I can't seem to find a reason to find DA2's story deep... at all. Whichever choice you make, whichever path you take, in the long run doesn't change a thing. The endings are the very same, the paths are the very same. You don't tailor your adventure, the adventure is tailored. But that has always been the issue with all BioWare games. They have a dangerous addiction to big things. Either your character becomes a god or...? Well, that's really the only choice BioWare ever gave us. From 0 to infinity. Which is pretty much the opposite of deep.
When it comes to DA2 though, what irks me the most is that whatever you do, no matter how hard you try - you get in the same spot over and over again. If I have to chose on what aspect DA2 is the most successful, then I'd say gameplay - which also fails flat in comparison to other RPGs of the same year of release. Story? Not at all.
I can't seem to find a reason to find DA2's story deep... at all. Whichever choice you make, whichever path you take, in the long run doesn't change a thing. The endings are the very same, the paths are the very same. You don't tailor your adventure, the adventure is tailored.
By those standards, you're never going to find depth in any story, in any medium, ever. No matter what you do in "Planescape: Torment", you're going to end up in the Fortress of Regrets. You're going to fight Irenicus in Hell at the end of "Baldur's Gate 2". You're going to kill the Archdemon in "Dragon Age: Origins". You're going to stop the Enclave in "Fallout 2".
Just because the major events in a given plot are linear doesn't mean that plot lacks depth or complexity. Films and novels don't typically have branching paths at all - does that mean there are no deep films or novels?
But that has always been the issue with all BioWare games. They have a dangerous addiction to big things. Either your character becomes a god or...? Well, that's really the only choice BioWare ever gave us. From 0 to infinity. Which is pretty much the opposite of deep.
Nothing you said here makes any sense to me. Hawke doesn't become a god, neither does the Warden from the first game. Shepard isn't a god. Revan isn't a god. They may be exceptional characters, but that tends to be the general mold for hero protagonists. And setting that aside, how exactly is a character's journey from normality to heroism/divinity "the opposite of deep"? I have no idea what that means.
When it comes to DA2 though, what irks me the most is that whatever you do, no matter how hard you try - you get in the same spot over and over again.
Find me a game where that doesn't happen.
What DA2 - and, by extension, BioWare - do very well is work with the illusion of choice. You can't just decide to not be a Grey Warden, you can't derail the overarching plot, but you can kill Zevran or recruit him, you can make Loghain sacrifice himself against the Archdemon, you can do a hundred small things that give you some measure of agency. And while DA2 doesn't necessarily reflect the choices you make in DA:O, because it's not an actual sequel to the Ferelden story, the game world is shaped in part by what you do.
When I say DA2's story has depth, I mean exactly that: the characters are complex and interesting, the smaller setting and longer time period are a clear contrast to the "Save The World" plot DA:O did so well, and the central conflicts of the game - the qunari vs. the Chantry and templars vs. mages - are morally ambiguous; the game makes you see both sides, rather than rely on the usual Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil binary. You can't stop the war in Kirkwall, but stopping it isn't the point: it's what side you choose to take, and why.
@shawne: Wow, you got low expectations for Bioware games then. I honestly would feel cheated out of my 60 euros if I only got one damn cave to explore multiple times.
That's your problem. As I just said, I prioritize depth of story over pretty pictures.
I never said I prefer pretty pictures over depth of story. I just prefer a balance between both. It just shows dev dedication instead of a rushed money job.
DA2 has the "worst" story + decision choices ever. Yes, to a point, every game is linear, because otherwise, how would you follow storyline? If you choose not to be a Warden in DA:O, the story can't progress. But the difference with DA2 is that Bioware gives you unnecessary *misleading* choices. The one that pissed me off the most was the last 2 chapters. Anders, why the hell did he had to ask Hawke to help if it doesn't make any difference anyway. And why did he blow up chantry??? Ethina was by far the most *normal* person in Kirkwall and he decide to blow her up instead of Meridith? And what was the point of choosing between Templars or Mages? Either way, Meridith goes nuts and tries to kill you, and Orsino turns into an abomination. I don't know this is *deep* let alone makes sense.
Anyway, back to topic. I will most likely buy this game when it's in bargain bin. Much like ME3, I'm only playing this because I played first 2 games of the series.
Anders, why the hell did he had to ask Hawke to help if it doesn't make any difference anyway.
Because it's your choice whether or not you want to help him. By that point in the game, he's been your loyal companion (and possibly your love interest), but you know he's been compromised, and that he's becoming more violent. Do you agree to help him anyway because he's your friend? Or do you refuse, in which case he does it anyway but your hands are clean?
And why did he blow up chantry??? Ethina was by far the most *normal* person in Kirkwall and he decide to blow her up instead of Meridith?
That was the whole point: Elthina was the only person in Kirkwall who was stopping an all-out war from breaking out. If Anders had killed Meredith instead, another templar would have just stepped in to take her place. He (or Vengeance, depending on how you interpret his character at that point) wanted both sides to have no choice other than to fight.
And what was the point of choosing between Templars or Mages? Either way, Meridith goes nuts and tries to kill you, and Orsino turns into an abomination. I don't know this is *deep* let alone makes sense.
The point is this: whose side are you on? Throughout most of DA2 you have a front-row seat to the templar/mage conflict. Do you believe the templars are oppressing the mages? But then look at how many blood mages and abominations are running around Kirkwall, and how that impacts Hawke personally at the end of Act 2. But Anders also has a good point when he says mages are turning to blood magic because they're desperate, because the templars are suffocating them. Then again, Merrill didn't have that problem and her blood magic had dire consequences for her clan.
Orsino and Meredith both have to die because the point of the war - the point of Varric telling this whole story to Cassandra in the first place - is that it moves beyond Kirkwall fast, and has absolutely nothing to do with the personal feuding between a crazy Knight-Commander and a desperate First Enchanter. It's been building up since before Origins, and all Anders does is provide the last spark that starts the fire.
By those standards, you're never going to find depth in any story, in any medium, ever. No matter what you do in "Planescape: Torment", you're going to end up in the Fortress of Regrets. You're going to fight Irenicus in Hell at the end of "Baldur's Gate 2". You're going to kill the Archdemon in "Dragon Age: Origins". You're going to stop the Enclave in "Fallout 2".
Just because the major events in a given plot are linear doesn't mean that plot lacks depth or complexity. Films and novels don't typically have branching paths at all - does that mean there are no deep films or novels?
First and foremost - comparing interactive media (games) with non-interactive media (movies, books) is foolish. The latter is a given, you like it or not - it's subjective. The former implies that every player has their own way of doing things. The fact is simple though - If in BioWare games you attempt to kill everyone (where it's possible, so just BG1 and 2 I suppose), you simply won't be able to progress in the story. There's also several encounters where you're going to be instantly killed if you attempt to attack people (Thethoril, Gorion, Aaran Linvail).
In Fallout 2 it's true, you will stop the enclave in the end. But you can literally kill EVERYONE in the game and still achieve that. You can decimate hundreds if not thousands of innocent people on the way, no trigger ever is going to stop you. You can even cold-bloodedly murder all of your villagers in the final area and no one will give a shit. There's not gonna be a 1000 damage backstab to stop you. You don't even need to help your villagers at the end of the day, by finding the GECK.
The only time where you're blocked in Fallout 2 is if you slaughter your village prematurely - but even then you don't instantly die - it's just another way to "win" the game. Same as in Fallout 1 - you don't want to save Fallout 13? Turn into a mutant and slaughter them all. It's not game over, it's just merely a bad ending.
Nothing you said here makes any sense to me. Hawke doesn't become a god, neither does the Warden from the first game. Shepard isn't a god. Revan isn't a god. They may be exceptional characters, but that tends to be the general mold for hero protagonists. And setting that aside, how exactly is a character's journey from normality to heroism/divinity "the opposite of deep"? I have no idea what that means.
They don't become gods, but they become so powerful that at that point they slaughtered countless people with one swipe of their weapon. While they keep getting stabbed and survive. Now I do realize that's the purpose of RPGs, but still - I like games where you can grow in strength, but in comparison to some, you are a nothing. And there are MANY such examples out there.
What DA2 - and, by extension, BioWare - do very well is work with the illusion of choice. You can't just decide to not be a Grey Warden, you can't derail the overarching plot, but you can kill Zevran or recruit him, you can make Loghain sacrifice himself against the Archdemon, you can do a hundred small things that give you some measure of agency. And while DA2 doesn't necessarily reflect the choices you make in DA:O, because it's not an actual sequel to the Ferelden story, the game world is shaped in part by what you do.
But I wasn't referring to Dragon Age Origins. DA:O did spectacularly well, choices weighed on the ending, if only minimally. But you had the benefit of the doubt, you could do both evil, good or completely gray things in the game - something that rarely happens in any BioWare game. In Dragon Age 2 what choice do you have? You're driven by power, you do things because apparently you or your family is power hungry. Why go to the deep roads to seek riches? Why not just live their merry humble ways like hundreds of thousands of people do. There's one period in the game where you do that to gain access to the city - and that period is promptly skipped by the game's narration - which is a good thing. But why always aim for the highest peak? That's what irks me of BioWare games. Not saying it's a bad thing, but a PC who is driven by a desire that you haven't set is a bit weak. You can still chose in Dragon Age Origins - either be a complete scumbag, or the hero.
In Dragon Age 2 you become basically the god of Kirkwall, since you're the only superpower standing alive. In Baldur's Gate you have the choice - become a god, evil or good, or stay human. You can play hundreds of hours in Baldur's Gate to end up where you started. No divinity, just human. You played hundreds of hours, getting the best gear, leveling up your characters and BioWare gave you the choice to leave it all. Just drop off and be a standard human being after all the wars and battles.
When I say DA2's story has depth, I mean exactly that: the characters are complex and interesting, the smaller setting and longer time period are a clear contrast to the "Save The World" plot DA:O did so well, and the central conflicts of the game - the qunari vs. the Chantry and templars vs. mages - are morally ambiguous; the game makes you see both sides, rather than rely on the usual Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil binary. You can't stop the war in Kirkwall, but stopping it isn't the point: it's what side you choose to take, and why.
It *is* a good thing that BioWare did that, but they were incredibly vague in that. They didn't deepen the story lines of each faction. The Qunari were peaceful and waiting for what, 7 years, and then... they go on a killing spree - and I don't even blame them. For all I cared they should have destroyed the whole city. They had the right to after what was done to them.
As for Mages against Templars - what was your choice : whichever side you chose, you're going to end up having to kill EVERYONE because fuck it essentially. That's not really that deep. Where is the diplomacy that Origins had? Just think how many such choices the Warden had in comparison to Hawke! I do understand that the game was rushed, but simply because of that, it's not an excuse to shift the plot towards something else, as in - they started with the Darkspawn. The setting was epic, the foe was common, in good or ill. But now you have the mages who go against everything what the mages in Origins fought for (who cares if we use blood magics, right?) and the templars who drug themselves and go on a holy quest... but holy quest of WHAT exactly? What are they trying to achieve - why didn't BioWare explain this in Dragon Age 2? Hell if we know!
A game which is rushed is an excuse, ok. No doubt Dragon Age : Inquisition has all what it can get to be a better title - IF you have a choice on the matter. If it's just gonna be slaughtering of both factions, then it's gonna fail flat as Dragon Age 2 did for ME PERSONALLY. Keep in mind this is entirely subjective.
I'm not trying to cause a dispute, I'm just pointing out that the rushing of DA2 caused it to be a title that boggled the minds of most people out there. It IS a good title, under all given circumstances, but definitely NOT on par with other BioWare titles.
I think the difference between DA:O and DA][ was that there was never a compelling reason for the character to do what he/she does. There was no great danger or injustice, or anything. Just a bunch of 'hey, we should go do this...' That difference is key.
Can't remember if this is a spoiler-free topic...
Using the overall construct of DA][, I think that it would make more sense for the chantry terrorist attack to be sooner, leading to a crackdown by the chantry. PC is stuck in the middle, either as a mage or on behalf of Bethany. Can choose to either crush the rebel mages or support the crackdown (which happened in the game).
Even with tweaks, there's just not much to work with. Wouldn't it have been better to have some remnant of the Tevinter Imperium rise and work through it that way?
First and foremost - comparing interactive media (games) with non-interactive media (movies, books) is foolish. The latter is a given, you like it or not - it's subjective. The former implies that every player has their own way of doing things.
Reader reception is subjective regardless of the medium: even if the player's actively participating in the narrative, they're still responding to the story as a story.
The fact is simple though - If in BioWare games you attempt to kill everyone (where it's possible, so just BG1 and 2 I suppose), you simply won't be able to progress in the story. There's also several encounters where you're going to be instantly killed if you attempt to attack people (Thethoril, Gorion, Aaran Linvail).
That's basic narrative cohesion, though. This isn't "Grand Theft Auto" - how would you justify going on a killing spree twenty minutes into the game? How does that make sense as a story?
In Fallout 2 it's true, you will stop the enclave in the end. But you can literally kill EVERYONE in the game and still achieve that. You can decimate hundreds if not thousands of innocent people on the way, no trigger ever is going to stop you.
Just because the game engine permits a certain level of autonomy doesn't mean it's valid from a narrative perspective. And games like "Fallout 2" and BG2 subtly reinforce this: unless you're planning to poke your enemies to death with a stick, it's not in your best interest as a player to wipe out every living thing in the world, to say nothing of the fact that it doesn't make for a particularly engaging tale ("And then he killed everyone some more, the end.")
They don't become gods, but they become so powerful that at that point they slaughtered countless people with one swipe of their weapon. While they keep getting stabbed and survive. Now I do realize that's the purpose of RPGs, but still - I like games where you can grow in strength, but in comparison to some, you are a nothing. And there are MANY such examples out there.
Most of BioWare's RPGs tend to follow that format, though. The Spirit Monk in "Jade Empire" can become practically invincible in combat; that doesn't stop Sun Li from taking you down with one move. Shepard can be the best soldier in the galaxy, the Reaper invasion will still happen and not everyone can be saved. And no matter how powerful and influential Hawke becomes, the outbreak of the war is beyond their ability to prevent. Even DA:O had this: no matter who your Warden was and how much you leveled them up, it's Riordan who brings the Archdemon down to face you. You're only able to kill it because of something someone else does.
But I wasn't referring to Dragon Age Origins. DA:O did spectacularly well, choices weighed on the ending, if only minimally. But you had the benefit of the doubt, you could do both evil, good or completely gray things in the game - something that rarely happens in any BioWare game.
Very few choices in DA:O are truly evil. Even if you're a Dalish elf who hates humans, or a spoiled-rotten dwarven noble, you're going to save Ferelden at the end of the game. You can't flee the final battle to save your own skin. It's the same with BG1: you could be a Chaotic Evil mass murderer, but by stopping the Iron Throne you're still preventing a war with Amn that would have killed thousands.
The difference is that "evil" players can justify what they do by arguing that these heroic moments are unintended consequences of their actions - CE characters kill Sarevok because they want his power, or because he pisses them off; the larger consequences of that action may be "good" but they don't factor into the PC's motivation. Even the most racist, psychotic Shepard must stop the Reapers because they're going to exterminate you and your entire race if you don't.
In Dragon Age 2 what choice do you have? You're driven by power, you do things because apparently you or your family is power hungry. Why go to the deep roads to seek riches? Why not just live their merry humble ways like hundreds of thousands of people do.
Uh... because Hawke and/or Bethany are apostate mages who will be locked up for the rest of their lives (or executed on the spot) if the templars catch them? And the only way to maintain some level of autonomy is through money and political influence? Meredith says as much in Act 3 with a Mage Hawke: if you weren't the city's Champion, she'd have thrown you in a cell years ago.
That's what irks me of BioWare games. Not saying it's a bad thing, but a PC who is driven by a desire that you haven't set is a bit weak. You can still chose in Dragon Age Origins - either be a complete scumbag, or the hero.
You'll be known as the Hero of Ferelden either way.
In Dragon Age 2 you become basically the god of Kirkwall, since you're the only superpower standing alive. In Baldur's Gate you have the choice - become a god, evil or good, or stay human. You can play hundreds of hours in Baldur's Gate to end up where you started. No divinity, just human. You played hundreds of hours, getting the best gear, leveling up your characters and BioWare gave you the choice to leave it all. Just drop off and be a standard human being after all the wars and battles.
Giving up the Bhaalspawn essence doesn't boot you back to level 1: you're still an epic warrior or mage or whatever. Imoen's ending has her becoming an archmage who hangs out with Elminster and Blackstaff, and founding a thieves' guild that stretches from Amn to Neverwinter. There's no reset. Besides, DA2 ends with Hawke in the same position as the start of the game: fleeing a burning city.
It *is* a good thing that BioWare did that, but they were incredibly vague in that. They didn't deepen the story lines of each faction. The Qunari were peaceful and waiting for what, 7 years, and then... they go on a killing spree - and I don't even blame them. For all I cared they should have destroyed the whole city. They had the right to after what was done to them.
The Arishok openly talks about invading the Free Marches to "enlighten" its people; he disregards local law by sheltering two murderers; he doesn't deny accusations that his followers are converting Kirkwall citizens to the Qun against their will. To say that they were absolutely right to do what they did is ridiculous, especially since they would have killed you given the opportunity.
As for Mages against Templars - what was your choice : whichever side you chose, you're going to end up having to kill EVERYONE because fuck it essentially.
Like I said, the choice comes down to which side you believe is right. Are the mages being oppressed unfairly? Or are the templars justified in their actions? The war is going to happen regardless of what you do, because it's bigger than you, but the side you take will reflect your character's perspective.
Where is the diplomacy that Origins had? Just think how many such choices the Warden had in comparison to Hawke!
Doesn't that makes sense, though? The Grey Wardens belong to an age-old order that, even in Ferelden, still have some influence. Hawke is a refugee from a foreign country who rises to prominence, but is outmatched by two powerful figures native to Kirkwall whose authority exceeds his. Hawke has the option of "neutral" dialogue throughout the entire templar/mage conflict right up until the moment Anders destroys the Chantry: that's when the option of compromise is taken off the table permanently.
I do understand that the game was rushed, but simply because of that, it's not an excuse to shift the plot towards something else, as in - they started with the Darkspawn. The setting was epic, the foe was common, in good or ill.
There's a point of criticism there too, though: the darkspawn are like orcs in Lord of the Rings, they're an enemy you can always rally against no matter who you are or what you believe. It's a simplistic conflict, because you don't have to consider why the other side is fighting and you don't have the option of diplomacy. When the darkspawn attack Denerim at the end of the game, either they survive or you do. There's no moral dilemma because they're basically animals.
But now you have the mages who go against everything what the mages in Origins fought for (who cares if we use blood magics, right?) and the templars who drug themselves and go on a holy quest... but holy quest of WHAT exactly? What are they trying to achieve - why didn't BioWare explain this in Dragon Age 2? Hell if we know!
Honestly? This sounds like you either haven't played the game or only read Wikipedia summaries. The templars are very clear in terms of what they believe, you hear it over and over again from characters like Meredith, Cullen and other Chantry priests: they believe mages need to be constantly guarded and supervised in order to prevent the proliferation of blood magic and abominations. They believe magic is spiritually corrosive and that, given time, any mage will eventually succumb to temptation. Meredith has perfectly justifiable reasons for cracking down on the Kirkwall Circle: blood magic keeps resurfacing again and again, and Orsino may have been indirectly involved with the research that led to Leandra Hawke's death, and she's seen first-hand what can happen when a mage is possessed.
And the mages of Kirkwall - who, as Anders and Karl and Ella point out, are living in much worse conditions than the Ferelden Circle - are just trying to live their lives, and are finding the increasingly strict measures against them to be unfair and frustrating. It doesn't help that some of the templars are abusing their authority, that one of Meredith's lieutenants suggests Tranquilizing every single mage in Thedas, and so on. From their perspective, they're basically being imprisoned for life because of something they might do someday, and Anders' actions gives them the excuse they need to act.
I'm not trying to cause a dispute, I'm just pointing out that the rushing of DA2 caused it to be a title that boggled the minds of most people out there. It IS a good title, under all given circumstances, but definitely NOT on par with other BioWare titles.
The game was rushed, there's no question there. But I think a lot of criticism directed towards the game's story is either unfounded or misinformed; it may be different from the type of story told in Origins, but that doesn't automatically make it worse.
What I didn't like about DA2's story is that I felt railroaded into doing things for no apparent reason. Not just the big plot details, but even the small details.
In DA2 you need to earn a lot of money to get onto the expedition, plus get a map. So far so good - not too restrictive. But then I find myself forced to do a lot of fairly random sidequests for no better reason than they set up the story in acts 2 and 3.
So for example I'm forced to do Sister Petrice's Qunari quest because it's required background for the Qunari theme in Act 2. And whatever I do it ends up the same way - I can't come back and kill Sister Petrice for setting me up because she's needed for an act 2/3 quest. Similarly I am forced to go after the blood mages, rescue the viscount's son, find Feynriel, etc.
What would be much better is if you could earn the money however you liked in Act 1. And if I didn't happen to do particular sidequests then I would miss out on the next part in later acts.
Contrast that with the start of BG2 where you need to earn a lot of money to pay for help. The game directs you to several possible quests you could undertake, but ultimately you can earn the money however you want. This gives much more freedom of play, even if ultimately the player must go to Spellhold.
Well, I think we just got confirmation that Mass Dragon IV, Age Effect III or whatever it is going to be, is destined to look more DA ][ than anything else:
This article discusses the engine that will be used in ME4/DA3, and I must say it isn't promising. I have a needle that reads 0 to 100, which is the % chance of me buying DA ]I[ and this is definitely moving the needle into the low (red) zone.
What bothers me most isn't the engine, but the fact that DA 3 will probably only run on the next-gen consoles, none of which I'm quite excited about, even though I mostly game on my PC... I also think it will be a clusterfuck of a game again, and of course all romanceable partners will all be bisexual, or rather, player-sexual again...
I'm actually waiting to see actual info about the game, as in, classes, specializations, customization, that kind of stuff.
It will mainly affect if i buy it or not.
I don't actually mind "player-sexual" characters, the only thing i mind is if they're able to generate a reaction out of me. If they can't, and i forget about them when i close the pc, then i guess the writing could have been better.
Of course, fall 2014 might be a good thing for production, long development cycle and all, but i think it's too much. I'll check back with them in about a year or more. Right now it looks too far away.
What engine the game runs on is not pretty important to me. I got to like Dragon Age:Origins after all, because of the Lore mostly. It's nice to be able to feel your trudging through a world that has a whole history behind it, DA:O did this even better than Baldur's Gate, as while a loot of the books in Baldur's Gate told about the history of faraway lands in Faerûn, a lot of the lore in the books and codex entries you found in Baldur's Gate where about historic events in Ferelden, sometimes taking place in the actual places you visited, making you feel that you treaded historical ground. That feeling, given by the text you could read in the game, is much more important for the feel than what it looks like and what parts of the environment can be destroyed (isn't that what the Frostbite 3 engine is all about?). Losing sight of the forest because of the trees, is what paying too much attention to the engine will lead to.
I wonder how they will mesh companions from the two games together in one game... I hope they leave out the awful dialogue wheel too and actually present good dialogue which doesn't go against what you intended your character to reply to a companion. And that the romances aren't player-sexual focused, but nicely written. Yet I've already read on the official forums how it would be easier and cost less resources (of course, nibbling on every bit and cut corner they can, like always, instead of focusing on making a GOOD game) to have all characters be player-bisexual again. A bit of a shame.
Strictly speaking it does require fewer resources to write player-centric romances that don't account for gender, because it takes exactly half as much time to write, code, and voice as it would if you wrote a separate story path for each gender.
Using the "player-sexuality" concept allows the writers to spend more time making the characters interesting because they don't have to spend as much time writing that one aspect of them. The alternative route is to write fewer characters overall: instead of ten characters with a romance path that doesn't change based on gender (or at least, not in any major way), you might have seven characters whose romances do depend on gender in a meaningful way. And while that might yield better characters overall, it's hard to sell that idea to a playerbase that, as a whole, sometimes tends to think of things in terms of numbers rather than quality.
I'd hate to have a group of companions where each and everyone is potentially interested in me. The game feels much more lifelike if, like in BG2 and DA:O, only some of the companions would be interested in a relationship with your character and some will only be friends. And if not all of them are bisexual, but it's a specific part of the personality for some of them (and let's have gays as well, who aren't interested in heterosexual romances at all!).
@Dee: I understand it's a benefit from the perspective of the writers and game producers. But does everything have to be calculated in terms of numbers, amounts and benefits? See, this is what I've been missing in recent Bioware games: integrity. Passion. Soul. The game's just a product, now more than ever, and you can feel it as a gamer. The whole 'player-sexual' concept is cheap. Almost makes me think of one of those Mc Donald's deals. I'd rather have two interesting romances than ten Mc Donald's 'exclusives', thanks. It's especially jarring from the point of view of someone who aspires to become a writer herself in the future. I just feel something's lacking.
@Dee: I understand it's a benefit from the perspective of the writers and game producers. But does everything have to be calculated in terms of numbers, amounts and benefits? See, this is what I've been missing in recent Bioware games: integrity. Passion. Soul. The game's just a product, now more than ever, and you can feel it as a gamer. The whole 'player-sexual' concept is cheap. Almost makes me think of one of those Mc Donald's deals. I'd rather have two interesting romances than ten Mc Donald's 'exclusives', thanks. It's especially jarring from the point of view of someone who aspires to become a writer herself in the future. I just feel something's lacking.
In short, YES. There's a limit to what people will pay for a game, and a set of costs involved in making it. We don't really have a quality vs. cost model, by which you pay more for finer crafting or whatnot. There's sort of an industry-standard game cost and you're somewhat constrained by that. They can do one of two things (or both):
1) Make the game appeal to a broader audience 2) Reduce development costs
It is what it is - and explains why so many games are like other ones (too risky to go far off beaten path) and somewhat generic. I'm not saying I like it - I detest it, actually, but it is what it is. In my reality, people aren't both straight and gay, for instance, yet each DA ][ NPC appeared to be. Yuck and double yuck. It satisfies the group that wants to romance everything (even via mod, where you can allegedly romance your sister for the deep reason that she's hot), but leaves those of us that see them as bigger than a blank CHARNAME romance interest wanting. [It also makes replays better, as the NPC's are true to self, not true to game]
I think I have some hope from the somewhat retro feel of some products - they're not pushing graphic and sound envelopes/engines and returning to game play. This is, in my opinion, a promising development and I hope it continues along the same lines.
@Dee: I understand it's a benefit from the perspective of the writers and game producers. But does everything have to be calculated in terms of numbers, amounts and benefits? See, this is what I've been missing in recent Bioware games: integrity. Passion. Soul. The game's just a product, now more than ever, and you can feel it as a gamer. The whole 'player-sexual' concept is cheap. Almost makes me think of one of those Mc Donald's deals. I'd rather have two interesting romances than ten Mc Donald's 'exclusives', thanks. It's especially jarring from the point of view of someone who aspires to become a writer herself in the future. I just feel something's lacking.
You're not wrong. It would be better to have a short game with a more satisfying story, rather than a long game whose biggest selling point is "Over 100+ hours of gameplay!" Portal 2 took me twelve hours to beat, but it was one of the more satisfying gaming experiences of that year for me because of the strength of the writing.
I would almost, honestly, rather not have any romances at all. Or maybe one romance that's fixed and plot-related. You save a lot of resources when you focus your efforts on a small number of tasks, and you can also create a lot more content for the player when there's less room for drastically changing the plot based on the player's decisions (which, in the current age of "look everything up online", basically just turns into the player going to the internet to find out which choice is best in any given situation).
Imagine if, in Dragon Age: Origins, you didn't have a choice to side with Bhelen or Harrowmont, but the choice was abundantly clear and made for you upon your arrival. Instead of letting the player choose between two very different outcomes, you decide the outcome for the player, but then the player gets to experience a longer story. You take away the player's agency, but you also provide them with more (and possibly better) content by telling the story you want to tell.
So which is more important: player agency, or quality of content? You can have both, but it costs a lot more. Dynasty Warriors, for example, took away player agency in their last title in order to make the story more compelling. But it was a mistake, because the compelling thing about Dynasty Warriors has always been about player agency (i.e. being able to play as any character all the way through the story and seeing what kind of crazy things happen as a result). Dragon Age II sacrificed quality of content for player agency, but that was a mistake too because the choices they offered to the player weren't meaningful in the same way that they were meaningful in the first game.
It's rare that you find a game that strikes a balance between the two, and when you do it's usually much smaller in scope. Bastion is an excellent example of the balance between player agency (letting you choose which buildings to build, whether or not to save certain characters' lives, etc.) and quality of content (a story that is compelling both in its story and in the way it's presented), but it's also a very short game.
Two of my favourite titles I feel got tainted and stigmatized by this small, but loud group of gamers. Even worse that because they made so much noise other people listened to them and missed out on great games. I have only just recently succeeded in getting a friend of mine to play DA2 because of it.
I mean there are genuine reasons *not* to like it, but most of the time I'm just hearing stupid reasons because of what so and so said. I believe DA's main mistake is having ever mentioned, or in the case of Penny Arcade, get someone else to mention that it was BGs spiritual successor because for me it set up this whole set of expectations. I, like everyone else thought that my choices were going to matter e.t.c
When I decided to let it go and let Bioware show me what they wanted to, I had a much better time. Varric alone is seriously worth $20! I did not notice the amount of re-hashing levels until my second play through, I could see why people would have a problem with that too.
Ultimately I think that doing 3 games is a little risky - feeling like DA3 (and also FFXIII - 3) will partially determine the fate of the games before them. If the events from the second game are leading to the third game, isn't it a little hard to set up and still get a satisfying ending? (I also feel that way about The Two Towers as a movie). I will accept having no choice to protect The Circle if the next game makes that believable.
How the characters were written was one of my favourite things about the game. The prior example with Anders and the chantry. I kill him every time because he made me rage so hard the first time (for the same reason, poor Elthina!) but he isn't all great, and he knows that. I'm pretty sure that if you let Danarius have Fenris that you get approval from Anders - and that's pretty messed up. Still, some people are happy to redeem Anders/forgive him.
I would personally prefer that romances were written individually based on the characters (and not the PCs) sexuality. I feel that sexual preferences are a pretty solid part of our personal aspects so to write them all the same is a little disrespectful. However, given with how some western countries are still having a hard time coming to grips with anything more than hetrosexual activity, I'll take whatever progressiveness I can get.
My only *real* problem with most Bioware games ... I'm really tired at the end of the game with silhouette images and the words "and they were never seen again!", "noone knows what became of them". I know back in Infinity Engine days you couldn't really do much about it but I will seriously facepalm if DA3 does the same thing.
Dragon Age II sacrificed quality of content for player agency, but that was a mistake too because the choices they offered to the player weren't meaningful in the same way that they were meaningful in the first game.
One of my problems with DA2 was that it tried to do both, and ended up doing both badly. It apparently gave you lots of choices about how to resolve a quest (e.g. let the apostates go or turn them in) but then you find out later that the outcome is the same either way (the apostates get captured).
But on the other hand it forced you to do a lot of "main story" quests which often had no direct link to your overall task for the act e.g. helping Sister Petrice with the captured Qunari mage when you only were trying to raise money for the expedition. The game forced these on the player so that it could include follow up quests in later acts.
Finally I really dont buy the player-centric sexuality idea. Fine if other people can get on board with it, but it's immersion breaking for me. It leaves me believing that every love interest is bisexual. Plus it means that there can't be any conversations about love interest's previous relationships - because that would break the player-centric sexuality concept.
I will wait and see what the temperature of the water is before diving in.
Keep an eye on Metacritic, and the major review sites, and see if there is a big disparity between the user score and the review scores.
If there is then the game probably sucks, and EA probably paid off a couple of the big sites to get decent reviews. And I won't buy it.
Almost ALL of Dragon Age 2's problems can be traced right to the short dev cycle sadly, so because of that I am willing to give DA3 a chance to wow me but I am going to be careful about it.
Keep an eye on Metacritic, and the major review sites, and see if there is a big disparity between the user score and the review scores.
Yeah, I don't put a lot of trust in the user scores on Metacritic, even if you're just comparing them with the critic scores. Based on the little bit of time I've spent there, I'd say that Metacritic user reviews are the Youtube comments section of the game critique world.
Yeah user ratings can be just as unreliable as big reviewers, I remember metacritic took down a bunch that were dedicated to bringing down ME3's rating over the day one dlc fuss.
Comments
When it comes to DA2 though, what irks me the most is that whatever you do, no matter how hard you try - you get in the same spot over and over again. If I have to chose on what aspect DA2 is the most successful, then I'd say gameplay - which also fails flat in comparison to other RPGs of the same year of release. Story? Not at all.
Just because the major events in a given plot are linear doesn't mean that plot lacks depth or complexity. Films and novels don't typically have branching paths at all - does that mean there are no deep films or novels? Nothing you said here makes any sense to me. Hawke doesn't become a god, neither does the Warden from the first game. Shepard isn't a god. Revan isn't a god. They may be exceptional characters, but that tends to be the general mold for hero protagonists. And setting that aside, how exactly is a character's journey from normality to heroism/divinity "the opposite of deep"? I have no idea what that means. Find me a game where that doesn't happen.
What DA2 - and, by extension, BioWare - do very well is work with the illusion of choice. You can't just decide to not be a Grey Warden, you can't derail the overarching plot, but you can kill Zevran or recruit him, you can make Loghain sacrifice himself against the Archdemon, you can do a hundred small things that give you some measure of agency. And while DA2 doesn't necessarily reflect the choices you make in DA:O, because it's not an actual sequel to the Ferelden story, the game world is shaped in part by what you do.
When I say DA2's story has depth, I mean exactly that: the characters are complex and interesting, the smaller setting and longer time period are a clear contrast to the "Save The World" plot DA:O did so well, and the central conflicts of the game - the qunari vs. the Chantry and templars vs. mages - are morally ambiguous; the game makes you see both sides, rather than rely on the usual Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil binary. You can't stop the war in Kirkwall, but stopping it isn't the point: it's what side you choose to take, and why.
Anyway, back to topic. I will most likely buy this game when it's in bargain bin. Much like ME3, I'm only playing this because I played first 2 games of the series.
Orsino and Meredith both have to die because the point of the war - the point of Varric telling this whole story to Cassandra in the first place - is that it moves beyond Kirkwall fast, and has absolutely nothing to do with the personal feuding between a crazy Knight-Commander and a desperate First Enchanter. It's been building up since before Origins, and all Anders does is provide the last spark that starts the fire.
In Fallout 2 it's true, you will stop the enclave in the end. But you can literally kill EVERYONE in the game and still achieve that. You can decimate hundreds if not thousands of innocent people on the way, no trigger ever is going to stop you. You can even cold-bloodedly murder all of your villagers in the final area and no one will give a shit. There's not gonna be a 1000 damage backstab to stop you. You don't even need to help your villagers at the end of the day, by finding the GECK.
The only time where you're blocked in Fallout 2 is if you slaughter your village prematurely - but even then you don't instantly die - it's just another way to "win" the game. Same as in Fallout 1 - you don't want to save Fallout 13? Turn into a mutant and slaughter them all. It's not game over, it's just merely a bad ending. They don't become gods, but they become so powerful that at that point they slaughtered countless people with one swipe of their weapon. While they keep getting stabbed and survive. Now I do realize that's the purpose of RPGs, but still - I like games where you can grow in strength, but in comparison to some, you are a nothing. And there are MANY such examples out there. But I wasn't referring to Dragon Age Origins. DA:O did spectacularly well, choices weighed on the ending, if only minimally. But you had the benefit of the doubt, you could do both evil, good or completely gray things in the game - something that rarely happens in any BioWare game. In Dragon Age 2 what choice do you have? You're driven by power, you do things because apparently you or your family is power hungry. Why go to the deep roads to seek riches? Why not just live their merry humble ways like hundreds of thousands of people do. There's one period in the game where you do that to gain access to the city - and that period is promptly skipped by the game's narration - which is a good thing. But why always aim for the highest peak? That's what irks me of BioWare games. Not saying it's a bad thing, but a PC who is driven by a desire that you haven't set is a bit weak. You can still chose in Dragon Age Origins - either be a complete scumbag, or the hero.
In Dragon Age 2 you become basically the god of Kirkwall, since you're the only superpower standing alive. In Baldur's Gate you have the choice - become a god, evil or good, or stay human. You can play hundreds of hours in Baldur's Gate to end up where you started. No divinity, just human. You played hundreds of hours, getting the best gear, leveling up your characters and BioWare gave you the choice to leave it all. Just drop off and be a standard human being after all the wars and battles. It *is* a good thing that BioWare did that, but they were incredibly vague in that. They didn't deepen the story lines of each faction. The Qunari were peaceful and waiting for what, 7 years, and then... they go on a killing spree - and I don't even blame them. For all I cared they should have destroyed the whole city. They had the right to after what was done to them.
As for Mages against Templars - what was your choice : whichever side you chose, you're going to end up having to kill EVERYONE because fuck it essentially. That's not really that deep. Where is the diplomacy that Origins had? Just think how many such choices the Warden had in comparison to Hawke! I do understand that the game was rushed, but simply because of that, it's not an excuse to shift the plot towards something else, as in - they started with the Darkspawn. The setting was epic, the foe was common, in good or ill.
But now you have the mages who go against everything what the mages in Origins fought for (who cares if we use blood magics, right?) and the templars who drug themselves and go on a holy quest... but holy quest of WHAT exactly? What are they trying to achieve - why didn't BioWare explain this in Dragon Age 2? Hell if we know!
A game which is rushed is an excuse, ok. No doubt Dragon Age : Inquisition has all what it can get to be a better title - IF you have a choice on the matter. If it's just gonna be slaughtering of both factions, then it's gonna fail flat as Dragon Age 2 did for ME PERSONALLY. Keep in mind this is entirely subjective.
I'm not trying to cause a dispute, I'm just pointing out that the rushing of DA2 caused it to be a title that boggled the minds of most people out there. It IS a good title, under all given circumstances, but definitely NOT on par with other BioWare titles.
Like I said, choices without real consequences. I don't know how you can think those are meaningful but ok.
Can't remember if this is a spoiler-free topic...
Even with tweaks, there's just not much to work with. Wouldn't it have been better to have some remnant of the Tevinter Imperium rise and work through it that way?
The difference is that "evil" players can justify what they do by arguing that these heroic moments are unintended consequences of their actions - CE characters kill Sarevok because they want his power, or because he pisses them off; the larger consequences of that action may be "good" but they don't factor into the PC's motivation. Even the most racist, psychotic Shepard must stop the Reapers because they're going to exterminate you and your entire race if you don't. Uh... because Hawke and/or Bethany are apostate mages who will be locked up for the rest of their lives (or executed on the spot) if the templars catch them? And the only way to maintain some level of autonomy is through money and political influence? Meredith says as much in Act 3 with a Mage Hawke: if you weren't the city's Champion, she'd have thrown you in a cell years ago. You'll be known as the Hero of Ferelden either way. Giving up the Bhaalspawn essence doesn't boot you back to level 1: you're still an epic warrior or mage or whatever. Imoen's ending has her becoming an archmage who hangs out with Elminster and Blackstaff, and founding a thieves' guild that stretches from Amn to Neverwinter. There's no reset. Besides, DA2 ends with Hawke in the same position as the start of the game: fleeing a burning city. The Arishok openly talks about invading the Free Marches to "enlighten" its people; he disregards local law by sheltering two murderers; he doesn't deny accusations that his followers are converting Kirkwall citizens to the Qun against their will. To say that they were absolutely right to do what they did is ridiculous, especially since they would have killed you given the opportunity. Like I said, the choice comes down to which side you believe is right. Are the mages being oppressed unfairly? Or are the templars justified in their actions? The war is going to happen regardless of what you do, because it's bigger than you, but the side you take will reflect your character's perspective. Doesn't that makes sense, though? The Grey Wardens belong to an age-old order that, even in Ferelden, still have some influence. Hawke is a refugee from a foreign country who rises to prominence, but is outmatched by two powerful figures native to Kirkwall whose authority exceeds his. Hawke has the option of "neutral" dialogue throughout the entire templar/mage conflict right up until the moment Anders destroys the Chantry: that's when the option of compromise is taken off the table permanently. There's a point of criticism there too, though: the darkspawn are like orcs in Lord of the Rings, they're an enemy you can always rally against no matter who you are or what you believe. It's a simplistic conflict, because you don't have to consider why the other side is fighting and you don't have the option of diplomacy. When the darkspawn attack Denerim at the end of the game, either they survive or you do. There's no moral dilemma because they're basically animals. Honestly? This sounds like you either haven't played the game or only read Wikipedia summaries. The templars are very clear in terms of what they believe, you hear it over and over again from characters like Meredith, Cullen and other Chantry priests: they believe mages need to be constantly guarded and supervised in order to prevent the proliferation of blood magic and abominations. They believe magic is spiritually corrosive and that, given time, any mage will eventually succumb to temptation. Meredith has perfectly justifiable reasons for cracking down on the Kirkwall Circle: blood magic keeps resurfacing again and again, and Orsino may have been indirectly involved with the research that led to Leandra Hawke's death, and she's seen first-hand what can happen when a mage is possessed.
And the mages of Kirkwall - who, as Anders and Karl and Ella point out, are living in much worse conditions than the Ferelden Circle - are just trying to live their lives, and are finding the increasingly strict measures against them to be unfair and frustrating. It doesn't help that some of the templars are abusing their authority, that one of Meredith's lieutenants suggests Tranquilizing every single mage in Thedas, and so on. From their perspective, they're basically being imprisoned for life because of something they might do someday, and Anders' actions gives them the excuse they need to act. The game was rushed, there's no question there. But I think a lot of criticism directed towards the game's story is either unfounded or misinformed; it may be different from the type of story told in Origins, but that doesn't automatically make it worse.
In DA2 you need to earn a lot of money to get onto the expedition, plus get a map. So far so good - not too restrictive. But then I find myself forced to do a lot of fairly random sidequests for no better reason than they set up the story in acts 2 and 3.
So for example I'm forced to do Sister Petrice's Qunari quest because it's required background for the Qunari theme in Act 2. And whatever I do it ends up the same way - I can't come back and kill Sister Petrice for setting me up because she's needed for an act 2/3 quest. Similarly I am forced to go after the blood mages, rescue the viscount's son, find Feynriel, etc.
What would be much better is if you could earn the money however you liked in Act 1. And if I didn't happen to do particular sidequests then I would miss out on the next part in later acts.
Contrast that with the start of BG2 where you need to earn a lot of money to pay for help. The game directs you to several possible quests you could undertake, but ultimately you can earn the money however you want. This gives much more freedom of play, even if ultimately the player must go to Spellhold.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/bioware-positions-mass-effect-4-and-dragon-age-3-for-ps4-and-xbox-720-with-frostbite-3-engine/
This article discusses the engine that will be used in ME4/DA3, and I must say it isn't promising. I have a needle that reads 0 to 100, which is the % chance of me buying DA ]I[ and this is definitely moving the needle into the low (red) zone.
I'm actually waiting to see actual info about the game, as in, classes, specializations, customization, that kind of stuff.
It will mainly affect if i buy it or not.
I don't actually mind "player-sexual" characters, the only thing i mind is if they're able to generate a reaction out of me. If they can't, and i forget about them when i close the pc, then i guess the writing could have been better.
Of course, fall 2014 might be a good thing for production, long development cycle and all, but i think it's too much. I'll check back with them in about a year or more. Right now it looks too far away.
Using the "player-sexuality" concept allows the writers to spend more time making the characters interesting because they don't have to spend as much time writing that one aspect of them. The alternative route is to write fewer characters overall: instead of ten characters with a romance path that doesn't change based on gender (or at least, not in any major way), you might have seven characters whose romances do depend on gender in a meaningful way. And while that might yield better characters overall, it's hard to sell that idea to a playerbase that, as a whole, sometimes tends to think of things in terms of numbers rather than quality.
1) Make the game appeal to a broader audience
2) Reduce development costs
It is what it is - and explains why so many games are like other ones (too risky to go far off beaten path) and somewhat generic. I'm not saying I like it - I detest it, actually, but it is what it is. In my reality, people aren't both straight and gay, for instance, yet each DA ][ NPC appeared to be. Yuck and double yuck. It satisfies the group that wants to romance everything (even via mod, where you can allegedly romance your sister for the deep reason that she's hot), but leaves those of us that see them as bigger than a blank CHARNAME romance interest wanting. [It also makes replays better, as the NPC's are true to self, not true to game]
I think I have some hope from the somewhat retro feel of some products - they're not pushing graphic and sound envelopes/engines and returning to game play. This is, in my opinion, a promising development and I hope it continues along the same lines.
I would almost, honestly, rather not have any romances at all. Or maybe one romance that's fixed and plot-related. You save a lot of resources when you focus your efforts on a small number of tasks, and you can also create a lot more content for the player when there's less room for drastically changing the plot based on the player's decisions (which, in the current age of "look everything up online", basically just turns into the player going to the internet to find out which choice is best in any given situation).
Imagine if, in Dragon Age: Origins, you didn't have a choice to side with Bhelen or Harrowmont, but the choice was abundantly clear and made for you upon your arrival. Instead of letting the player choose between two very different outcomes, you decide the outcome for the player, but then the player gets to experience a longer story. You take away the player's agency, but you also provide them with more (and possibly better) content by telling the story you want to tell.
So which is more important: player agency, or quality of content? You can have both, but it costs a lot more. Dynasty Warriors, for example, took away player agency in their last title in order to make the story more compelling. But it was a mistake, because the compelling thing about Dynasty Warriors has always been about player agency (i.e. being able to play as any character all the way through the story and seeing what kind of crazy things happen as a result). Dragon Age II sacrificed quality of content for player agency, but that was a mistake too because the choices they offered to the player weren't meaningful in the same way that they were meaningful in the first game.
It's rare that you find a game that strikes a balance between the two, and when you do it's usually much smaller in scope. Bastion is an excellent example of the balance between player agency (letting you choose which buildings to build, whether or not to save certain characters' lives, etc.) and quality of content (a story that is compelling both in its story and in the way it's presented), but it's also a very short game.
I mean there are genuine reasons *not* to like it, but most of the time I'm just hearing stupid reasons because of what so and so said. I believe DA's main mistake is having ever mentioned, or in the case of Penny Arcade, get someone else to mention that it was BGs spiritual successor because for me it set up this whole set of expectations. I, like everyone else thought that my choices were going to matter e.t.c
When I decided to let it go and let Bioware show me what they wanted to, I had a much better time. Varric alone is seriously worth $20! I did not notice the amount of re-hashing levels until my second play through, I could see why people would have a problem with that too.
Ultimately I think that doing 3 games is a little risky - feeling like DA3 (and also FFXIII - 3) will partially determine the fate of the games before them. If the events from the second game are leading to the third game, isn't it a little hard to set up and still get a satisfying ending? (I also feel that way about The Two Towers as a movie). I will accept having no choice to protect The Circle if the next game makes that believable.
How the characters were written was one of my favourite things about the game. The prior example with Anders and the chantry. I kill him every time because he made me rage so hard the first time (for the same reason, poor Elthina!) but he isn't all great, and he knows that. I'm pretty sure that if you let Danarius have Fenris that you get approval from Anders - and that's pretty messed up. Still, some people are happy to redeem Anders/forgive him.
I would personally prefer that romances were written individually based on the characters (and not the PCs) sexuality. I feel that sexual preferences are a pretty solid part of our personal aspects so to write them all the same is a little disrespectful. However, given with how some western countries are still having a hard time coming to grips with anything more than hetrosexual activity, I'll take whatever progressiveness I can get.
My only *real* problem with most Bioware games ... I'm really tired at the end of the game with silhouette images and the words "and they were never seen again!", "noone knows what became of them". I know back in Infinity Engine days you couldn't really do much about it but I will seriously facepalm if DA3 does the same thing.
But on the other hand it forced you to do a lot of "main story" quests which often had no direct link to your overall task for the act e.g. helping Sister Petrice with the captured Qunari mage when you only were trying to raise money for the expedition. The game forced these on the player so that it could include follow up quests in later acts.
Finally I really dont buy the player-centric sexuality idea. Fine if other people can get on board with it, but it's immersion breaking for me. It leaves me believing that every love interest is bisexual. Plus it means that there can't be any conversations about love interest's previous relationships - because that would break the player-centric sexuality concept.
Keep an eye on Metacritic, and the major review sites, and see if there is a big disparity between the user score and the review scores.
If there is then the game probably sucks, and EA probably paid off a couple of the big sites to get decent reviews. And I won't buy it.
Almost ALL of Dragon Age 2's problems can be traced right to the short dev cycle sadly, so because of that I am willing to give DA3 a chance to wow me but I am going to be careful about it.