Zeldias said:
Did you really find origins to be as game-changing as Bioware would have you believe? Because I played through as an Elf and as a Human and the only difference is that a female human could become queen and an elf woman could only become a consort. Both ended with a still image and some text, and neither had any ramifications on anything in later games...
You misunderstand my comments. The origin stories are a
framing device, and shape the player's
perspective on the story. That's what I said, and that's what I mean, and yes in that regard I feel BioWare did a good job. The ending to the game has very little to do with this save detail and nuance of the outcome, and you're misattributing your complaint about the ending, since regardless of origin the dramatic question and motive force of the plot is derived from establishing Ferelden's new monarch, and slaying the Archdemon. Regardless of the origin the player chooses, at the end of the game Ferelden has a new monarch and the Archdemon is slain, thereby answering the dramatic question.
Meanwhile, and what the origin story
does impact, are the second-order choices that form the individualized details of the ending: whether the Dalish survive, who sits on Orzammar's throne, who becomes the new monarch of Ferelden, the city elves' welfare, whether a Warden has to make the ultimate sacrifice and if so, whom. Of course, all of those things are of secondary importance to the main plot.
The origin stories aren't about the ending. The origin stories are about how the player experiences the game.
...It's ridiculous to argue this as a thing superior to DA2. At most, I could agree that origins and whether Hawke was an apostate or not are similarly inconsequential, but saying origins were legitimately good and not oversold junk that barely changed the main course of the game is just untrue.
That would be your opinion, and I disagree. First, the dramatic question that arises in DA2 is how the Mage-Templar conflict will be resolved in Kirkwall; namely, whether the mages or templars will prevail, and the player's expectations as developed by the game's narrative and exposition itself is that Hawke will be the arbiter of that conflict's outcome. Since that is a value judgment made by Hawke as the player's surrogate in the game, the player's perspective and experience thus far as Hawke necessarily shape the values and beliefs by which that choice is made.
Prior to that, to a certain extent whether Hawke is an apostate or not does impact how the player perceives the game, but that perception is blunted by the addition of Bethany, who is intended by the writers to be a source of empathy for the mages even if Hawke is a warrior or rogue. Even so, that makes what happens in the game's ending all the more egregious. Regardless with whom Hawke sides, both Orsino and Meredith must be fought, the battle has no clear victor, Hawke has no palpable impact on the battle's outcome, and whatever value judgments upon which the player bases their decision are thoroughly undermined rather than vindicated during its course.
One could argue that DA2 had a postmodern narrative and that was the entire point, a viewpoint I personally endorse, but that's a point that was contradicted by the game itself and never conveyed well. The game's theme to that point was that one person, in the right time and place, could change the course of major events, and the game's ending subverted that theme and contradicted expectation. Moreover, the game to that point never truly challenged the player -- or Hawke -- to question their values and judgments to establish that postmodern framework, instead vindicating or rationalizing them after the fact.
This is exacerbated by the fact the ultimate outcome of the events of Dragon Age 2 -- the larger Mage-Templar war that will be at least the source of DA:I's early momentum -- was equally-serviced even had DA2's ending been true to theme and Hawke was able to influence the game's outcome. DA:O and Awakening already established relations between mages (and the Tevinter Imperium) and the Chantry were a powder keg, and DA2 either way was its lighting. Narratively, war was inevitable regardless what happened in Kirkwall, which gave the game's writers wide latitude to have written a much more sensible ending without impacting what the writers obviously already had in mind for the third game.
R - Try a little less parroting of the popular opinion, and a little more actual conversation. Or there is always more Call of Duty to play
