting me relentlessly for years, never allowing me to stay in one place too long... until the moment I met you, Hawke. Then suddenly he only tries to get me back once every three years."

Anders: "Even if I died or was returned to the Circle or not recruited at all in Awakening, I'm still a Grey Warden who absorbed Justice this game."

Anders: "Becoming a Grey Warden is for life and they always kill people who try to back out, like Ser Jory... but I left the Grey Wardens long ago, waltz around in broad daylight, have lived in the same place for years, and even run into former Grey Warden allies all the time, yet no one ever tries to make me come back or kill me to uphold the Order's integrity or secrets."

Orsino: "The Champion of Kirkwall has joined my side and we're winning... I'm so full of despair that I'm gonna turn myself into a giant corpse blob and attack Hawke and my own side!" because that makes sense!

Etc. Etc.

 

Also, the entire plot relies on all characters (not just the antagonists, but all the heroes and companions) being self-destructively idiotic at best, "too bonkers to tie their own shoelaces" insane at worst.

 

Petrice: "I'm gonna provoke the Qunari and Kirkwall into a war. Because that won't end poorly."

Isabela: "I'm gonna take the tome and run instead of giving it back to the Qunari to avoid a full-scale war, because the potential massacre of an entire city due to my actions is not my problem." (Yeah, she can relent if Hawke befriends her, but still.)

Templars: "We're gonna keep inflicting and turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations on mages for years on end, because constantly persecuting and antagonizing people with phenomenal cosmic powers won't drive them to use it to get away from the horrific abuses we inflict on them."

Mages: "We're gonna turn to blood magic and demon-summoning every time we're so much as startled, because instantly flying to forbidden magic won't confirm the Templars' prejudice against us, fusing with demons has always worked out well for mages ( ), and attacking the one person who's trying to help us against the Templars (Hawke who tries to help mages) isn't just shooting ourselves in the foot at all."

Companions: "We constantly give Merrill sh*t for dabbling in blood magic and making a deal with a demon, even if Hawke does it too."

Companions: "We ALL gave into the demon's temptation in Feynriel's Fade. Shame on us!"

Dalish: "Despite knowing Merrill all our lives, we're all going to blindly believe Keeper Marethari's demonization of her character and totally not question her claim that Merrill's become a monster in person's skin who'll sooner kill us than look at us (because this is the face of a psychopathic monster), and we're all gonna totally flee right into a varterral and provoke and attack her every time we see her instead of even one of us giving her the benefit of the doubt or asking her her side of the story."

MARETHARI: "I'm gonna sneak off behind my Clan's backs and then let this demon possess me while no one's around, because that won't end poorly."

Hawke: "I've just been warned that a serial killer who's abducting Hightown women is on the loose. Instead of warning my mom and telling her to stay inside, I'm gonna do nothing, then act surprised when she gets kidnapped."

Orsino: "I'm gonna practice blood magic and help my serial killer friend Quentin kidnap and perform horrific blood magic experiments on women, because that'll improve the Templars' views of mages."

Hawke: "Alienage resident Nyssa is terrified that her dangerously unstable apostate husband Huon (who just escaped the Gallows) will come back for her soon, and asked for my protection. I'll wait to return to the alienage after dark, giving her husband plenty of time to get to her first and kill her before I even get there, because apparently I didn't learn my lesson with my mom."

Hawke: "Defeating the Qunari left a huge power vacuum in Kirkwall since they killed the Viscount right before I got to them. Instead of using my influence as Champion of Kirwall to help transition power into the right hands, I'm just gonna sit in my cushy Hightown mansion and do nothing as Meredith takes over Kirkwall and turns it into a police state, then wait till she attacks me to stand up to her."

Anders: "I'm gonna blow up the Chantry, because that won't end poorly."

Meredith: "I'm gonna antagonize and try to kill Hawke even if s/he sided with me and my Templars against the mages."

Orsino: "I'm gonna give into despair and try to kill Hawke even if s/he sided with me and my mages and we're winning."

I could go on and on and on.

 

Not to mention the entire plot is, "Oh, we just kinda puttered around the city running errands for seven years. We never aged, moved to a new city, met or fell in love with anyone besides Hawke (except Aveline), got married, or had any significant life changes without Hawke there to hold our hands through it (Aveline marrying Donnic, Merrill making progress with her mirror, Fenris making progress getting rid of Danarius, Isabela making progress with Castion, etc), and even that was only once every three years."

 

Not to mention the billion or so cameos or reprises from DAO. Apparently every person who ever had anything to do with the Warden found their way to Kirkwall after the Blight, and either ran into or ran with Hawke. Because Thedas is apparently ten miles long, has about a hundred or so residents, and they're all drawn to the player character like magnets. (That doesn't break immersion at all.)

I agree that the time skips can be problematic, but the way I interpret them is that it's not a few months of action followed by three years of inaction. I know the codex says Isabella in the Last Three Years etc. but I see it more like, over the course of three years, the events in Act I happen. It's heavily skewed to the beginning of the three years, but it's not like DAO where we go day by day into the quests as we're trying to stop the Blight in a year. Weeks could go by for Hawke between doing any of the quests, since the game is more about their time in Kirkwall than a specific time frame.

 

Otherwise the timeline does fall apart under scrutiny. So Fenris or Isabella suspend their romance with Hawke for three years between Acts II and III? I also put the DLCs in the timeskip years.

 

Good writing and voice acting will not be enough to salvage a bad story and dismal setting in any game. Case in point, Order 1886 (the game). 

 

Dragon Age 2's problem was that Kirkwall was not made into an interesting local that warranted staying put for 10 years and barely reflected the passage of time. The story structure was also difficult to enliven no matter how much effort the writers and voice actors put into their work. 

 

The scope and scale of Dragon Age Origins was not present, or else Dragon Age 2's writing would indeed have stolen the show. As it stands, when curtains fell, no one was left to watch the cast members bow. 

I know the devs said that they wanted to change Kirkwall to reflect the time change between acts, so I'll imagine that if they had done it, this would have helped. But yeah I really wish there would have been a change in scenery within the city. If only because after Act I, the maps stay revealed and its hard to remember which map I have explored for the new act, and whether in the day or night cycle of that map.

 

And Inquisition was not meant to be a full game, but a DLC with Hawke as the main character. Because of Varric, Cassandra, and Corypheus, DAI gave the impression of being a repurposed story far more often than DA2 ever did.

The three amigos!

[Biotic Apostate]

The three amigos!

They're the bestest of pals!

 

And Dragon Age: Inquisition has an actual word at the end of the title, just like Dragon Age: Origins. 

 

Dragon Age 2 only has a number at the end so it's not a full installment.

Of all the arguments you could have made, some valid, you had to go with this? So ME2, 3 were not full installments?  NWN and JE did not have a subtitle so they were what, DLCs? DAI was supposed to have a number, but they dropped it. It's not like their naming convention hasn't changed.

[Jedi Comedian]

I'll tell you what, I just realized my favourite DA game overall is DA2, so:
DA2>DAO>DAI
I just love badass normal chars.

[ShadowLordXII]

Dragon Age 2 Exalted March (not council) was cancelled and folded into DA3:I around March 2012. It was definitely not planned as 3 in 2011. Hawke was supposed to take part in the inquisition, obviously, since he was the one to release Corypheus. Cassandra searching for him makes sense more if he was supposed to be the protagonist. BW themselves said many times that a lot of the story from the DLC was folded into the third game.

 

DA3 probably started development after 2 was released, just like DA4 has almost certainly started after they released Inquisition, but the story back then was very different. 2 got a short dev cycle, but let's not tell lies about the development of Inquisition.

 

Who says I was lying? Everything that I said about DAI being planned as DA3 is verifiable fact from after 2 was released, it was merely called DA3 at the time of its unofficial announcement in mid-2011.

 

DA2's Exalted March (thanks for the correction) was indeed cancelled and folded into DA3: I. But how does that mean that Hawke was meant to be the main pc of 3? BW has gone on record with wanting a new protagonist in each game. It's also hard to tell which parts of Exalted March got implemented in Inquisition considering that Hawke doesn't have much presence in the game. (seriously, Hawke's role is a glorified cameo)

 

But this doesn't change the clear narrative. DA2 was meant to be a side-game, but got rushed into development and marketed as DA2. BW learned their lesson after the backlash and took their time with DA3 which became Inquisition. This narrative can be backed by facts and common logic, so...not sure about where I was lying.

[Biotic Apostate]

Who says I was lying? Everything that I said about DAI being planned as DA3 is verifiable fact from after 2 was released, it was merely called DA3 at the time of its unofficial announcement in mid-2011.

 

DA2's Exalted March (thanks for the correction) was indeed cancelled and folded into DA3: I. But how does that mean that Hawke was meant to be the main pc of 3? BW has gone on record with wanting a new protagonist in each game. It's also hard to tell which parts of Exalted March got implemented in Inquisition considering that Hawke doesn't have much presence in the game. (seriously, Hawke's role is a glorified cameo)

 

But this doesn't change the clear narrative. DA2 was meant to be a side-game, but got rushed into development and marketed as DA2. BW learned their lesson after the backlash and took their time with DA3 which became Inquisition. This narrative can be backed by facts and common logic, so...not sure about where I was lying.

I didn't say Hawke was supposed to be the protagonist in 3, but that the story in 3 was Hawke's story. And it's painfully apparent. So Inquisition in its current shape started existing somewhere in the beginning of 2012, not in 2011. Saying that DA2 was bad, because it was planned as a minor release means little, since the bulk of the main story in DAI was DLC material too.

 

DAI having a much longer development also means less, when you consider the fact that they had to rewrite basically all of their mechanics for Frostbite. And DA2 being announced in 2010 doesn't mean it started being developed right then, so no, it was more than 8 months. They started working on it in 2009.

[ShadowLordXII]

I didn't say Hawke was supposed to be the protagonist in 3, but that the story in 3 was Hawke's story. And it's painfully apparent. So Inquisition in its current shape started existing somewhere in the beginning of 2012, not in 2011. Saying that DA2 was bad, because it was planned as a minor release means little, since the bulk of the main story in DAI was DLC material too.

 

DAI having a much longer development also means less, when you consider the fact that they had to rewrite basically all of their mechanics for Frostbite. And DA2 being announced in 2010 doesn't mean it started being developed right then, so no, it was more than 8 months. They started working on it in 2009.

 

Again, how is Inquisition Hawke's story? He's barely in that game and the events surrounding Corypheus and the Mage-Templar conflict are out of his hands at that point. Hawke can certainly be blamed for letting Cory get out, but Hawke didn't know that the man was effectively immortal. Where's the proof that most of DAI's main story was DLC material? What part of Inquisition is clearly lifted from Exalted March?

 

Having a longer development time means that it had time to refine its engine and mechanics. It also means more time to ensure that everything lines up regarding technical details; content; story; gameplay and more.

 

I said at minimum it was 8 months and even at max, that's just a scant year and a half of development compared to Inquisition's three year cycle and Origin's 3 to 7 years. (Laidlaw admits that the bulk of work took place in 3 years before release). Whether its 8 months or a year and a half, DA2 was clearly rushed and it shows. Hence why it's the weakest link in the series.

 

Not to mention that Inquisition and Origins got to complete their full DLC cycles while DA2's last DLC was canceled to prioritize Inquisition. What more needs to be said here? BW realized their mistake and took steps to keep from falling into the same pitfall again.

 

So back to my original point, DA2 can't be called brilliant because brilliance can't be rushed.

[Biotic Apostate]

Again, how is Inquisition Hawke's story? He's barely in that game and the events surrounding Corypheus and the Mage-Templar conflict are out of his hands at that point. Hawke can certainly be blamed for letting Cory get out, but Hawke didn't know that the man was effectively immortal. Where's the proof that most of DAI's main story was DLC material? What part of Inquisition is clearly lifted from Exalted March?

 

Having a longer development time means that it had time to refine its engine and mechanics. It also means more time to ensure that everything lines up regarding technical details; content; story; gameplay and more.

 

I said at minimum it was 8 months and even at max, that's just a scant year and a half of development compared to Inquisition's three year cycle and Origin's 3 to 7 years. (Laidlaw admits that the bulk of work took place in 3 years before release). Whether its 8 months or a year and a half, DA2 was clearly rushed and it shows. Hence why it's the weakest link in the series.

 

Not to mention that Inquisition and Origins got to complete their full DLC cycles while DA2's last DLC was canceled to prioritize Inquisition. What more needs to be said here? BW realized their mistake and took steps to keep from falling into the same pitfall again.

 

So back to my original point, DA2 can't be called brilliant because brilliance can't be rushed.

Because it was written for him/her, from Varric's involvement, Corypheus, Cassandra searching for him in 2. I mean Cassandra opens DA2, she was determined to find him, and much of Inquisition was spent explaining why it didn't happen. If you don't see how much story was recycled then I guess we don't have much to talk about here.

 

Origin was in limbo for quite long, they developed it on 2 engines (started on an updated Aurora, then moved to Eclipse), plus they had to create the entire lore for the series. And before the buyout they had serious financial problems. So yes, the bulk of development was done in 3 years. DA2 did get rushed, but it gets really blown out of proportion. Both Origins, and Inquisition needed time to program the mechanics, DA2 reused mostly DAO tech, including the engine, which basically got a slight refresh. For the same reason Fallout Nev Vegas had a much shorter dev cycle than 3 (around 1.5y). Considering that Frostbite is entirely new tech (previous engines had at least some shared familiarity), they did all of the work for Inquisition really fast.

 

And DA2 DLC were not canceled, because 'they realized their mistake,' but because of the critical feedback. The (way over the top) response caused them to distance themselves as much from 2 as they could (including dropping the stylized III). But anyway, this is off topic.

 

The point remains that a lot of people find DA2's companions, main story, and antagonists stronger than what we got in DAI.

[ShadowLordXII]

 

Because it was written for him/her, from Varric's involvement, Corypheus, Cassandra searching for him in 2. I mean Cassandra opens DA2, she was determined to find him, and much of Inquisition was spent explaining why it didn't happen. If you don't see how much story was recycled then I guess we don't have much to talk about here.

 

Origin was in limbo for quite long, they developed it on 2 engines (started on an updated Aurora, then moved to Eclipse), plus they had to create the entire lore for the series. And before the buyout they had serious financial problems. So yes, the bulk of development was done in 3 years. DA2 did get rushed, but it gets really blown out of proportion. Both Origins, and Inquisition needed time to program the mechanics, DA2 reused mostly DAO tech, including the engine, which basically got a slight refresh. For the same reason Fallout Nev Vegas had a much shorter dev cycle than 3 (around 1.5y). Considering that Frostbite is entirely new tech (previous engines had at least some shared familiarity), they did all of the work for Inquisition really fast.

 

And DA2 DLC were not canceled, because 'they realized their mistake,' but because of the critical feedback. The (way over the top) response caused them to distance themselves as much from 2 as they could (including dropping the stylized III). But anyway, this is off topic.

 

The point remains that a lot of people find DA2's companions, main story, and antagonists stronger than what we got in DAI.

 

 

Yep. DA2 got much deserved negative feedback for inherent design problems and its rushed nature. BW listened and took notes. Though I'd argue that they distanced themselves more from Origins than from DA2 considering that several design aspects are transferred into Inquisition. But that's another topic.

 

As for DA2 being stronger than DAI in terms of main story, antagonists and companions...there is some merit to that perspective. I won't deny that.

 

Especially in terms of Antagonists, both Meredith (despite the red lyrium idol bs and taking a level in stupid in Last Straw) and the Arishok are better implemented antagonists than Corypheus. For all of its problems revolving around forced drama and restricting player agency, Hawke's story does have real gravitas and discomfort throughout its tenure unlike Inquisition which downplays the dark aspect of Dragon Age's world most of the time despite the apparent chaos that's supposed to be taking place.

 

Companions would be a close tie.

[Biotic Apostate]

Yep. DA2 got much deserved negative feedback for inherent design problems and its rushed nature. BW listened and took notes. Though I'd argue that they distanced themselves more from Origins than from DA2 considering that several design aspects are transferred into Inquisition. But that's another topic.

 

As for DA2 being stronger than DAI in terms of main story, antagonists and companions...there is some merit to that perspective. I won't deny that.

 

Especially in terms of Antagonists, both Meredith (despite the red lyrium idol bs and taking a level in stupid in Last Straw) and the Arishok are better implemented antagonists than Corypheus. For all of its problems revolving around forced drama and restricting player agency, Hawke's story does have real gravitas and discomfort throughout its tenure unlike Inquisition which downplays the dark aspect of Dragon Age's world most of the time despite the apparent chaos that's supposed to be taking place.

 

Companions would be a close tie.

The response was completely blown out of proportion, and a lot of genuine feedback was buried under "BW is dead, EA killed it, worst game ever." They went from a novel story approach to the same tired (and safe) thing done before - gather your forces and strike down the empty shell they called an antagonist. If DA2 didn't have the problems it had (mainly with limited environments and some combat weirdness), it would be celebrated now for breaking the tired mold all big RPGs follow.

 

The idol was a Macguffin, but it just exacerbated was was already there. Both Meredith and the Arishok had build up and goals, their own reasons for their behavior. Corypheus had some connection to Hawke through Malcolm and Legacy, in DAI he was completely pointless and empty. And that final battle was so anticlimactic...

 

Distancing themselves from DAO is part of a larger move from older design aspects that RPGs are going through, but yeah, it's a whole different discussion.

[ShadowLordXII]

 

The response was completely blown out of proportion, and a lot of genuine feedback was buried under "BW is dead, EA killed it, worst game ever." They went from a novel story approach to the same tired (and safe) thing done before - gather your forces and strike down the empty shell they called an antagonist. If DA2 didn't have the problems it had (mainly with limited environments and some combat weirdness), it would be celebrated now for breaking the tired mold all big RPGs follow.

 

The idol was a Macguffin, but it just exacerbated was was already there. Both Meredith and the Arishok had build up and goals, their own reasons for their behavior. Corypheus had some connection to Hawke through Malcolm and Legacy, in DAI he was completely pointless and empty. And that final battle was so anticlimactic...

 

Distancing themselves from DAO is part of a larger move from older design aspects that RPGs are going through, but yeah, it's a whole different discussion.

 

 

Again, being different isn't automatically better. Origins for instance took that so-called "same and tired" approach and made a truly effective RPG experience with it. It was a darker reconstructive take on fantasy stories with heavy influences from high, low, dark and gothic fantasy to make its own interesting take. They also took their time with making Origins as good as it can be and it's better for it even after 7 years.

 

DA2 has good ideas and could have been a great game with more time. With proper development time, DA2 would indeed be worthy of being lauded for successfully breaking the mold much like the Witcher series. But not only was it rushed, it also had clear execution issues with how to get its theme and angle across. The main ones being turning the Mage-Templar Conflict from a grey-grey conflict into a black-black crazy fest and Lots of instances where player agency (the primary means by which the player engages the story/game) is artificially and obviously restricted for the sake of forced drama.

 

Primary examples of restricted player agency being the fates of Carver and Bethany and having a choice between two unlikable factions being forced on you when there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to either leave or flip off both sides and protect Kirkwall above mages and templars.

 

Here's another example, why put in the Red Lyrium idol if it was irrelevant anyway? Meredith was already overstepping her bounds and oppressing mages with her paranoia, so why bother revealing that she had the Red Lyrium idol all along? She would have been stronger if the red lyrium idol wasn't influencing her. Instead, the heavy implication with its surprise reveal is that the red lyrium idol made her go crazy as it did to Bartrand. Take a look at the Arishok, he did everything of his own free will and was clearly the most memorable character in the game. He's a stronger character because his agency isn't manipulated by a barely explained magic item that made him crazy. What makes Meredith's situation especially sad is that she was already a good antagonist without the lyrium idol, why not let her stand alone on her own two feet?

 

Heck! Even Saren comes out as a stronger antagonist. At least he had some agency even as a puppet of the reapers.

 

As for Corypheus, I agree that the developers didn't do the man justice. However, he wasn't pointless and empty. He had a strong connection to the central theme of the game regarding Faith and Order. He has connections to the Blight, a key tenet of Dragon Age since the first game. From what little we do see of him, he does have an interesting character motivation that fleshes him out as more than just a power-hungry madman. This was a devout high priest who climbed the ladder to heaven, found out that heaven was filled with evil, got corrupted by evil, didn't find his god, and was cast down to earth as a monster.

 

So he decides to correct the problem of the missing god by becoming a god himself. What makes the missed opportunities with Corypheus more disappointing is that so much more could have been done with him. There was clear potential, but much like with DA2 a lot of it wasn't realized.

[Addictress]

Again, how is Inquisition Hawke's story? He's barely in that game and the events surrounding Corypheus and the Mage-Templar conflict are out of his hands at that point. Hawke can certainly be blamed for letting Cory get out, but Hawke didn't know that the man was effectively immortal. Where's the proof that most of DAI's main story was DLC material? What part of Inquisition is clearly lifted from Exalted March?

Having a longer development time means that it had time to refine its engine and mechanics. It also means more time to ensure that everything lines up regarding technical details; content; story; gameplay and more.

I said at minimum it was 8 months and even at max, that's just a scant year and a half of development compared to Inquisition's three year cycle and Origin's 3 to 7 years. (Laidlaw admits that the bulk of work took place in 3 years before release). Whether its 8 months or a year and a half, DA2 was clearly rushed and it shows. Hence why it's the weakest link in the series.

Not to mention that Inquisition and Origins got to complete their full DLC cycles while DA2's last DLC was canceled to prioritize Inquisition. What more needs to be said here? BW realized their mistake and took steps to keep from falling into the same pitfall again.

So back to my original point, DA2 can't be called brilliant because brilliance can't be rushed.

And amazingly, everything in DA2 is astoundingly well put together, especially in comparison to the bafflingly chaotic and unevenly paced Inquisition.

[Addictress]

Again, being different isn't automatically better. Origins for instance took that so-called "same and tired" approach and made a truly effective RPG experience with it. It was a darker reconstructive take on fantasy stories with heavy influences from high, low, dark and gothic fantasy to make its own interesting take. They also took their time with making Origins as good as it can be and it's better for it even after 7 years.

DA2 has good ideas and could have been a great game with more time. With proper development time, DA2 would indeed be worthy of being lauded for successfully breaking the mold much like the Witcher series. But not only was it rushed, it also had clear execution issues with how to get its theme and angle across. The main ones being turning the Mage-Templar Conflict from a grey-grey conflict into a black-black crazy fest and Lots of instances where player agency (the primary means by which the player engages the story/game) is artificially and obviously restricted for the sake of forced drama.

Primary examples of restricted player agency being the fates of Carver and Bethany and having a choice between two unlikable factions being forced on you when there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to either leave or flip off both sides and protect Kirkwall above mages and templars.

Here's another example, why put in the Red Lyrium idol if it was irrelevant anyway? Meredith was already overstepping her bounds and oppressing mages with her paranoia, so why bother revealing that she had the Red Lyrium idol all along? She would have been stronger if the red lyrium idol wasn't influencing her. Instead, the heavy implication with its surprise reveal is that the red lyrium idol made her go crazy as it did to Bartrand. Take a look at the Arishok, he did everything of his own free will and was clearly the most memorable character in the game. He's a stronger character because his agency isn't manipulated by a barely explained magic item that made him crazy. What makes Meredith's situation especially sad is that she was already a good antagonist without the lyrium idol, why not let her stand alone on her own two feet?

Heck! Even Saren comes out as a stronger antagonist. At least he had some agency even as a puppet of the reapers.

As for Corypheus, I agree that the developers didn't do the man justice. However, he wasn't pointless and empty. He had a strong connection to the central theme of the game regarding Faith and Order. He has connections to the Blight, a key tenet of Dragon Age since the first game. From what little we do see of him, he does have an interesting character motivation that fleshes him out as more than just a power-hungry madman. This was a devout high priest who climbed the ladder to heaven, found out that heaven was filled with evil, got corrupted by evil, didn't find his god, and was cast down to earth as a monster.

So he decides to correct the problem of the missing god by becoming a god himself. What makes the missed opportunities with Corypheus more disappointing is that so much more could have been done with him. There was clear potential, but much like with DA2 a lot of it wasn't realized.

Did you see my rant in the other thread about how stupid it is to want the option to "flip off both sides?"

Forcing you to choose between the two factions
1. Defines Hawks's character within the scope of the world
2. Limits role enough such that you FEEL the politics and the emotional weight of the mage-Templar conflict
YES, the limitation produces a far more effective and immerse experience. If you want to be a pure free-choose RPG like Skyrim or GTA, you're completely missing the point of how Bioware games are. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but in order for this niche genre to be effective, you have to limit the role with pre-written characters.

This results in better plot, and improved narrative immersion.

Again, maybe you don't like good plot and narrative immersion and rather prefer the role-play liberty and exploration a la Skyrim (which I also love). Suit yourself. But it's a different breed.

[Addictress]

And I can't believe anyone would ever laud corypheus....literally the cheapest villain I have ever encountered

[Biotic Apostate]

Again, being different isn't automatically better. Origins for instance took that so-called "same and tired" approach and made a truly effective RPG experience with it. It was a darker reconstructive take on fantasy stories with heavy influences from high, low, dark and gothic fantasy to make its own interesting take. They also took their time with making Origins as good as it can be and it's better for it even after 7 years.

 

DA2 has good ideas and could have been a great game with more time. With proper development time, DA2 would indeed be worthy of being lauded for successfully breaking the mold much like the Witcher series. But not only was it rushed, it also had clear execution issues with how to get its theme and angle across. The main ones being turning the Mage-Templar Conflict from a grey-grey conflict into a black-black crazy fest and Lots of instances where player agency (the primary means by which the player engages the story/game) is artificially and obviously restricted for the sake of forced drama.

 

Primary examples of restricted player agency being the fates of Carver and Bethany and having a choice between two unlikable factions being forced on you when there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to either leave or flip off both sides and protect Kirkwall above mages and templars.

 

Here's another example, why put in the Red Lyrium idol if it was irrelevant anyway? Meredith was already overstepping her bounds and oppressing mages with her paranoia, so why bother revealing that she had the Red Lyrium idol all along? She would have been stronger if the red lyrium idol wasn't influencing her. Instead, the heavy implication with its surprise reveal is that the red lyrium idol made her go crazy as it did to Bartrand. Take a look at the Arishok, he did everything of his own free will and was clearly the most memorable character in the game. He's a stronger character because his agency isn't manipulated by a barely explained magic item that made him crazy. What makes Meredith's situation especially sad is that she was already a good antagonist without the lyrium idol, why not let her stand alone on her own two feet?

 

Heck! Even Saren comes out as a stronger antagonist. At least he had some agency even as a puppet of the reapers.

 

As for Corypheus, I agree that the developers didn't do the man justice. However, he wasn't pointless and empty. He had a strong connection to the central theme of the game regarding Faith and Order. He has connections to the Blight, a key tenet of Dragon Age since the first game. From what little we do see of him, he does have an interesting character motivation that fleshes him out as more than just a power-hungry madman. This was a devout high priest who climbed the ladder to heaven, found out that heaven was filled with evil, got corrupted by evil, didn't find his god, and was cast down to earth as a monster.

 

So he decides to correct the problem of the missing god by becoming a god himself. What makes the missed opportunities with Corypheus more disappointing is that so much more could have been done with him. There was clear potential, but much like with DA2 a lot of it wasn't realized.

The approach and what worked in Origins is arguable. For me anything outside of the core plot of darkspawn and the archdemon felt stronger. Orzamar was better. Nature of the Beast was way more memorable than the main plot. Good quests that didn't really do much with the main plot, but with world building were far better than the big bad approach. I couldn't enjoy DAO until it started branching away.

 

I don't know, for me it was a good grey-grey conflict, you could argue for both sides, since both have their reasons and both did some terrible things. I did have that problem in the aforementioned Witcher. In 2 both sides were so black, I was mad at the game for forcing me to choose. I guess that depends on whether you find something worth supporting in either faction. The Carver/Bethany choice was a deliberate one that guaranteed you had at least some pull towards the mage side, either because of your sister or yourself. Giving you the option to say "screw it" and to leave, or to just abandon every faction is not what BW stories are about. Bethesda sometimes does it, and their story suffers for it.

I did like the restricted player agency in DA2, though. It was refreshing after the god tier you could achieve in DAO and Skyrim. Giving NPCs more agency was a great move, and far more believable than "your protagonist comes in and fixes completely everything."

 

The Red Lyrium was used to break the status quo. Normally the mage/templar conflict would inch slowly, and end like everywhere else - an annulled circle, but with far less fanfare. Without the idol she would have also been more cautious and more reasonable. She went from "the tranquil solution is to extreme even for me" to "yeah let's murder them all." Maybe it's not the most elegant solution, but they needed her to call for annulment, and pre-idol she would have never went with such drastic measures.

 

He had a compelling story to tell, but none of it is present in Inquisition. They spent far too little time expanding on his "I walked in the golden city" claim. Without that, he is just a power hungry maniac and nothing else. There's no nuance to him. He wants godhood and power, because he wants it. Even Legacy did a better job setting him up as an antagonist.

[ShadowLordXII]

Did you see my rant in the other thread about how stupid it is to want the option to "flip off both sides?"

Forcing you to choose between the two factions
1. Defines Hawks's character within the scope of the world
2. Limits role enough such that you FEEL the politics and the emotional weight of the mage-Templar conflict
YES, the limitation produces a far more effective and immerse experience. If you want to be a pure free-choose RPG like Skyrim or GTA, you're completely missing the point of how Bioware games are. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but in order for this niche genre to be effective, you have to limit the role with pre-written characters.

This results in better plot, and improved narrative immersion.

Again, maybe you don't like good plot and narrative immersion and rather prefer the role-play liberty and exploration a la Skyrim (which I also love). Suit yourself. But it's a different breed.

 

Except the weight of the conflict is lost because its a mindless flanderization of itself. Everyone is crazy and corrupt, so why be invested?

 

Letting the player choose Hawke's role would be better for the story because it is Hawke's story. The last thing that you want to do to a hero is have them be an accessory to their own story. Otherwise, why are we watching this guy's story when someone else clearly had more influence.

 

No, this is not my cup of tea because I know BW can do much better. I've seen them do better before with just about every game that they released before DA2. Unfortunately, BW was the one who wanted to have its cake and eat it. They wanted to make an epic story and have Hawke as a byronic hero struggling against odds that he can't defeat. But with the inherent purpose of an RPG game and the already established scope of both the setting and the hero of Hawke, you can't suddenly make him powerless just for the sake of the plot. Of course he can't affect everything, but what he should be able to affect should be of significance. Otherwise, Hawke is just pointless as both a PC and as the main hero.

 

The story cannot expect me to believe that Meredith really can intimidate and force Hawke to do anything after he's spent the course of 7 years defeating Qunari; Dragons; Rock Biters; Demons; Abominations; Templars; Darkspawn; Scoundrels; Assassins; Ancient Magisters; and more. Including potentially defeating the Arishok, one of the strongest Qunari alive, single-handedly. There is literally nothing forcing Hawke to bend to her will or to the contrived transparent contrivance of that situation apart from the plot.

 

In the Witcher series, the scope is managed to where its clear that Gerault has clear limits. He can't do everything and he has to work within the bounds that he can as a Witcher and an outcast. Even within those bounds, Gerault's actions still have a sense of meaning to them because player agency is allowed to function appropriately within that scope. Hence why Witcher 2 greatly succeeds where DA2 failed.

 

With DA2, you can't go from having Hawke slay a High Dragon to suddenly being forced to choose between crazy mages and crazy templars. Especially if the game's already established that Hawke is strong enough to wipe out small armies of either faction. The scope has already been set to where if Meredith attacked Hawke at that key moment, Hawke would win. And he wouldn't be fighting Meredith alone. He'd have the City Guard with him, sympathetic/moderate mages and templars like Cullen, and other allies from the underworld and various factions that he's worked with for the past few years. He'd also have his stalwart and capable companions with him. Not to mention that Meredith would also be fighting against the mages who wouldn't side with her. It would be a three way battle between the Mages, Templars and Hawke's allies. And since everything is meant to end the same anyway with the Mage-Templar war starting, why not have Hawke come to that end on his own terms?

 

As I said before, it would be a more effective tragedy if Hawke used all of his unrestricted agency to try and save Kirkwall from this unraveling situation, but failed despite his best and most honest efforts. It also be a good twist if Hawke could just leave and baffle Cassandra that the so-called Hero would abandon Kirkwall. It would leave an interesting question of whether Hawke is a coward or smart for leaving a hopeless situation? Instead, we're forced to partake in a dark vs dark conflict that's been flanderized into a parody of itself and there's no reason to care for either side.

 

Also, take a look at the Arishok situation. That situation is everything that Last Straw wasn't. You weren't forced to fight the Arishok in a 1-on-1 fight, you had other options. You could gang rush the Arishok and kill him on your own terms or if your influence with Isabella was strong enough, you could potentially hand over Isabella and avoid further bloodshed. Last Straw should have been similar to this dynamic and would have left the game to end on a much stronger note.

 

So in short, the powerless hero archetype doesn't work for the type of RPG that Dragon Age is because the scope and design has no purpose for powerless heroes. And even a byronic hero actually has to have room to act and breath in their struggles rather than be contrived to stand still for the convenience of the plot. If you want an example of how to do a byronic hero correctly and well, look up Kou Uraki from Gundam: Stardust Memory and Guts from Berserk. Their story is truly tragic because they did everything in their power, but failed due to circumstances beyond their control. Natural circumstances emerging from their world and other characters rather than invisible strings created from plot contrivance and artificial narrative manipulation.