Hydro14 said:
I feel I need to make a comment here. Firstly, dont do this a forum is not the place to post a dissertation unless your entire topic is about it (even then its not the best idea). You took a uni course and want to practice, fine. Blogs are an excellent place for that. The idea behind a forum is to convey an idea in a short and precise manner. This becomes exceptionally bad if you cant explain a point without referencing an idea field of narratology. If your going to do that ATLEASt break it down into a single sentence explanation Ergodic Literature: Literature you need to work to read, usually because its non-linear i.e. Video Games. Done, I dont have to perform my own reasearch to read a forum post and any more complicated explanation of the term is irrelevent (looking at what you wrote its irrelevent to bring up anyway). Buuuut having said that you want that kind of discussion so I'll try and give it to you, though it seems you really want something a forum isn't designed to give you.
(Please dont argue this point either just say im wrong and dont take the advice or take it and move on)
You also (though its very clear its not just you) fail to fully comprehend how human arguements are even formed. The vast majority of people who make a comment about a video game are not going to performed extended analysis of why they did not like some but rather jump on top of the first thing that they feel relate to the problem and claim that it itself IS the problem. Hence comments of 'the combat sucked' or 'the story didn't make sense'. They recognise as a far as the context of the problem but not the problem itself. Thats why you get such support of things like Red Letter Media or Tasteful Understated Nerdrage, these people are able to verbalise their thoughts and explain the root causes of the problem.
To follow your concept, Mass Effect's ending didnt make sense but then again neither did much of the series to begin with. The point is the plot holes are there but they aren't the problem, they are simply a symptom of the problem: narrative dissonance (Go watch that im not going to simply rehash his points, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs).
Anyway to Dragon Age 2. Similiar issues of the 'the plot doesnt make any sense', there are two failing in story telling that leads to this. The first is a failure to accurately convey how the story makes sense and for the story to actually not make sense. I dont want to argue this because i've done it before and I'm tired of it so I'll make the assumption that it makes perfect sense. People are complaining about it not making sense. A lot of people too. That is a failure of the narrative regardless of how you spin it that your audience cannot understand on a basic level what and why things just happened.
The is as a result of a poorly connected narrative structure as you have alluded to. I call it the D&D effect. In a Dungeons and Dragons campaign a Game Master sets a story to last for a few sessions and the party plays through it and resolves the plot, everyone gets rich and goes home. Then they need to keep playing so a new plot is created and a loose reason is created to connect it narratively and the players keep going. Thats what happened to DA2 though the major difference is the players invested in a D&D game dont care about the connection relative to the importance of their character's new adventure. DA2 on the other hand is a pregenerated story with a large number of pregenerated outcomes. Your going to go on an expedition, its going to go bad but you get rich, your relative is either dead or joining faction X, you go save the town from the orks and become a hero and then you fight the Mages and the crazy paladin. These events will happen regardless of your decisions which isn't inherently bad but it suddenly places a HUGE emphasis on how the Acts of each story connect.
The starting interaction with the character is problem. You dont know anything about them and they are just kinda running around fighting for their life. Great I guess? Why do I care about anything involved in this process? It is profoundly difficult to put a character in a dangerous situation and then retroactively work to have an audience care about them. When its done well its great, when its not....you get Dragon Age 2. One common trend I find for players who liked the game is they really felt invested in the characters. Those who disliked the game failed to becoming invested. This highlights to me that theres a major problem going on here so I think its something to consider moving through the game.
I played a Mage which creates the core motivation to get rich so you can protect yourself from the Templars (from memory its been a while) once you reach the city. Since I don't get to choose what my path is, its important that the details are in place to provide justification. So I need reasoning. Why does money protect me from the templars? Can I sick my lawyers on them?
The game explicitly states that you survive without drawing attention for a year. Why isn't every criminal organisation trying to recruit me, hell why arent major powers trying to recruit me? I'm an Mage without anyone holding my leash. Given everything thats discussed about the totalitarian nature of the Templar control particular under High Templar Crazy Pants this should be a pretty rare thing. So why is the best option to work with a random, likely extremely dangerous operation in the Deep Roads.
Theres no solid reasoning behind it, its not a critical flaw but its a little flimsy, alone not a problem and this is a GREAT idea for a sidequest but for the core introduction to how this character is deciding to change his situation is important to build a connection. Does he do it out of desperation? Not likely has hes kept himself hidden for a whole year now. Does he just want to get rich? Maybe but its hard to empathise with a character for that. Ultimately all we know before now is that Hawke wants to protect his family. There is no plot at this point, no solid backbone to fall back on so everything falls to how the character of Hawke works out. This is a big ask to not develop a very clear motivation for whats going on.
Lets compare this exact same plotpoint to another Bioware game, Baldur's Gate 2. The opening is very similiar your escaping from a dungeon and after a series of unfortunate events a character from your party is taken away. A character players would know from the original game, a character you might have grown a fondness for and a connection that the game works hard to build upon and develop pity for the ordeals they have needed to go through and shes taken away to rot in some prison with the villain. The goal is to raise X amount of money to pay some theives to help you go save her. This works as through your own actions so far you've encounter these thieves as mutual enemies to the main villain and you have built upon a relationship with body the main and the character taken away. Your a fish out of water in an unknown city and your there with limited choices, limited options and you need to move ASAP. This isn't perfect but it create ENOUGH of a varied motivation to get that gold and pay for a rescue.
Contrast with DA2 and your own connection is: Hawk wants to protect himself, his family and/or get rich. All very short term goals, his development? Very little of the 5 major characters we have known so far (Your Brother/Sister/Mother/Avaline/Flemeth - not counting the Metaplot investigation we dont have anywhere near enough knowledge to completely grasp at this point) are really relevent. The intro has a very limited time to give you enough to care about Hawke and his family, something THE ENTIRE GAME DEPENDS ON. One family member is dead (and your borther sucks!), your mother has some development enough to instill the protection instincts in the players atleast, Flemeth.....she has absolutely no purpose whatsever in showing up, taking away critical development time from those characters.
So anyway, these problems dont break the game, they just criple the opening, we can move on. The connection is the next point of potential failure, why is getting rich and engage in the Quanari the natural evolution. We got to have a little information on how they operate but for the most part we had nothing to do with them. Thankfully the Game Master spent a bunch of fleshing out the city and had a internal political conflict for us to deal with. Convient huh! Not sure why we are the ones dealing with it but whatever Im up for some adventure. This a big connection problem, I dont know why I need to care about the entire experience but despite this, it is perhaps the best section of the game. This city is something you inherently become connected to simply as a result of running around and getting money. Your dealing with various groups you actually have a chance to see whats going on. Your assests, your family and your connection to the world is tied up in this city. You get the chance to charge up the palace steps with big music playing and get to play the big damn hero.
Then the mage templar plot rears its ugly head. Sure there some discussion of it but ultimately its something that doesn't have any where near enough exposure ot really warrant it to become THE critical point of the game. It leads to the ultiamte decision and the ultimate showndown. Of ultimate destiny......
Firstly, Im a Mage, why the hell would I ever help the Templars who by all rights should be arresting me? The game spends the rest of the game trying to show you that its a tough issue. Its not, the way the Templars are operating reflect the standard practices of the Imperium of Man and anything that can remotely be connected to warhammer 40,000 is bad. Your treating people as guilty until proven innocent and even if you dont agree...IM A GODDAMN MAGE. Its a weak decision, I've already save the city. Your constantly stopped from making a middle ground decision, everything is either back the mages or back the templars. That makes me rapidly stop caring as the issue is inherently broke for my character. The whole plot of the High Templar taking the super magic sword of doom is its own kind of sillyness but its minor relative to final act failing to invest the player in the character's decisions and experiences. This is probably mitigated by the player being a rogue or a warrior but if 1/3 of your options cripple the final act of the game, you need to rework your story.
Anyway thats my obsessively long rant so I'll give you favourite conversation in the game. Its with Isabella right after she comes back after running off with the Qunari book (despite me telling her directly to her face that if we find it she was going to have it). She makes an offer to the player, that Hawke her get on her ship and sail away for an adventure. I realised thats what I wanted to do and would have made a far better game. You going around hunting for treasure, exploring the world and ultimately getting caught up in the Templar/Mage conflict that was going to start consuming the world. They wanted a character story, they should have just done that.
Hydro14 said:
The point I'm leading towards is that I've very much been given the impression that the origin story choices are more of an illusion of choice than events that truly impact the story in a meaningful way.
Just to respond to this when you have a game designed around creating your own character and your own personality. Illusion of choice isnt a bad thing particularly if you dont explain what 'impacting the story in a meaningful way' represents. I played a Mage in Origins too, an Elf Mage. The major change is that everyone who doesnt know who you are treats you like dirt because your an Elf and fear you if your a Mage. This has zero impact on the story BUT it does impact how you think. If MY Grey Warden has spent his entire life being treated like an monster and second class citizens, you can bet your ass when the time came to spare or save the cursed humans I slaughted them and took the Daelish forces with me. When King Alister asked me what boon he could grant me, I ask for the Mage Tower to be free of the Templars. When I played a Human Noble Warrior who got to witness his family being murdered at the hands of Arl Rendon and later it came time to confront him I killed him and offered no mercy for what he had done. When I played a Dwarf Noble I made sure to stop Lord Bhelen from coming into power and dooming dwarves to adopt an isolatest policy and seperating them from the upper world. That illusion of choice had consequences on how I as a player perceived events, you take that away and I suddenly change how I react in future situations.
