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

[Beowulf DW]

So if they'll genuinely do go back to that approach and make a fantastic game this time around, you'll punish them for it to teach them a lesson because of past games?

Essentially telling them not to make the sort of games you do want?

Showing a game company that they did not make the game you wanted by not making a purchase I definantely support as a policy. It is a luxuryproduct and as such one should only get the ones one want. But that approach only works on the current game. Punishing them retroactively won't work... at worst it'll actually inform them that their "lesser" games are more succesful.

I never said that I wouldn't buy the game, I said that I wouldn't buy it right away. I intend to wait and see what people are saying about it.

Also, I'm not trying to punish anyone. I'm simply making a statement that Bioware has lost my trust.

You can jump back from those conclusions, now.

Agreed. ME2 is better than ME1 in everything but story.

Going to have to disagree with you there. I preferred ME's gameplay to ME2's. ME3's gameplay was damn near perfect, though.

[Aux-Ash]

I never said that I wouldn't buy the game, I said that I wouldn't buy it right away. I intend to wait and see what people are saying about it.

Also, I'm not trying to punish anyone. I'm simply making a statement that Bioware has lost my trust.

You can jump back from those conclusions, now.

My apologies, I misinterpreted your statement

Waiting and seeing is a very sound principle

[Zevox]

I did with DA2 and ME3, and it still wasn't worth it.

Was plenty worth it for me.

Really, the only truly big complaints I have with Bioware's recent work are:

1) DA2 was rushed, resulting in far too many bugs at release, and the reuse of maps for side-areas.

2) ME3's ending.

The former is clearly not happening with DA3, as it has already been in development longer than DA2 was, and we only just got official confirmation of its existence. The latter is such an outlier in Bioware's work that I can't see as anything but a one-off mistake.

As for the combat: There ARE substantial differences. It is faster, bloodier, more over the top ridiculous.

Being faster was an improvement, given DA:O's plodding pace of attacks was one of its flaws. The other two are aesthetic, not gameplay-related.

Plus "waves of enemies because the Xbox can't handle all at once".

I'm playing the console versions anyway, so that was always the case for me. Can't say I see how it's a problem either, aside from an area or two where they probably did one wave too many.

Agreed. ME2 is better than ME1 in everything but story.

I'd say it's better in every way, including story. ME1 had nothing on ME2's companions and loyalty quests.

Actually, ME1 just isn't one of Bioware's best games in general in my opinion. It's good, as all of their work has been, but I'd say it's inferior to everything they've done but Jade Empire (which I'd put roughly on par with it), Neverwinter Nights (judging by single-player, I never touched multi), and Sonic Chronicles (which I still like, but is probably their weakest work, barring maybe NWN). Well, and maybe things they made before KotOR - I haven't played any of those, so I can't say there.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Was plenty worth it for me.

Really, the only truly big complaints I have with Bioware's recent work are:

1) DA2 was rushed, resulting in far too many bugs at release, and the reuse of maps for side-areas.

2) ME3's ending.

The former is clearly not happening with DA3, as it has already been in development longer than DA2 was, and we only just got official confirmation of its existence. The latter is such an outlier in Bioware's work that I can't see as anything but a one-off mistake.


Being faster was an improvement, given DA:O's plodding pace of attacks was one of its flaws. The other two are aesthetic, not gameplay-related.


I'm playing the console versions anyway, so that was always the case for me. Can't say I see how it's a problem either, aside from an area or two where they probably did one wave too many.


I'd say it's better in every way, including story. ME1 had nothing on ME2's companions and loyalty quests.

Actually, ME1 just isn't one of Bioware's best games in general in my opinion. It's good, as all of their work has been, but I'd say it's inferior to everything they've done but Jade Empire (which I'd put roughly on par with it), Neverwinter Nights (judging by single-player, I never touched multi), and Sonic Chronicles (which I still like, but is probably their weakest work, barring maybe NWN). Well, and maybe things they made before KotOR - I haven't played any of those, so I can't say there.

Zevox

For me the problems with DA2 were many; so many in fact that the re-used dungeons doesn't even fit on the list. What finally made me put the game down forever was not the technical stuff but the writing. The game, simply put, only makes me angry and depressed, and since I do not enjoy being angry and depressed, I won't play it. Since the game is basically completely railroaded, only offers faux choices and goes out of the way to make everything Hawke tries to do, at every turn, end up badly.

As someone on TV tropes forums put it: The game is about choosing to support Terrorists or Nazis. No third options. Oh and three companions are decent, the rest vary from fanatical betraying terrorists to idiot-ball-carrying douches. Now have fun...!

I have not even started ME3 yet, although I have watched 2 or 3 complete playthroughs on Youtube. I still have two characters to finish ME2 with before continuing, to begin with. After that I MIGHT play the game, but I will probably wait until all DLCs are released (so another 2 years).

ME1 is a good game. The story is above decent but it really shines in two aspects: A great example of a fully voiced game AND the SETTING is great. The gameplay is not.

[Dienekes]

I'm playing the console versions anyway, so that was always the case for me. Can't say I see how it's a problem either, aside from an area or two where they probably did one wave too many.

Yep cause it's fun fun fun playing every battle three times in a row!

That said, DA2 improved some things and was flat out worse at others than DAO.

Combat speed was improved, vastly. Replacing spell combos with multi-class combos was inspired from a gameplay standpoint, making interesting tactics not be solely reliant on mages. Also the style of it being narrated by Varric allowed some fun details that were in my opinion inspired like starting the game super powered and Varric's one man army scene. The concept of the game I also thought was better. We've saved the world plenty of times in video games, but watching one city grow and develop as a result of your direct actions is a creative idea.

Unfortunately the growth didn't really happen, outside of not being allowed to go into some doors some times Kirkwall looked pretty much the same no matter what or when. And while there should be a lot of things to discover in this specific city it did not have all those hidden little details and sidequests that DAO had that were so exciting to see, reusing the same maps directly reinforced the lack of wonder at the game. Encounter design was horrible, as I already touched upon earlier. The plot was, to be honest rather subpar. I like focusing on smaller stories so long as the stories are good, but the game left too much to just happen, and gave you choices that ultimately don't mean anything. Now DAO did this as well, technically in game it didn't matter if you picked Balon or Harrowmont but it felt like there was a difference. In DA2 it didn't matter if you picked Orsino or Meredith, no matter what O goes insane (for no reason it can seem) and then you fight Meredith who also goes insane (at least this one had some build up to it). Part of what makes Bioware games fun for me (I know you disagree Zevox) is player agency. Bioware gives a lot of that to their players and it's what keeps me coming back. DA2 had about the least player agency of any Bioware game I have ever played, and that was coming off of DAO which had the most. Take Redcliffe there were about 5 ways to complete that mission, I don't think DA2 had a single mission with those kind of options and I really missed that.

[Avilan the Grey]

Stuff

I agree with 99% percent of this. I LIKE the slow tactical combat; I still view the BG games as the ultimate RPG combat experience for me. Other than that... I agree with EVERYTHING.

[Craft (Cheese)]

For me the problems with DA2 were many; so many in fact that the re-used dungeons doesn't even fit on the list. What finally made me put the game down forever was not the technical stuff but the writing. The game, simply put, only makes me angry and depressed, and since I do not enjoy being angry and depressed, I won't play it. Since the game is basically completely railroaded, only offers faux choices and goes out of the way to make everything Hawke tries to do, at every turn, end up badly.

I mostly agree with this, but I should clarify: A game with a depressing storyline where everything goes wrong can still be engaging and well-written. DA2's narrative problem is not that it's depressing, but because of the inconsistency of tone: Hawke is set up constantly as being this invincible, one-person-army badass who can do anything with both hands tied behind her back, and yet she's completely powerless to solve any of the problems that actually matter. Your invincible badassery is always established with relatively inconsequential stuff.

It's not even like they take advantage of this by establishing a theme of how an individual, no matter how competent, can't take on the entire world by themselves. But they don't even do that, the game is a standard "Run in and kill the big nasty bad guys" thing that decided True Art is Dark and threw in some "dramatic moments" the player is powerless to even attempt to prevent.

[Avilan the Grey]

I mostly agree with this, but I should clarify: A game with a depressing storyline where everything goes wrong can still be engaging and well-written. DA2's narrative problem is not that it's depressing, but because of the inconsistency of tone: Hawke is set up constantly as being this invincible, one-person-army badass who can do anything with both hands tied behind her back, and yet she's completely powerless to solve any of the problems that actually matter. Your invincible badassery is always established with relatively inconsequential stuff.

It's not even like they take advantage of this by establishing a theme of how an individual, no matter how competent, can't take on the entire world by themselves. But they don't even do that, the game is a standard "Run in and kill the big nasty bad guys" thing that decided True Art is Dark and threw in some "dramatic moments" the player is powerless to even attempt to prevent.

I agree. I have said it before and I say it again: I LOVE that they took risks and tried new stuff with DA2. Unfortunately Bioware do not have writers good enough to pull off what they tried.

The fact that (which is on purpose, and not lack of skill btw) the game is TOO gray and grey. It is borderline black and black. And it's biggest flaw is that you are trapped in this tar pit through the entire game and can't do anything about it.

Maybe it is better if you don't roleplay as much as I tend to do. The fact that my Hawke's sole motivation was to save his family, no matter what, and failed completely (brother killed by ogre. Sister killed in the deep roads. Mother killed by mass murderer freak)... That is where I stopped playing the game: When I found out (by Google) that there is no way of saving your mother, I just rage-quitted and never went back. I know of the rest of the games by forums, wikis and let's plays.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Also, I'm going to put on my crazy flamewar-starting hat and say this: I didn't like the combat in either DAO or DA2.

- Due to how the spell/talent point system works, you start out the game with too few abilities for combat to be interesting and end the game with way too many.

- The attribute system has no choices. DA2 sortof makes it more tolerable to a degree, but the flaw is with attribute systems as a whole that no implementation can truly fix. There's always a mathematically optimal stat point distribution for any given build, and doing anything else is strictly worse. Your choice is between builds, not the (theoretically) 6^3 choices each level. Allocating the stat points yourself instead of looking it up on the internet is just a beginner's trap.

- The requirement system (both previous abilities in the tree and level/points spent requirements) means the system is deceptively restrictive: The number of possible choices at each level is surprisingly low. You want Blizzard? Too bad! Come back in a few levels. Toss your point into a spell/talent you don't want instead. Nothing makes a level-up more unsatisfying.

- The combat is not even particularly tactical. With friendly fire on it becomes boring micromanagement because your companions will commit suicide by attacking each other unless you do all their commands manually. With friendly fire off it becomes a boring snoozefest where you sit there and use normal attacks while you wait for one of your spells/talents to refresh (also, I hate cooldowns). It's not even like resource management matters past the start of the game; you get so much mana you can basically cast for free.

- It's just... such a friggin slog. It uses enemy types long after they've ceased to be interesting (and many enemies like the plain human ones were never interesting in the first place), leaving only the bosses which are either stupidly easy (Loghain, the Arishok) or have a really, really dumb gimmick that just makes them take forever (Meredith, that spirit forge thing). The deep roads in DAO especially has the problem of making you walk down a hallway and just slaughter genlocks over and over and over again with absolutely nothing happening in between. In both games I eventually just started spamming the killallhostiles cheat command to skip most battles so I could get back to the plot already.

[Avilan the Grey]

Also, I'm going to put on my crazy flamewar-starting hat and say this: I didn't like the combat in either DAO or DA2.

Hey I prefer to go full out one way or the other. Either the D3 route (or ME2). Or the Fallout / BG route. DA:O is closer to the latter, while DA2 is... caught in the middle.

[Zevox]

For me the problems with DA2 were many; so many in fact that the re-used dungeons doesn't even fit on the list. What finally made me put the game down forever was not the technical stuff but the writing. The game, simply put, only makes me angry and depressed, and since I do not enjoy being angry and depressed, I won't play it.

*shrugs* If that's your personal preference, that's fine. For me, that's not the case at all. As long as a game can make me care about the characters involved, it can be as depressing, uplifting, or anywhere in between as it wants. And DA2 certainly made me care about the characters - Hawke aside, obviously.

As someone on TV tropes forums put it: The game is about choosing to support Terrorists or Nazis.

Only if you're deliberately grossly oversimplifying it for the express purpose of mocking it. There is exactly one mage in the game that could be termed a terrorist, Anders, and him not until his big moment near the end - and since he has a perfectly understandable reason for doing what he does which grows out of his character development presented in the game, that's perfectly fine. And to compare the Templars to Nazis is equally a false equivalent, though I think if we try to discuss that we'll run into forum rules issues, given that usually happens when discussions of Nazis come up.

ME1 is a good game. The story is above decent but it really shines in two aspects: A great example of a fully voiced game AND the SETTING is great. The gameplay is not.

I agree. I just don't think that those things make it one of Bioware's better works - it's merely good, not great.

Yep cause it's fun fun fun playing every battle three times in a row!

If the successive waves were spawning the same enemies as the first in the same positions as the first, that would be an accurate criticism. But that's never what happens.

Though I'm sure we're also running into personal taste issues here. I am, after all, someone who has never felt any need to criticize a game for being "grindy" or anything of that sort.

And while there should be a lot of things to discover in this specific city it did not have all those hidden little details and sidequests that DAO had that were so exciting to see,

DA2 had plenty of side-quests, most of which formed stories which were continued in each time period. DA:O had a lot of side-quests which were light on story and largely there to earn xp and money - see just about everything from the notice boards and their equivalents. I'm not sure where you get that comparison from, given that.

As for the matter of "choice" or "player agency" in the story, I'm sure you both recall where I stand on that (as Dienekes explicitly acknowledged). I only wish I could take DA2 as indicative of Bioware's future direction on that matter, but I'm pretty sure we all know it was more likely another result of the game's rushed development.

I LIKE the slow tactical combat

I don't see how being slower makes DA:O's combat any more tactical than DA2's. The mechanics are essentially the same, and you still have the option to pause and issue orders in DA2, just as in DA:O.

Really, when it comes to the speed, I see it as simply this: if you're going to do the combat in real-time, it needs to move fairly quickly, otherwise it gets dull. If you want slower combat, go for a turn-based system. Trying to do real-time but slow just gives up the advantages of either alternative.

I mostly agree with this, but I should clarify: A game with a depressing storyline where everything goes wrong can still be engaging and well-written. DA2's narrative problem is not that it's depressing, but because of the inconsistency of tone: Hawke is set up constantly as being this invincible, one-person-army badass who can do anything with both hands tied behind her back, and yet she's completely powerless to solve any of the problems that actually matter. Your invincible badassery is always established with relatively inconsequential stuff.

Perhaps I'm just a cynic on this matter (I certainly am on plenty of others), but I write off such setup of the main character as an inherent part of Bioware's approach to their main characters, and something better off totally ignored. The main character is never the worthwhile part of a Bioware game for me - everyone else is.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Only if you're deliberately grossly oversimplifying it for the express purpose of mocking it. There is exactly one mage in the game that could be termed a terrorist, Anders, and him not until his big moment near the end - and since he has a perfectly understandable reason for doing what he does which grows out of his character development presented in the game, that's perfectly fine. And to compare the Templars to Nazis is equally a false equivalent, though I think if we try to discuss that we'll run into forum rules issues, given that usually happens when discussions of Nazis come up.

--

As for the matter of "choice" or "player agency" in the story, I'm sure you both recall where I stand on that (as Dienekes explicitly acknowledged). I only wish I could take DA2 as indicative of Bioware's future direction on that matter, but I'm pretty sure we all know it was more likely another result of the game's rushed development.

---

I don't see how being slower makes DA:O's combat any more tactical than DA2's. The mechanics are essentially the same, and you still have the option to pause and issue orders in DA2, just as in DA:O.

Really, when it comes to the speed, I see it as simply this: if you're going to do the combat in real-time, it needs to move fairly quickly, otherwise it gets dull. If you want slower combat, go for a turn-based system. Trying to do real-time but slow just gives up the advantages of either alternative.

Zevox

About the two major factions: Oh it's an oversimplification of course. The point is that the mages in the game are very very badly written in general. Apart from the fact that the head Enchanter actually helped killing your mother, to Anders, to every. single. mage. you find out on the streets or in the wild are abominations or at least blood mages...
I guess the fact that DA:O simply portrays the differences between the circles and the templars much better, much more interesting and much more engaging, despite it not even being the focus of the game screwed me up, since I simply expected the same debt in the writing of the two factions in DA2.
Basically, by the end of it, they DESERVE being mocked and so do the writers for writing it as they did.

Quite frankly, this is where I curse CRPGs: had this been a pen and paper adventure, I (my Hawke) would have sailed back to Ferelden after my sister died anyway. At the latest. Just like my Hawke, had I been able to make the choice, would have either break the mirror beyond repair or as a last resort kill Merrill to prevent the tragedy in her questline. But alas, we are stuck with the trainwreck that as written.

As for the combat. In DA:O, like in BG and BG2, I pause the game at LEAST every three seconds. It's just how I play. Besides, as I said, I find the "gore stuff (most laughable is cutting a full grown man in two with a dagger!) in DA2 so over the top it broke my suspension of disbelief.

Edit: I have to say it again... I absolutely adore Bioware for daring to do such a different game in scope and story, but I consider it almost a complete failure except in the writing of 3 of the characters.

[Zevox]

About the two major factions: Oh it's an oversimplification of course. The point is that the mages in the game are very very badly written in general. Apart from the fact that the head Enchanter actually helped killing your mother, to Anders, to every. single. mage. you find out on the streets or in the wild are abominations or at least blood mages...

Then explain the half-Elven boy. Or Bethany. Or Merril. Or the escaped Mage you track to the tavern in act 3. Or the mages you help in Anders' companion quest in act 2. Or Marethari.

Really, that criticism grows out of nothing more than the increased use of mages as enemies in DA2, which is likely precisely because of the Mage-Templar conflict being central to it (there's an increased use of Templars as enemies compared to Origins too, after all), and the tendency to make enemy mages blood mages (which is present in both games).

In general, I simply do not agree that mages were poorly written in DA2, nor that DA:O portrays the conflict better. The difference is that tensions between the two factions are worse in Kirkwall than in Ferelden - the Templars are more oppressive and the mages more desperate right from the start, and it only gets worse. Naturally, this leads to more trouble and less peaceful co-existence on both sides, eventually leading the third act of the game to play out as it does.

The only real issue I take with the game in this area is that Orsino should not have gone wild on you in the finale if you sided with the mages. That one doesn't make sense from that perspective. Beyond that, I say "well done, Bioware."

As for the combat. In DA:O, like in BG and BG2, I pause the game at LEAST every three seconds. It's just how I play.

And you can do that in DA2, as well. So I'm not seeing the issue.

Also, as I said before, I agree that the bloodiness of the games - both of them - is over-the-top and should be toned down. That type of thing works in games designed for it (Mortal Kombat, MadWorld), but the Dragon Age titles are not those types of games. But I put up with it, considering how good they are.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Then explain the half-Elven boy. Or Bethany. Or Merril. Or the escaped Mage you track to the tavern in act 3. Or the mages you help in Anders' companion quest in act 2. Or Marethari.

Really, that criticism grows out of nothing more than the increased use of mages as enemies in DA2, which is likely precisely because of the Mage-Templar conflict being central to it (there's an increased use of Templars as enemies compared to Origins too, after all), and the tendency to make enemy mages blood mages (which is present in both games).

In general, I simply do not agree that mages were poorly written in DA2, nor that DA:O portrays the conflict better. The difference is that tensions between the two factions are worse in Kirkwall than in Ferelden - the Templars are more oppressive and the mages more desperate right from the start, and it only gets worse. Naturally, this leads to more trouble and less peaceful co-existence on both sides, eventually leading the third act of the game to play out as it does.

The only real issue I take with the game in this area is that Orsino should not have gone wild on you in the finale if you sided with the mages. That one doesn't make sense from that perspective. Beyond that, I say "well done, Bioware."

Merrill IS a blood mage. My Hawke never trusted her. Bethany was the best character in the game, IMHO, followed by Mr Exposition.

I just don't agree... The whole "who to support" thing gets ruined fairly quickly because they push all these abominations on you all the time. Basically, you have to do a story and gameplay separation in your head or you would never side with the mages, period, simply because the game, by utilizing these enemies and idiot-ball confrontations, does a show-and-tell that proves that all mages should be purged at birth, just to be sure (it doesn't matter if you try to help them, or talk to them, they "all" (99% of them) attack and use blood magic or turn into abominations after you have talked to them, or during, or attack you on sight).

The ONLY reason my Hawke stuck with siding with the mages (until my rage quit) was because Bethany was a mage.

Basically, to sum it up neatly, when playing DA2 I feel it like the writers are standing behind my back pointing and laughing at me: "Haha he tries to make a difference! How stupid and naive he is! Oh look! eveything he worked for went down the drain...! hahaha!!!"/

[Craft (Cheese)]

Perhaps I'm just a cynic on this matter (I certainly am on plenty of others), but I write off such setup of the main character as an inherent part of Bioware's approach to their main characters, and something better off totally ignored. The main character is never the worthwhile part of a Bioware game for me - everyone else is.

This sort of view would be fine... if this were a traditional Bioware narrative. Hawke is certainly not a blank slate and she's certainly not simply an avatar of the player. The entire narrative revolves around Hawke's personal story; Her "rise to power" as the game's promotional materials so often advertise. The 3 acts (the deep roads expedition, the qunari crisis, and the start of the mage-templar war), the story of Hawke's family (which I would argue is the real main plot of DA2, and not the 3 acts), and even the companions are all framed in their relationship to her. Flaws in Hawke's character arc are flaws in DA2's narrative as a whole, because she is Dragon Age 2.

That Hawke's character simply does not work as a protagonist is a fatal flaw that cannot be ignored.

[Zevox]

Merrill IS a blood mage.

And I believe we've had entire conversations on exactly how much, or little, of a problem that is, no?

I also note you have nothing to say about the other four I listed besides her and Bethany.

I just don't agree... The whole "who to support" thing gets ruined fairly quickly because they push all these abominations on you all the time. Basically, you have to do a story and gameplay separation in your head or you would never side with the mages, period, simply because the game, by utilizing these enemies and idiot-ball confrontations, does a show-and-tell that proves that all mages should be purged at birth, just to be sure (it doesn't matter if you try to help them, or talk to them, they "all" (99% of them) attack and use blood magic or turn into abominations after you have talked to them, or during, or attack you on sight).

Quite frankly I think that's so much of an overreaction that I'm not sure what I could possibly say to affect your thoughts on the matter. I'm also not sure why you take issue with gameplay/story separation here, either.

This sort of view would be fine... if this were a traditional Bioware narrative. Hawke is certainly not a blank slate and she's certainly not simply an avatar of the player.

Um, yes she is. She's a character without any pre-set personality traits whose dialogue is controlled by the player, just like every other Bioware protagonist. She has slightly more backstory because her family history is actually relevant to how she becomes entangled in the game's events, unlike in most Bioware games, but that's it.

Flaws in Hawke's character arc are flaws in DA2's narrative as a whole, because she is Dragon Age 2.

Quite the contrary - heck, haven't we here discussed before how little difference Hawke ultimately makes in the game's story? How characters like Anders, Meredith, and Orsino ultimately matter far more than Hawke?

Hawke's one big personal accomplishment is the defeat of the Arishok, and that happens regardless of her character.

Zevox

[Craft (Cheese)]

Um, yes she is. She's a character without any pre-set personality traits whose dialogue is controlled by the player, just like every other Bioware protagonist. She has slightly more backstory because her family history is actually relevant to how she becomes entangled in the game's events, unlike in most Bioware games, but that's it.

Just because you can choose her dialogue doesn't mean she has no personality. Pinning down exactly what Hawke is with the range of various responses and reactions the player can choose for her is kinda hard, but we can definitely pin down a lot of things that Hawke isn't. That's enough to make her a defined character, IMO.

Quite the contrary - heck, haven't we here discussed before how little difference Hawke ultimately makes in the game's story? How characters like Anders, Meredith, and Orsino ultimately matter far more than Hawke?

...and that's precisely the problem. The narrative is built up around Hawke, but all of Hawke's actions are ultimately irrelevant. She's a nameless mook in her own action movie.

[Zevox]

Just because you can choose her dialogue doesn't mean she has no personality. Pinning down exactly what Hawke is with the range of various responses and reactions the player can choose for her is kinda hard, but we can definitely pin down a lot of things that Hawke isn't. That's enough to make her a defined character, IMO.

That's not nearly enough to make her a defined character from where I'm sitting. A defined character needs to have definite characteristics, personality traits, motivations, desires, and so forth, which in turn inform their actions. Hawke does not. She is no more a defined character than any other Bioware protagonist.

...and that's precisely the problem. The narrative is built up around Hawke, but all of Hawke's actions are ultimately irrelevant. She's a nameless mook in her own action movie.

That's not a problem at all - it's part of why I like DA2 more than most other Bioware games. The events of the story don't fully revolve around Hawke's actions, the other characters have lives and take actions independent of Hawke's. Anders' actions provoking the Mage-Templar war are not dependent on Hawke's say-so even though he's a party member, the Arishok's wrath cannot be diffused because our undefined non-character is just that awesome a negotiator. When the blank slate is less central to the story, that's an improvement from where I'm sitting.

Zevox

[VanBuren]

The game actually drops a few hints that the mages in Kirkwall really do go bad more often than in other places. The Enigma of Kirkwall codex entries imply that the city's very design--coupled with some ancient sacrifices--has made the veil pretty much paper-thin, so mages can end up learning Blood Magic almost by accident.

Also, you've got one of the first Darkspawn sealed under the damn place.

[Aux-Ash]

Personally I agree with Zevox, that one of the greater quirks of DA2's story is the fact that not every event revolves around Hawke. While some things are greatly affected by what Hawke does, there's simply too many wills involved for it to end according to one wish. In that sense, the story told might actually be more realistic than most (whether that is a good or bad thing I guess is up to personal taste).

However, I do feel it could have usde a lot more to be really good. For one, more player agency in at the very least the side quests. Feynriel's plotline is excellent and a great example of what all minor questlines should have been. Engaging, wildly divergent based on what you do and how you approach things and spread out over the acts.
The Bone Pit is just a wasted opportunity, they should have let us steer it's developments over the acts rather than just protect it. Destroying it at the end just for a dragon fight (bleh) was just poor. Magistrate's son goes nowhere when it should and a couple more.
When the main quest contains so little (though there are more than it would seem at a glance) the sidequests should have compensated with more, methinks.

I also feel that the story told needed at least one more chapters and a different focus for the last one. It needed a chapter in Gwaren that ends with arrival in Kirkwall to hammer in how difficult it was getting there. We should have been allowed to engage ourselves in the extremely difficult job of ensuring passage. The last chapter should have focused on ascending to the seat of the viscount, essentially discussing what kind of ruler you would be through the methods of acquiring the throne. It's also the perfect set-up for the endgame as well, since the viscount definantely would have reason to attend the troubles personally.

But reagardless, DA2 is quite railroaded. But I feel the story as told takes this into account and is more about the journey and what you experience as you go along than it is about the end result. And viewed like that, the story and the game is actually pretty decent (even if it got some glaring flaws).

[Avilan the Grey]

Quite frankly I think that's so much of an overreaction that I'm not sure what I could possibly say to affect your thoughts on the matter. I'm also not sure why you take issue with gameplay/story separation here, either.

Because it flies in the face of everything DA:O taught me.

It is not an overreaction, it truly bothered me that in Kirkwall the (evil) blood mages outnumber the normal mages at least 5 to 1, if not more.
As I said, IMHO the whole conflict between Mages and the Chantry IS much better depicted in the first game.

As for the gameplay / story separation moments... I don't like them. A good game should show what it tells.

That's not a problem at all - it's part of why I like DA2 more than most other Bioware games. The events of the story don't fully revolve around Hawke's action

And this is a matter of taste, of course. The way it was done, however do not work for the majority of players; it is one of the complaints that Bioware officially have said they agree with and will change in DA3: Your choices should matter much more in the end.

For many of us, the lack of ability to affect the story is rendering playing the game pointless. Why give the illusion of choice when there is none? Why not just make a diablo clone with more dialog then?

[Beowulf DW]

Just to respond to a few things that have been brought up:

Zevox, I've noticed that you take a different approach to "blank slate" characters than I do. I like to roleplay a bit with such characters, as do most of my friends when they play video games of that sort. For example, in ME I wanted my Shepard to be based loosely on Captain Piccard (a friend of mine is playing his Shepard like a Commissar from Warhammer). That is to say, he was respectful of sentient life and tried to resolve things with as little bloodshed as possible, but he wasn't afraid to get angry and slap people around when they deserved it. My Hawke was a bit of a smart-ass, but only as a way to cope with the screwed up events of his life. He got serious when the situation called for it. Due to this approach, it's difficult for me to think of the blank-slate characters I play as blank-slates, because I take those slates and carve what I want into them.

Oh and about some of the dark, magical goings-on in Kirkwall and throughout Thedas. Did anyone else see that Codex entry mentioning the Forbidden Ones? Apparently, they were the ones who gave blood magic to humans in the first place. Gaxkang the Unbound (a boss from DA:O) was mentioned as one of them. I haven't found all the entries for "The Enigma of Kirkwall" but I still get the feeling that there's something very sinister at work in Thedas.

[Avilan the Grey]

Zevox, I've noticed that you take a different approach to "blank slate" characters than I do. I like to roleplay a bit with such characters, as do most of my friends when they play video games of that sort. For example, in ME I wanted my Shepard to be based loosely on Captain Piccard (a friend of mine is playing his Shepard like a Commissar from Warhammer). That is to say, he was respectful of sentient life and tried to resolve things with as little bloodshed as possible, but he wasn't afraid to get angry and slap people around when they deserved it. My Hawke was a bit of a smart-ass, but only as a way to cope with the screwed up events of his life. He got serious when the situation called for it. Due to this approach, it's difficult for me to think of the blank-slate characters I play as blank-slates, because I take those slates and carve what I want into them.

I think this is exactly how a majority of players play WRPGs, which are traditionally blank-slate to begin with.

[Morty]

I like the concept of a story that does not revolve around the protagonist, who's just the right person at the right time in the right place. However, it needs to be done well, or it gives the impression of the character not having any actual reason to care other than the story declaring s/he has to. It might also give the impression of the player not having any real effect on the story. I have no idea how DA2 handles it, of course.

[Zevox]

As for the gameplay / story separation moments... I don't like them. A good game should show what it tells.

And yet that is not always possible. Gameplay cannot always account for everything that can occur in a story, and vice-versa. The concept of gameplay/story separation is an essential ones for video games in general, simply to make them work.

And this is a matter of taste, of course. The way it was done, however do not work for the majority of players; it is one of the complaints that Bioware officially have said they agree with and will change in DA3: Your choices should matter much more in the end.

A pity, I think, but as I said earlier, I think we all knew that would be the case, because the lack of that in DA2 is most likely due to it having been rushed out the door in barely over a year, not due to Bioware actually changing their MO.

For many of us, the lack of ability to affect the story is rendering playing the game pointless. Why give the illusion of choice when there is none?

Actual answer: as mentioned above, most likely because the game was rushed, and that was one victim of that. Ironic that this should be a plus for me, I suppose.

My personal answer: don't. Simple as that.

Just to respond to a few things that have been brought up:

Zevox, I've noticed that you take a different approach to "blank slate" characters than I do. I like to roleplay a bit with such characters, as do most of my friends when they play video games of that sort. For example, in ME I wanted my Shepard to be based loosely on Captain Piccard (a friend of mine is playing his Shepard like a Commissar from Warhammer). That is to say, he was respectful of sentient life and tried to resolve things with as little bloodshed as possible, but he wasn't afraid to get angry and slap people around when they deserved it. My Hawke was a bit of a smart-ass, but only as a way to cope with the screwed up events of his life. He got serious when the situation called for it. Due to this approach, it's difficult for me to think of the blank-slate characters I play as blank-slates, because I take those slates and carve what I want into them.

That's the way it's intended, of course. For me though, it just comes across as a character that isn't really a character, yet is put into an important position in the story anyway. I want the game to tell a good story centered around interesting and/or enjoyable characters, not pretend that I'm in control of the story when it's impossible by the very nature of the medium for that to be the case. I see attempting to emulate tabletop RPGs in video game ones in that manner as a waste of time which merely holds the stories back.

Zevox

[Morty]

I ended up going ahead and starting a new Dragon Age: Origins run. It remains to be seen whether I'll finish it. Now I need to decide which specializations I pick for my City Elf Warrior. One of them will probably be Champion, but I'm not sure whether I want Templar or Berserker in the other slot (I never unlocked Reaver).

[Zevox]

I ended up going ahead and starting a new Dragon Age: Origins run. It remains to be seen whether I'll finish it. Now I need to decide which specializations I pick for my City Elf Warrior. One of them will probably be Champion, but I'm not sure whether I want Templar or Berserker in the other slot (I never unlocked Reaver).

I'd go Berserker myself. Templar abilities in Origins always seemed much more situational and less useful than the other three specializations.

Zevox

[Morty]

That's true, yes. Righteous Strike is too slow, Holy Smite isn't very impressive and Mental Fortress is relatively minor. Cleanse Area is nice, though. Berserker it is, then. Poor Templars, though. Not only are they portrayed as nincompoops pretty consistently, but their abilities aren't very useful for doing their job either.

[Giggling Ghast]

Templars finally got a big boost in Dragon Age 2, as their abilities can shut down a mage quite effectively. I remember the fight against Danarius in Act 3 being pathetically easy because he literally could not get off a spell before my Templar/Reaver Warrior Hawke shut him down every time.

[Morty]

So I've seen. I read the description on the DA wiki. I'll probably spec as Templar if I play DA2.
Meanwhile, I'm replaying Origins with a City Elf Warrior. I've got fairly far, but I keep being mildly annoyed that before you find all the juicy late-game sets, your characters will wear really patchwork armor. Sten, for instance, is wearing Veridium plate, Redsteel gauntlets, steel chain boots and Executioner's Helm. I couldn't find anything that'd resemble a complete set. At least my Warden is wearing a modded-in good-looking set of chainmail. Same goes for weapons, really. I like some symmetry, and wielding the Green Blade and Aodh isn't very symmetrical.