Dragon Age II, Part 2: The Qun is pretty deep, you wouldn't understand it.

[Aux-Ash]

Spoiler

Show

The catch of that is that he was still put in the position of saving the day, was still forced to engage in a bloody conflict with long-lasting repercussions, the only difference was that nothing he did accomplished anything. He was doomed from the start on every goal he undertook - the game allows for no chance for success at any turn. No amount of charm, diplomacy, or tail kicking was sufficient to inspire peace, no amount of BatHawke prowling the streets made them any safer, no amount of discussion could convince your friends to reconsider their self-destructive paths, no amount of tireless investigation can save lives, no amount of anything can accomplish anything. The game is pointless not because Hawke has no ties or motives (though I've heard complaints about that), it's pointless because the game decides the outcome long before Hawke has anything to say about it.

The closest you come to positive results is your sibling, who can either be happy, unhappy, or dead in the aftermath of your decisions, but you lose them in any event. That's one happy outcome. Oh, and there's the fact that the trip to the Deep Roads pays off, though you and Varric lose a sibling in the aftermath.

I would not have minded that game in the slightest if Hawke had been able to actually influence things, or maybe even be able to say "Screw it, I'm going to the beach." The combat was fun, the humor was great, the characters were pretty interesting when they weren't being railroaded, and the town had promise.

Like ME3, however, the real reason the game stung so bad was because we were sold a bill of goods before the game came out. "Shape the destiny of the most important person in Thedas.", "Your decisions will forge his destiny", and all that. And, sure, other game companies often promise far more than they deliver, but Bioware had proven time and again that these promises were ones they COULD deliver on. The fact that they made promises we knew they were capable of and yet still failed is why I'm so angry, and I doubt I'm the only one with that rationalization.

Which is all fair and well thought out. Though your concerns seem to be with execution. Not overall plot structure. What I was aiming at was that I saw the same large group ask for innovative plot structure and then complain it wasn't the same old thing.

Bioware fans aren't a monolithic group. Playing DA:O on the XBox 360 is a fundamentally different experience than on the PC. Bioware fans also range from people who've played everything back in the day when Black Isle was still around, to people whose first experience with Bioware is Mass Effect 1. Everybody wants different things, even small stuff like a nameless, voiceless protagonist.

No one speaks for Bioware fans as a whole, because there's a division inside the community.

Absolutely. And rather big divisions too... which of course means that no matter who you do listen to you'll make the other groups furious.

[Calemyr]

Which is all fair and well thought out. Though your concerns seem to be with execution. Not overall plot structure. What I was aiming at was that I saw the same large group ask for innovative plot structure and then complain it wasn't the same old thing.

I'd be quite the fool to believe that didn't happen - there are people who are like that, there's no escaping that fact.

For my part, I found the plot structure (a story moving more in time than space), the civilian hero concept, and the framing device (Varric) to be refreshing changes. I found those to be worthy ideas that deserved to be experimented with. The new action theme of the game was a step in the right direction they kept the soul of the old game play, but gave it a fresh lick of paint. All of it could have been perfect had the game been executed right.

Apart from the wave mechanic, the game itself is very well done. The writing that the game is built around, however, is the crime I despise the game for. Again, it's exactly the same as ME3 - a superbly built engine with a well crafted setting and an interesting cast, all of which rendered completely pointless endgame seemingly written by a preachy nihilist out to convince us that life is pain, suffering is truth, choice is an illusion, and that those are the pillars upon which art is wrought.

In my mind, however, even with all it's frustrations and faults in writing, Dragon Age 2 was genuinely art. It tried new things in bold ways and even if I didn't agree with the philosophy I couldn't argue with the amount of heart put into it. I didn't really like the game as a result, but I could respect it.

That's where it differs from ME3. There is no art in that ending, there is nothing new or bold there - though "brash" and "quad of solid chrome" come to mind. It is lazy, it is contrary the spirit of the work, and it is an insult to those who have followed the story so loyally. I have no respect for that.

[Beowulf DW]

Well, I just finished Dragon Age: Asunder, the book sequel to Dragon Age 2. Deals with all the initial fallout from what happened in Kirkwall. It was a good read, in my opinion. Some people might think it cheapens the events that occurred in Kirkwall, but I didn't see it that way. It also introduced one character that I hope to the Maker we get to fight in the next Dragon Age.

I enjoyed Dragon Age 2, despite its flaws, and things are shaping up to be very exciting in Dragon Age 3. Or so I hope.

[Lord of the Helms]

As a person who played Rogue in both DA:O and DA2, rogue in DA2 felt much more impactful. In DA:O, I barely pushed any buttons, just placing her behind the enemy and auto-attacking. There was like one skill I would use (I think Sweeping Strike) and that was it.

In DA2, I used at least 4-5 skills, and could use them in more fun ways. Dodging an Ogre charge, by using backstab at just the right time was thrilling.

I felt quite the opposite: For once, I used a metric crapton of my rogue's combat talents in DA:O to the point of fashioning him into, essentially a master duelist. Placing him behind the enemy was important for a while up until he was able to backstab opponents that were incapacitated from any position, at which point clever usage of Riposte, Dirty Fighting and Punisher became my focus, and there were plenty of other important abilities that you had to pay decent attention to use wisely (Dual-Weapon Sweep and Whirlwind especially come to mind). At the end, my Rogue was the only character except Shale who could take on Loghain in single Combat. I definitely had a decent number of skills I used in DA2, but overall it probably wasn't as many as in DAO.

And what's more, I also felt that my rogue gave me an enormous amount of tactical control over combat through reconnaissance and positioning thanks to invisibility. The mages overall did slight more damage than my rogue (and a lot more in Awakening), but they could only do it because he provided an overview of the battlefield that allowed usign spells to their fullest extent. Blizzard, for example, pretty much only ever made sense on groups of enemies you found from far off when you caught them with it by surprise, slowing them in a snowstorm from afar and blasting away with ranged attacks plus extra AOE spells while they were caught in it.

In DA2, you were always forced into the thick of it; there were no actual sneaking skills to allow for scouting, plus your enemies always appeared in waves out of nowhere rather than being placed on the map, taking any chance of catching them by surprise, planning the battle from beforehand or effectively positioning your party on the battlefield (except pulling back to the furthest possible bottleneck so all enemy respawns would come from one side only).

[Knight13]

The writing that the game is built around, however, is the crime I despise the game for. Again, it's exactly the same as ME3 - a superbly built engine with a well crafted setting and an interesting cast, all of which rendered completely pointless endgame seemingly written by a preachy nihilist out to convince us that life is pain, suffering is truth, choice is an illusion, and that those are the pillars upon which art is wrought.

I think you're reading a lot into the ending that just isn't there. You complain that the game has only one ending and that your choices can't change it. DA:O also had only one ending: you kill the archdemon. Sure you can either survive or not depending on your choices, but in DA2 you can choose to side with the mages or the templars and the final sequence is somewhat different depending on that choice.

I would also point out that a lot of the quests during the acts could turn out differently depending on your choices. You could kill that insane mage in Act 1 that was murdering elf girls for his crimes or drag him in alive for the reward from his magistrate father. In Act 2 you can help Feynriel learn to control his powers, make him Tranquil or even let him get possessed. Heck, at the end of Act 2 you can either defeat the Arishok in a duel so the rest of the qunari leave peacefully or just butcher the lot of them. A lot of these choices are even referenced in later acts.

Sure you can't stop the mage vs templar war, but that's been building for centuries, no one could stop it. It would have happened eventually even if that whole thing with Anders hadn't happened, he just forced the confrontation somewhat sooner.

[Giggling Ghast]

Well, I just finished Dragon Age: Asunder, the book sequel to Dragon Age 2. Deals with all the initial fallout from what happened in Kirkwall. It was a good read, in my opinion. Some people might think it cheapens the events that occurred in Kirkwall, but I didn't see it that way.

I confess, I haven't gotten more than a few chapters into it. I've been a really lazy reader the last few months.

It also introduced one character that I hope to the Maker we get to fight in the next Dragon Age.

The Lord Seeker?

[Beowulf DW]

I confess, I haven't gotten more than a few chapters into it. I've been a really lazy reader the last few months.



The Lord Seeker?

Yes, the Lord Seeker. He reminds me too much of a certain fallen paladin. Too self-righteous to see that he's very, very wrong. And willing to shatter the Chantry to kill the mages.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I haven't read the book, but isn't killing all the mages what the templars already want to do?

[Beowulf DW]

Yes but most of the templars wouldn't want to give a huge middle finger to the Divine before they went through with it.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Yes but most of the templars wouldn't want to give a huge middle finger to the Divine before they went through with it.

Okay, I know this is all very divorced from context, but honestly he's starting to sound pretty sympathetic.

[Beowulf DW]

Okay, I know this is all very divorced from context, but honestly he's starting to sound pretty sympathetic.

Read the book. You too will want to personally kick him in his "sword of mercy."

[Zevox]

Yes, the Lord Seeker. He reminds me too much of a certain fallen paladin. Too self-righteous to see that he's very, very wrong. And willing to shatter the Chantry to kill the mages.

Sounds like someone I would kill without a second thought.

Though I really don't care about Chantry, I'd pretty much just do it because of the "wants to kill the mages" part. Also, resembling Miko in any way would not be doing him any favors.

Yeah, if DA3 covers the Mage-Templar war, I'm really looking forward to siding with the mages all the time in general.

Zevox

[Aux-Ash]

The book did present a few interesting new viewpoints. It wasn't the best book in terms of writing but I really liked what it added to the lore of the world.

Major plot spoiler

Spoiler

Show

Like that the Divine is actively trying to improve the situation of mages, but does not do so in a manner or speed acceptable to the libertarians. Which is also ultimately why the templars choose to secede from the Chantry.

lesser plot spoiler

Spoiler

Show

or that many Libertarians are downright fanatics in their own right, refusing to see the other side and happily being just as bad as the worst of the templars.
I particularly like in the inn when the temlar escort has to defend her mage wards and then chews one of them about by telling her just how much worse everyone else has it and how much common people actually suffer and the mage (libertarian) dismisses it out of hand because it doesn't fit her view of the world.
And that's not the worst thing she does...

oh... and about the lord seeker. Major spoiler again

Spoiler

Show

He dies in the end.

[Avilan the Grey]

As a person who played Rogue in both DA:O and DA2, rogue in DA2 felt much more impactful. In DA:O, I barely pushed any buttons, just placing her behind the enemy and auto-attacking. There was like one skill I would use (I think Sweeping Strike) and that was it.

In DA2, I used at least 4-5 skills, and could use them in more fun ways. Dodging an Ogre charge, by using backstab at just the right time was thrilling.

I too, feel the opposite of what you are saying; I found Rogue game play Much MUCH more enjoyable in DA:O.

Of course I have to wonder what platform you played on? and others here? I play on the PC, and the "fewer but stronger" enemies in DA:O was not really true; on X-box they actually remade the combat (in DA:O on PC it was waves of mooks, on X-box it was fewer, more powerful enemies) due to the more limited abilities of the X-box platform.

Also, I am and old-school player (I will definitely order the new version of Baldur's Gate if it ever comes out); and that of course made me prefer DA:O's combat since it quite frankly felt more "right" to me; especially the pausing, tactical choices, overhead view and above all the auto attacking. I LOVE auto-attacking.

Concerning Bioware's writing:
After the awfulness that was DA2, and the pure HORROR that was the ending of ME3... It seems quite obvious to me that Bioware suffers from two major things:

1. Their writing staff is good craftsmen but not very comfortable outside their well-trodden paths. Every time they try to go "creative" and move away from the "standard Bioware plot" they fail, and sometimes fail spectacularly (DA2, ME3's ending).

2. Certain people at Bioware thinks they are better writers than they are. And they shut other writers out. See the ending decisions on ME3 as the prime example, where only the lead writer and the lead designer took the final decisions ("Lot's of questions for EVERYONE") not involving any input from anyone else.

Screw the rules I have money! I mean, after Act 2, in the middle of Act 3 of DA2, my Hawke is pretty wealthy, has a house that could be sold, and few ties to Kirkwall, outside of a few close friends.

Spoiler

Show

I epic failed my family with Carver dying in the intro, Bethany dying in the Deep Roads, and mother dying at the hands of the serial killer. I also romanced Merril and then slaughtered her entire tribe. Everything that Hawke has ever loved has been destroyed and blood mages are appearing on every corner. If I was Hawke, I would have sold the house and gotten the ever-loving heck out of Kirkwall.

Also, the Champion of Kirkwall's renown is well-known, even in Fereldan. I don't doubt Hawke could find some kind of backer or employment in Fereldan, with the king or queen, especially if it happens to be King Alistair.

Oh I so much agree with this. I never understood, after the serial killer thing (if not before that), why he didn't move back home? Kirkwall is not his home! He just happened to go there to escape the Blight!

Spoiler

Show

The SOLE REASON for Hawke to stay in Kirkwall is because of the love of his family and his quest to give them a better life. When Every. Single. Family member. Is. Dead. WHY IS HE STILL THERE???

It DOESN'T MAKES SENSE.

Pardon all the caps.

The player's decisions not impacting the story in no way makes the main plot meaningless. Quite the contrary, it's easier for the writers to craft a meaningful story if they have full control over it, never needing to present the players with a choice at all.

Zevox

Not if you look at it as a book or a movie. It IS pointless as a GAME though. Unless it's a LucasArts adventure game.

I promised myself after DAII to never pre-order a Bioware game again, and then I decided to pre-order ME3 (because, as Bioware themselves argue, "two different teams", right?). Until I see what they had to cave in and offer their fanbase ending-wise, I will not start the game. If it is not good enough, I will uninstall it and never play it (I have not started ME3 yet).

And I will never, ever, pre-order a Bioware game again. In fact I will never BUY a Bioware game unless several months has passed and the fan reaction as well as reviews from reviewers I trust are out in the open.

[Zevox]

Also, I am and old-school player (I will definitely order the new version of Baldur's Gate if it ever comes out); and that of course made me prefer DA:O's combat since it quite frankly felt more "right" to me; especially the pausing, tactical choices, overhead view and above all the auto attacking. I LOVE auto-attacking.

The only one of those that might not be in DA2 is the overhead view (it was never in the 360 version of either, so I can't say about the PC versions). Pausing, tactical choice, and auto attacking are all part of DA2.

Not if you look at it as a book or a movie. It IS pointless as a GAME though.

Not even remotely the case.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

The only one of those that might not be in DA2 is the overhead view (it was never in the 360 version of either, so I can't say about the PC versions). Pausing, tactical choice, and auto attacking are all part of DA2.

...

Not even remotely the case.

Zevox

Don't you mean "pausing", "tactical choice", and "AWEZUM" (I pressed a button) .

And yes, you are correct. But the feel was not there.

Regarding your second statement: It is just a matter of taste. A linear RPG is just a complex point and click adventure with combat. Unless LucasArts makes it, I am not interested. I read a book, instead. It's cheaper, too.

[Zevox]

Don't you mean "pausing" tactical choice, and "AWEZUM" (I pressed a button) .

And yes, you are correct. But the feel was not there.

Yes, of course, how silly of me. "Tactical" combat has to move at the pace of molasses flowing down a hilltop, so of course simply speeding it up completely changes the "feel" and renders it lesser for it.

Regarding your second statement: It is just a matter of taste. A linear RPG is just a complex point and click adventure with combat. Unless LucasArts makes it, I am not interested. I read a book, instead. It's cheaper, too.

And attempts at allowing video game players to influence their stories are a wasted effort at copying tabletop gaming that do nothing but inhibit the writers' ability to tell a cohesive story centered around a compelling, developed protagonist. But we've had this discussion before I believe, and I doubt it will get any further now than it has in the past.

Zevox

[Giggling Ghast]

Oh I so much agree with this. I never understood, after the serial killer thing (if not before that), why he didn't move back home? Kirkwall is not his home! He just happened to go there to escape the Blight!

He went north to escape the Blight, but Hawke also went to the Free Marches with the intention of establishing a life there. Because they were tired of being constantly on the run.

The SOLE REASON for Hawke to stay in Kirkwall is because of the love of his family and his quest to give them a better life. When Every. Single. Family member. Is. Dead. WHY IS HE STILL THERE???

Ferelden is no longer Hawke's home. Hawke even says so himself, provided you choose the appropriate dialogue options.

Whatever "home" Hawke had there was destroyed when the darkspawn flattened Lothering. Most of the people he knew growing up are now dead.

All his friends are in Kirkwall. His estate is there. How is going back to Ferelden going to make things better? Wouldn't it sort of cheapen the sacrifice of his sibling if Hawke just gave up the estate that they worked so hard to restore? Is returning there going to magically erase the pain Hawke feels over losing his family?

[Avilan the Grey]

He went north to escape the Blight, but Hawke also went to the Free Marches with the intention of establishing a life there.

Ferelden is no longer Hawke's home. Hawke even says so himself, provided you choose the appropriate dialogue options.

Whatever "home" Hawke had there was destroyed when the darkspawn flattened Lothering. Most of the people he knew growing up are dead.

All his friends are in Kirkwall. His estate is there. How is going back to Ferelden going to make things better? Wouldn't it sort of cheapen the sacrifice of his sibling if Hawke just gave up the estate that they worked so hard to restore? Is returning there to magically erase the pain Hawke feels over losing his/her mother?

But... I guess this is the main reason why this game doesn't work for me (all technical stuff and idiot balls aside). From the very beginning, the one thing drummed into you is that Hawke does all this for his family. And then the game takes away your family, leaving me, as a player, since I have invested a lot of emotion into Hawke and his family, with a big black hole of "I HAVE FAILED" two thirds into the game, making me feel like there is no point carrying on. Add to this all the other Epic Failures the game forces on Hawke (and me) and well.. screw you, Bioware.

[Kish]

Yeah, if DA3 covers the Mage-Templar war, I'm really looking forward to siding with the mages all the time in general.

Me too. I just hope the game acknowledges that's what I'm doing this time.

CULLEN: I trust you were here to defeat this conspiracy, not to join it.
HAWKE: Trust what you like, templar. You'd think I'd be the first person Trask would have approached if he wanted to start a conspiracy to overthrow Meredith, but everyone seems to think I spend half the time supporting her efforts to grind mages down.

[Yora]

Does anyone ever support the templars, unless you want to play an evil character?

It's a conflict that makes a lot more sense than most you'll see in RPGs, but it's still incredibly easy to chose which side is the right one.

[Kish]

Does anyone ever support the templars, unless you want to play an evil character?

I imagine Zousha does, based on him incorrectly paraphrasing the final confrontation between Meredith and Orsino as "Meredith tries to persuade you to kill all the mages, and Orsino tries to persuade you to kill all the templars" rather than "Meredith tries to persuade you to kill all the mages, and Orsino says, 'Wait! No! Please!'" and on some other things he's said. Beyond there, there seem to be a few people online who side with the templars without considering their characters evil. A surprising number of people on the Internet seem to take the position that the default reaction to a mage should be "drown or lobotomize at birth" and anything kinder than that is something mages should be pathetically grateful for.

--Still a very distinct minority, mind. My despair for humanity is not yet total.

[Divayth Fyr]

Does anyone ever support the templars, unless you want to play an evil character?

I imagine that it would be a good choice if you'd want to roleplay an "idiot" Hawke. A group of people that doesn't recognise a mage casting a ton of spells, wielding a magical staff and wearing robes seems to perfectly fit such a playstyle Extra points for Cullen saying "Mages are not people like you or me" to a mage Hawke.

[Beowulf DW]

oh... and about the lord seeker. Major spoiler again

Spoiler

Show

He dies in the end.

Spoiler

Show

They aren't very clear about that. He might be an abomination right now.

[Avilan the Grey]

Does anyone ever support the templars, unless you want to play an evil character?

It's a conflict that makes a lot more sense than most you'll see in RPGs, but it's still incredibly easy to chose which side is the right one.

I did it, after my sister died, Merrill forced an Idiot ball the size of Texas down my throat and Anders went well... Anders. If my sister hadn't died, I wouldn't have, but now I was just pissed and wanted to kill all mages...

(It doesn't help that Bioware made sure that every. single. mage. you meet in the game except your sister is an abomination and / or blood mage. In other words they deserve to die).

[Beowulf DW]

I did it, after my sister died, Merrill forced an Idiot ball the size of Texas down my throat and Anders went well... Anders. If my sister hadn't died, I wouldn't have, but now I was just pissed and wanted to kill all mages...

(It doesn't help that Bioware made sure that every. single. mage. you meet in the game except your sister is an abomination and / or blood mage. In other words they deserve to die).

I think that the high concentration of blood mages and abominations was necessary to make the issue a bit more gray. Otherwise, the Templars would be very much in the wrong for persecuting people due to accidents of birth.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think that the high concentration of blood mages and abominations was necessary to make the issue a bit more gray. Otherwise, the Templars would be very much in the wrong for persecuting people due to accidents of birth.

(Edited response)
Yes but they pushed it too far. Instead of having an Off-White vs Grey (which they tried to avoid) and aiming for Grey vs Gray, they got Gray vs Black.

Even if I play it again, as a mage, I will side with the Templars because well... Strawman Has a Point. and Alternative Character Interpretation (among other tropes) If I had not played the first game, it wouldn't even be a question: taken at face value it is bleeding obvious that every single mage deserves death. Period. Only if you have the experience of playing DA:O you know that there are actually non-idiotic, non-evil mages out there. Somewhere.
(Incidentally, this is also why I never had Merrill in my group; having played DA:O made me instantly dislike and distrust her, since she is a blood mage).

[Craft (Cheese)]

(It doesn't help that Bioware made sure that every. single. mage. you meet in the game except your sister is an abomination and / or blood mage. In other words they deserve to die).

What's wrong with blood mages?

[Dienekes]

What's wrong with blood mages?

Well, in general, they all go bad or inadvertently unlock demons. But I suppose that could be argued. But I have a reason to hate Merrill.

You get Loyalty points for killing her entire clan. Just that sentence makes me hate her and never want to use her.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, in general, they all go bad or inadvertently unlock demons. But I suppose that could be argued. But I have a reason to hate Merrill.

You get Loyalty points for killing her entire clan. Just that sentence makes me hate her and never want to use her.

I wish you could just ram a knife in her back right there and say "no need to be angry, here is her head!" and walk away.

Or even better, just refuse her to join you in the first place at the beginning of the game.