359 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Well.. the title of the game is "Dragon age INQUISITION", what happens if the DLC?, you decide what happens with the Inquisitoin, Checkmate non-andrastians!

Its an epilogue and bridge to the next game much like Legacy was in DA 2. 

[ShadowLordXII]

I could go for the sarcastic "Wait Doom Upon the World was sold as DLC, who knew?"  

 

But instead I will just echo the sentiment.  No they didn't.  Trespasser was not the ending to DA I. 

 

The marketing and developers would disprove this assertion. Trespasser is clearly meant to be the final closing chapter of Inquisition that brings closure and resolution to the main story. It also sets up the assumed primary conflict of the next game.

 

To contrast with DA2, the game was over after Meredith is beaten. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were standalone episodes that supplemented the main game. They weren't necessary to complete it. (at least in theory, DA2 was pretty bare-bones as is)

 

With Origins, there's lots of DLC episodes like Awakening; Leliana's Song; Darkspawn Chronicles; Return to Ostagar; Soldier's Peak and even Witch Hunt which serves as the epilogue to Origins and the closing chapter regarding Morrigan's fate. However, a gamer can play Origins and still have a complete experience. The DLC was just added icing on top of a well-made cake.

 

However, the fact that Trespasser deals with the final fate of the titular Inquisition; brings closure to both the Inquisitor's story and that of their companions; offers closure to Solas' situation as well as setting up the next new conflict; and all, but pointing out where the next game is going all make Trespasser a dead ringer as the "Ending of DA: Inquisition".

 

Otherwise, someone who goes into DA4 without playing Trespasser is going to be confused about some key things:

 

What happened to the Inquisitor? Is he still leading the Inquisition? Are he and Dorian still together? Did he ever get the Anchor removed or did it die down after the Breach was sealed? What happened to all of my companions?

 

How are things going with the Inquisition? Last I checked, the Inquisition had the power to rival nations. Is that going to cause problems in Thedas or the Chantry? Does the Inquisition stay powerful or does it disband eventually? Does it merge into the Chantry like the previous Inquisition did?

 

So Solas was a god? Why did he give the Orb of Destruction to Corypheus? Did Flemeth kill herself to make Solas stronger? Is going to try and takeover the world to avenge Mythal and make elves superior again? Did he have anything to do with Arlathan's fall?

 

All of these questions and so on remain unresolved and unanswered unless you pay the 15 additional dollars.

 

Even Witch Hunt didn't leave that much unanswered and the Origins Epilogue does tell of Morrigan's fate. Witch Hunt merely expanded and clarified what we already knew.

 

Its an epilogue and bridge to the next game much like Legacy was in DA 2. 

 

Wrong. Legacy was only known as a bridge retroactively.

 

At the time, Legacy was just an episodic adventure with crazy dwarves, darkspawn and a shocking twist that leaves players questioning what's true and what isn't about the official Chantry story concerning the Blight. There's nothing that indicates that Corypheus would be the main villain in the next game at the time of Legacy. As far as we knew, the primary conflict of Inquisition would center around the Mage-Templar Conflict and later on, the Breach was added in as well.

 

Furthermore, Inquisition does not require you to have played Legacy to know who Corypheus is. The game fills you in on this magister just fine via Varric and Hawke.

 

It's likely that Exalted Council was meant to be the "bridge" from DA2 to Inquisition, but it was cancelled to devote time to Inquisition.

[Arshei]

Its an epilogue and bridge to the next game much like Legacy was in DA 2. 

 

But is in this DLC where you see what happens to your character, the protagonist of the game, the inquisitor, the herald of andraste, the only person who can close the rifts, and this is more important that sending Cory to his mother's house.

[Al Foley]

The marketing and developers would disprove this assertion. Trespasser is clearly meant to be the final closing chapter of Inquisition that brings closure and resolution to the main story. It also sets up the assumed primary conflict of the next game.

 

To contrast with DA2, the game was over after Meredith is beaten. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were standalone episodes that supplemented the main game. They weren't necessary to complete it. (at least in theory, DA2 was pretty bare-bones as is)

 

With Origins, there's lots of DLC episodes like Awakening; Leliana's Song; Darkspawn Chronicles; Return to Ostagar; Soldier's Peak and even Witch Hunt which serves as the epilogue to Origins and the closing chapter regarding Morrigan's fate. However, a gamer can play Origins and still have a complete experience. The DLC was just added icing on top of a well-made cake.

 

However, the fact that Trespasser deals with the final fate of the titular Inquisition; brings closure to both the Inquisitor's story and that of their companions; offers closure to Solas' situation as well as setting up the next new conflict; and all, but pointing out where the next game is going all make Trespasser a dead ringer as the "Ending of DA: Inquisition".

 

Otherwise, someone who goes into DA4 without playing Trespasser is going to be confused about some key things:

 

What happened to the Inquisitor? Is he still leading the Inquisition? Are he and Dorian still together? Did he ever get the Anchor removed or did it die down after the Breach was sealed? What happened to all of my companions?

 

How are things going with the Inquisition? Last I checked, the Inquisition had the power to rival nations. Is that going to cause problems in Thedas or the Chantry? Does the Inquisition stay powerful or does it disband eventually? Does it merge into the Chantry like the previous Inquisition did?

 

So Solas was a god? Why did he give the Orb of Destruction to Corypheus? Did Flemeth kill herself to make Solas stronger? Is going to try and takeover the world to avenge Mythal and make elves superior again? Did he have anything to do with Arlathan's fall?

 

All of these questions and so on remain unresolved and unanswered unless you pay the 15 additional dollars.

 

Even Witch Hunt didn't leave that much unanswered and the Origins Epilogue does tell of Morrigan's fate. Witch Hunt merely expanded and clarified what we already knew.

 

 

Wrong. Legacy was only known as a bridge retroactively.

 

At the time, Legacy was just an episodic adventure with crazy dwarves, darkspawn and a shocking twist that leaves players questioning what's true and what isn't about the official Chantry story concerning the Blight. There's nothing that indicates that Corypheus would be the main villain in the next game at the time of Legacy. As far as we knew, the primary conflict of Inquisition would center around the Mage-Templar Conflict and later on, the Breach was added in as well.

 

Furthermore, Inquisition does not require you to have played Legacy to know who Corypheus is. The game fills you in on this magister just fine via Varric and Hawke.

 

It's likely that Exalted Council was meant to be the "bridge" from DA2 to Inquisition, but it was cancelled to devote time to Inquisition.

I disagree with the assertion that Legacy was only a bridge retroactively.  It was clear from the end, from the odd way the Warden was acting that it was set up for something more.  Granted we did not know if it was going to be picked up in Inquisition or how important that incident would be to Inquisition's overall plot, but it was clear it was not done with the plot point or Cory's character. 

[Arshei]

I disagree with the assertion that Legacy was only a bridge retroactively.  It was clear from the end, from the odd way the Warden was acting that it was set up for something more.  Granted we did not know if it was going to be picked up in Inquisition or how important that incident would be to Inquisition's overall plot, but it was clear it was not done with the plot point or Cory's character. 

 

 

Still waiting for this:

[Al Foley]

Heh.  You know I just realized they are playing a reallllllllyyyyyy long game with the Deep Roads.  Kinda sorta in general they answer major plot points from the other races, Elves and Humans, in the next game, but the dive through Amaagggroooaarrrkkii was not the last time we had dangling plot thread down there.  

 

Granted I am thinking of other examples.  They are just playing a long game in general with DA.  

 

And of course because that DLC was so horrible and pointless I do not mind them not going back to it. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Golems of Amgarrak had a real nasty cliffhanger.

[Arshei]

Golems of Amgarrak had a real nasty cliffhanger.

 

Talking about nasty things, god... but at least she has better nipples than the female characters in DA:I

[Al Foley]

You know Golems may be the single worse content of DA I have ever played.  I abhored it so much I did only play it once. 

[Ghost Gal]

Is Dragon Age moving away from Dark Fantasy essay link
 

I wrote the above essay today because I was pondering the tonal differences between Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, and Dragon Age: Inquisition. I couldn't help but notice the game had shifted seriously from dark and edgy fantasy (remember how DA:O advertised itself as Dark Fantasy--much to The Escapist's Yahtzee's ribbing?). It seems like much of the moral ambiguity was tossed out of the game even though it's still very much in place of the novels. Worse, it seems the games are less consequentialist as well. There's no "bad" choices since all of them more or less lead to the same place too.

There's no Harrowmont ruins Orzamar or Lady Isolde commits suicide.

 

There was never any moral ambiguity for the Human Noble. That was always a straight up "epic fantasy" of "good verses evil" where you and your darling Cousland family were the most perfect, wonderful, awesome people to ever exist, until they were cruelly betrayed and murdered by their completely evil false friend, then you get to avenge your family, reclaim their "rightful" lands and titles, then get to become king/queen of Ferelden and live Happily Ever After.

 

Every other origin was dark, gritty, edgy, with "good and evil on both sides," and put you in situations where your hopes of helping your people got thrown back in your face with a self-righteous lecture of "Well, elves/mages/casteless have been oppressed for centuries, so you can't just expect to walk in and change centuries of socioeconomic inequality just for having a big sword."

 

(Note: the Dwarf Noble is also betrayed and robbed of their birthright by someone close to them, but you can never regain your "rightful" claim to the throne, and you're basically forced to either back an incompetent old dodder who'll ruin Orzammar, or support the brother who screwed you over and basically destroyed your whole family (killed your older brother, got you exiled to die, then caused your dad to die of grief if he didn't poison him first). Cousland? Nah! You get to kill the man who betrayed and murdered your family and are never once put into a situation where you have to consider that extracting revenge could jeopardize the well-being of your country (like with Bhelen or Loghain), and you get back everything your family lost and then some!)

 

It kind of undermines any real sense of being a hero since you get a gold star just for showing up.

 

*cough*COUSLAND*cough*

 

*cough*HAWKE*cough*

 

Seriously, from the first moment "Pup" Cousland walks in on Daddy Cousland talking with Duncan in the Human Noble Origin, and Hawke walks up to Kirkwall's gates in the Prologue or walks up to apply for Bartrand and Varric's Deep Roads expidition at the start of Act 1, characters always responded like, "WOW, so you're Cousland/Hawke! I've heard such great things about you..."

 

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the grit and struggle of the DAO elves and dwarves too (I like having to actually earn characters' high esteem through deeds after getting, "I didn't expect to see an elf/mage/dwarf..."), but these problems aren't as new as you think. They've been around since the first game. It's just easier to notice now because they've made it so all Inquisitors get treated like the unambiguous "good guy" who can have a shot at the happy ending too, not just the human noble.

[Willowhugger]

True enough about the differences in what they used their money, I totally forgot the game had a lot of romances and 4 voice actors.

 

But at least Witcher 3 cost just 47 dollars with the expansion, in DA:I they even sold us the ending of the game for 10 dollars.

 

Eh, could be worse.

Dead Space 3 sold the end of the human race and the ultimate cliffhanger as DLC. Then stopped making the games.

 

 

There was never any moral ambiguity for the Human Noble. That was always a straight up "epic fantasy" of "good verses evil" where you and your darling Cousland family were the most perfect, wonderful, awesome people to ever exist, until they were cruelly betrayed and murdered by their completely evil false friend, then you get to avenge your family, reclaim their "rightful" lands and titles, then get to become king/queen of Ferelden and live Happily Ever After.

 

Every other origin was dark, gritty, edgy, with "good and evil on both sides," and put you in situations where your hopes of helping your people got thrown back in your face with a self-righteous lecture of "Well, elves/mages/casteless have been oppressed for centuries, so you can't just expect to walk in and change centuries of socioeconomic inequality just for having a big sword."

 

I don't actually disagree as the Human Noble origin is pretty much the Privilege: The RPG storyline in terms of being very tonally different from the other origins. You never really are forced to confront the inequities of the system because the system is gamed to making sure the Dukes Teryns of Scotland Highever get the benefits of things going.

 

Admittedly, it does lead to some rather interesting fun with Nathaniel Howe as you find yourself teamed up with the perfectly decent people you screwed over by accident.

 

 

Seriously, from the first moment "Pup" Cousland walks in on Daddy Cousland talking with Duncan in the Human Noble Origin, and Hawke walks up to Kirkwall's gates in the Prologue or walks up to apply for Bartrand and Varric's Deep Roads expidition at the start of Act 1, characters always responded like, "WOW, so you're Cousland/Hawke! I've heard such great things about you..."

 

In the defense of Hawke, poor Hawke is basically the Cousland played like the other Origins. I was going in expecting to be a peasant of Lothering but ended up being, again, Human Cousland Origin x 2. You're the extra-special beloved and wonderful prodigal noble even the Templars fear to take down as a mage.

 

And then the game proceeds to make it clear that for all of your privilege, you can't do a damned thing about the injustices which are inherent to the system.

 

Hawke's biggest accomplishment? Getting jobs for the miners before a dragon eats them all.

[GoldenGail3]

 
 
*cough*COUSLAND*cough*
 
*cough*HAWKE*cough*
 
Seriously, from the first moment "Pup" Cousland walks in on Daddy Cousland talking with Duncan in the Human Noble Origin, and Hawke walks up to Kirkwall's gates in the Prologue or walks up to apply for Bartrand and Varric's Deep Roads expidition at the start of Act 1, characters always responded like, "WOW, so you're Cousland/Hawke! I've heard such great things about you..."
 
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the grit and struggle of the DAO elves and dwarves too (I like having to actually earn characters' high esteem through deeds after getting, "I didn't expect to see an elf/mage/dwarf..."), but these problems aren't as new as you think. They've been around since the first game. It's just easier to notice now because they've made it so all Inquisitors get treated like the unambiguous "good guy" who can have a shot at the happy ending too, not just the human noble.

So far I'm just gonna say that the Couslands are fine the way they are. And I would've thought you'd love Hawke? They get messed up at every tern! Nothing seems to go right for them and their family is messed up too. And I get the feeling you don't really like human PC's do you?

[Kabraxal]

Mmmm... "the religion is bad", In DA the religion is pretty much the cause of why the mages are like prisoners, there is a lot of sexism in the chantry (you are man?, templar, you are a woman?, sister, and the head of the chantry only can be a woman)

Well.. the politic is scummy, but beside the fact that it is, the game consider the politic boring because of Geralt.

Everyone sucks... well.. explain me who isn't an hypocrite in the game?, I can't find someone who don't suck, characters I love like Cassandra, Morrigan, Cullen, Alistair, Anders, they all are hypocrites sadly.

 

About the history and world design... There are 8 books of the Witcher, all of them connected to the game, sadly, the books of Dragon Age are... Well, how exactly "the silent grove" happens if I killed Alistair in the landsmeet?

I am not saying that there are no "lore breaking" in Witcher 3, you can romance Triss or not help anyone, things that the real Geralt never would do.

 

Well... the second part... I don't know what to say... if you consider the Crones, the Mirror man, Radovid, the Wild Hunt bad villains compared to Cory...

 

About the side quest... This part is pretty subjective for everyone, if you like to take 30 mins of your life taking druffy to the farm again, or collect the fragments, or give a potion to the wife of some random villager is your likes, I prefer this kind of secondary mission:

The only interesting secondary missions DA:I have are related to the main quest or the companion/romance, in Witcher 3 the 80% of the secondary mission are different (I am talking about the side quest, not the contracts I find them all the same)

They show the evil that can stem from religion... then turn around and show the good and benefits.  And the mage conflict is one of the most nuanced you will find... there are actual legitimate reasons to fear them, but also the humane side of the argument that just because you are a mage, doesn't make you evil.  For the most part, The Witcher has always handled the fear over magic like a blunt hammer: stakes, eyes gouged out, and very little said to try and show them in a good light.  For crying out loud, they are shown as manipulative and heartless people at every turn.  

 

As for your "everyone sucks"... in DA, the characters are far more nuanced and while some, like a Vivienne, are hypocrites.  Most are shown as fully fledged people that aren't defined by their magic or race or sex.  And while, even in DAO, there are displays of cruelty, they aren't used as to hammer it into the audiences had that every race are monsters and no one is really worth saying.  The Witcher has literally said that everything is a monster at some point in the franchise.  

 

World Design... so there are eight books for the Witcher.  And?  They rarely integrate that into world design and even contradict some important aspects (*cough* the wild hunt being so OC in the game).  And the actual design is pedestrian.  It's common dark fantasy cliches everywhere with no flavour to make it feel alive and unique.  Inquisition feels like it is a real world that has had real history.  Not a simple setting to bash you over the head with blunt and boring messages. 

 

And I didn't care for any of the supposed antagonists.  They were all stark dark fantasy cliches that bore me.  Granted, Inquisition isn't the best in that regard either, but there was some real intrigue at least.  

 

As for sidequests: there were a few good TW quests, but most were derivative of other quests and got stale quite quickly.  The companion quests and meatier sidequests in DA:I were more appealing to me.  And the filler....... well, the filler in TW3 was boring and added nothing. DA:I's filler at least had some feedback into the lore. 

[fhs33721]

The words in this note have many misspellings and are scrawled in a clumsy hand:

Mother Valerie said things I saw won't get out my head 'less I put them somewhere else. She told me write it down. It's a long time since I did letters but I'll try.

I saw refugees in the hills. I was there to hunt. I saw them but did not say hello because I was on the trail. The refugees were going to Redcliffe. They were slow and bent over when they walked like old men.

Templars came. They talked to the refugees. They hit them. The refugees gave food. Then mages came. The mages used fire. Everyone burned. I was in a bush, they did not see me.

Some templars killed the mages. The mages ran. The templars wanted to run after them. A refugee was still burning. His arm went up to a templar. The templar used his sword. It went up and down. Up and down. There were pieces of black.

He stayed while other templars ran after mages. He took things from bodies. One body was moving. It had long hair and burned dress. The templar started to take off his armor and I shot him.

I went down to the lady. She made little noises and her eyes looked at me. Then she died.

I want it to go out of my head please Maker. I been good, I want it to go out of my head.

 

Yes clearly Thedas has become a wonderful fairy tale kingdom where nothing dark ever happens to anyone. Thedas is still as crappy as it always was. It's just less in the players face about it and makes them read all the Rape-stories instead of rendering them as cutscene.

[BSpud]

Fandumb: The Thread.

[AedanStarfang]

Golems of Amgarrak had a real nasty cliffhanger.

One that will probably never get addressed again.

[Willowhugger]

I think you're honestly too hard on the Witcher. The treatment of religion isn't remotely handled poorly. The treatment of the CHURCH OF THE ETERNAL FIRE is handled as a corrupt religion of evil because that's what it is, standing in for essentially the absolute worst of religion in the setting. Geralt, however, is greatly respectful of the Druids in Skellige and does well with the priestesses of Freya this is a wrong attitude to have. Geralt doesn't believe in the supernatural (ironic) but he doesn't have anything against it either. If you're under the impression of the Eternal Fire supposed to represent "religion" then you may be confused because they're nothing more than a cult which Geralt has been opposing repeatedly throughout the past three games. It's like judging religion in the Forgotten Realms by the worship of Cyric or Bane or Middle Earth by the worship of Morgoth in Sauron's lands. It's a polytheistic setting.

It's not about which is better, Inquisition or Witcher, though. The Witcher has its own style and Dragon Age has its own but I do think both of them are meant to be dark, mature looks at fantasy (w/ the exception of the Couslands) where the world is full of hypocrisy, injustice, and cruelty the player characters can oppose but are endemic to the system. I think Inquisition did a lot of dialing back when it should have been trudging full forward. You basically start a war across the entirety of the Southern Continent and there's very few senses of just how terrible events have gotten. Skyhold has its pretty gardens and spirals but what about the people suffering and dying in your name? What about the people who are good but will resist the Inquisition to the last? What about the potential conflicts basically that aren't so easily handwaved away.

I don't think Dragon Age: Inquisition was bad, mind you, but I do think they kind of moved away from the harsher aspects of the setting and that was a mistake IMHO. Cullen is utterly reasonable with no sign of trauma from being at ground zero for TWO epic disasters. We also rarely get to see him suffering from his supposed Lyrium addiction. We're just mostly told he's suffering through it. Leliana is shown to be kind of crazy-bad now but we don't really know why she's gone this way save maybe the Conclave. I think the most "honest" moment of the game was the fact you're probably going to lose some people in your attempts to stop the attack on Haven.

Even then, you never get to see them again or stop to mourn the lost.

[Willowhugger]

One that will probably never get addressed again.

Not unless there's any actual possible way of defeating a 100+ Harvesters.

[PhroXenGold]

I've never really understood the whole "Origins was dark" thing (I've seen similar posts crop up a few times). Yeah, Thedas isn't some shiny idealised world, but DA:O itself is really optimistic. Our gallant hero unites Ferelden and saves the day. It's pretty much a classic heroic fairytale. Throwing blood and rape at things doesn't make your story dark.

 

DA2 was the dark game. In the end, Hawke can't save the day, Kirkwall will collapse into conflict no matter what he does. There's no idealistic happy endings, there's no triumph of heroism over darkness. Sometimes all you can do is give your best, only to find that your best simply isn't good enough to save everyone. You can help, you can make things less bad than they might have been, but in the end, you're just a man, and there's a limit on what one man can do. It's a much darker, more realistic outcome than Origins.

[KaiserShep]

Golems of Amgarrak had a real nasty cliffhanger.

 

Too bad it was so got-dang boring that I totally forgot about it.

[Willowhugger]

I've never really understood the whole "Origins was dark" thing (I've seen similar posts crop up a few times). Yeah, Thedas isn't some shiny idealised world, but DA:O itself is really optimistic. Our gallant hero unites Ferelden and saves the day. It's pretty much a classic heroic fairytale. Throwing blood and rape at things doesn't make your story dark.

I dunno, whenever you have a stand in for Medieval Jews and they suffer a pogrom from the locals, I think you qualify as dark. I like how Dragon Age: Origins doesn't romanticize the life of a noble (unless you're actually a noble) and shows just how utterly crappy it is to live in a society with no protections from unchecked hereditary privilege. Also, mages nicely serve as stand-ins for those who exist as oppressed by traditions which can't be challenged or disobeyed.
 

DA2 was the dark game. In the end, Hawke can't save the day, Kirkwall will collapse into conflict no matter what he does. There's no idealistic happy endings, there's no triumph of heroism over darkness. Sometimes all you can do is give your best, only to find that your best simply isn't good enough to save everyone. You can help, you can make things less bad than they might have been, but in the end, you're just a man, and there's a limit on what one man can do. It's a much darker, more realistic outcome than Origins.

Honestly, I think the game was really really good but I think it needed a bit more tweaking. I think it needed one more Act as well as some new environments to really be "complete" and, really, I think it would have been a fine game if they'd either added the final DLC or they'd inserted the two DLC they did do in the middle of the story as Act III and ended with Act IV being the War and Exalted March.

But yes, it's because of the above I consider Hawke's story superior even if the game isn't superior.

Too bad it was so got-dang boring that I totally forgot about it.

I think the problem was they thought the Harvester was infinitely creepier and more interesting than it was.

[Yumakooma]

I've never really understood the whole "Origins was dark" thing (I've seen similar posts crop up a few times). Yeah, Thedas isn't some shiny idealised world, but DA:O itself is really optimistic. Our gallant hero unites Ferelden and saves the day. It's pretty much a classic heroic fairytale. Throwing blood and rape at things doesn't make your story dark.

 

DA2 was the dark game. In the end, Hawke can't save the day, Kirkwall will collapse into conflict no matter what he does. There's no idealistic happy endings, there's no triumph of heroism over darkness. Sometimes all you can do is give your best, only to find that your best simply isn't good enough to save everyone. You can help, you can make things less bad than they might have been, but in the end, you're just a man, and there's a limit on what one man can do. It's a much darker, more realistic outcome than Origins.

 

I think all three games had big aspects of 'darkness', more specifically and importantly, dark fantasy as a genre.

 

The reason you are seeing a lot of the posts about Origins or DA2 being more dark than DAI is probably entirely because of the Trespasser DLC. The whole Solas story is very high fantasy, heavily focussed on elves and magic, pretty much the 2 core elements of traditional high fantasy as far as I have always understood it. This indicates the next game, if focussed on Solas, will be a little different in genre than the other games... Maybe it won't be by much, but it just appeared to a lot of people to signal a possible switch for this story arc. I would imagine that is how most people got the idea the games are becoming less dark, more about magic and elves which are the typical high fantasy elements.

[PhroXenGold]

I dunno, whenever you have a stand in for Medieval Jews and they suffer a pogrom from the locals, I think you qualify as dark. I like how Dragon Age: Origins doesn't romanticize the life of a noble (unless you're actually a noble) and shows just how utterly crappy it is to live in a society with no protections from unchecked hereditary privilege. Also, mages nicely serve as stand-ins for those who exist as oppressed by traditions which can't be challenged or disobeyed.

 

 

The setting and background were reasonably dark, but the actual story, the core of the game, was almost comically optimistic at times. Even if you overlook the whole idea of a hero saving Ferelden from the Blight in a few months (compare to past Blights which lasted decades if not centuries), look at things like the Redcliff story. You can leave an extremely powerful abomination just sitting there while you trek cross country to get the mages and bring them back to Redcliff and lo-and-behold, they're able to save the boy with no issues or drawbacks what so ever.

 

Do note though, I'm not criticising the game for being optimistic (I'll criticise the whole Connor thing for being face-palmingly stupid, but other than that, I'm fine). There's a place for idealism, for escapism. Not everything has to be grimdark. And in many ways, putting such an optimistic story in such a harsh world makes its message even greater - that even among such horrors, there is light.

 

 

Honestly, I think the game was really really good but I think it needed a bit more tweaking. I think it needed one more Act as well as some new environments to really be "complete" and, really, I think it would have been a fine game if they'd either added the final DLC or they'd inserted the two DLC they did do in the middle of the story as Act III and ended with Act IV being the War and Exalted March.

But yes, it's because of the above I consider Hawke's story superior even if the game isn't superior.

 

Oh yeah. Even as a big fan of DA2, I'm not going to deny it was rushed, and definitely needed a few more months development at the least. But under that unpolished exterior is the best story of all the DA games.

[Al Foley]

I think all three games had big aspects of 'darkness', more specifically and importantly, dark fantasy as a genre.

 

The reason you are seeing a lot of the posts about Origins or DA2 being more dark than DAI is probably entirely because of the Trespasser DLC. The whole Solas story is very high fantasy, heavily focussed on elves and magic, pretty much the 2 core elements of traditional high fantasy as far as I have always understood it. This indicates the next game, if focussed on Solas, will be a little different in genre than the other games... Maybe it won't be by much, but it just appeared to a lot of people to signal a possible switch for this story arc. I would imagine that is how most people got the idea the games are becoming less dark, more about magic and elves which are the typical high fantasy elements.

You know, I honestly think a lot of this has to do with aestics.  DA O and DA 2 were very dark games, in color, in environment, in lighting.  But DA I is so bright...and shiny.  

[PhroXenGold]

I think all three games had big aspects of 'darkness', more specifically and importantly, dark fantasy as a genre.

 

The reason you are seeing a lot of the posts about Origins or DA2 being more dark than DAI is probably entirely because of the Trespasser DLC. The whole Solas story is very high fantasy, heavily focussed on elves and magic, pretty much the 2 core elements of traditional high fantasy as far as I have always understood it. This indicates the next game, if focussed on Solas, will be a little different in genre than the other games... Maybe it won't be by much, but it just appeared to a lot of people to signal a possible switch for this story arc. I would imagine that is how most people got the idea the games are becoming less dark, more about magic and elves which are the typical high fantasy elements.

 

I don't see any reason why a story about elves and magic can't be dark.