Ok enough arguing over DA2's gameplay, how is the story?

[GotMalkAvian]

I haven't finished the game yet, but so far my feelings on the story are mixed.

- So far, the story is on a much smaller scale than what we've come to expect after DA:O and the Mass Effect games.

- The story is much more personal to the player's character, and the events affect him/her much more directly.

- The individual segments in the story are well-told individually, but there's little or nothing that links these segments together.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I liked the story, it wasn't just "world needs saving, go kill a big monster/Sith Lord" (You know how it goes, a hooded man in black directing things behind the scenes turns out to be a schemeing supervillian) I got a kind of "Niko Bellic" feeling, if that makes any sense. Hawke was just a person trying to get his/her life together after fleeing a troubled existance (not a lot of willing takers for "devoured by darkspawn") and kept getting caught up in city-threatening issues, usually given little choice but to resolve things him/herself. There was actually some moral dilemma, mostly with the Templar/Mage thing at the end.

As someone pointed out, it was kind of predictable, but the hell did you expect given the main menu screen? A thin, pointy-eared man with 3 black snakes (Orsino) on the opposing side of a pale-haired woman with a sword, (Meredith) yeah, that was a tea party waiting to happen wasn't it? Cassasndra (Chantry Seeker) does nothing but foreshadow that serious shit is to go down in the Champion's tale, so to not find the plot a little predictable might mean you have bigger problems, I think.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

It's not that great at all. Predicatable

I found it far more enjoyable than the first game. And far less predictable and generic, than the whole go there, do that, save the world that the first one had. The characters where more involved as well especially Hawke.

 

[Gerrawn]

I actually find it a bit funny that people wanted to stop saving the world/galaxy/universe in BioWare games and now when you don't, they complain.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks

Anyway, I thought it was less epic, but way more personal. I liked it more than DA:O.

 

[Hyper-space]

How was the plot any less predictable than all of the 5000 other games where you run around saving the world from the big-evil-baddie?

I found the plot to be refreshing and something that the RPG sorely needs. Namely, something that doesn't try to puff up the importance of the unfolding events by claiming that THE WORLD WILL BE ENGULFED IN DARKNESS! and instead tried to make the importance more personal (such as act 1, the rags to riches story). The second act (at least, in my opinion) was the high-point of the story, as instead of dealing with a generic PROUD WARRIOR RACE whose sole ambition is to be a bunch of misogynistic dicks, you deal with a complex and expertly crafted race of people with their own ideology and views on good and wrong. I found it harder and harder to try and justify my ways and philosophy in face of an equally righteous cause. Could you really say with a straight-face that the Kirkwall way of an upper- and lower-class, where the rich and powerful are free to trample on the less fortunate (such as the Guardsman who tried to force himself upon the elf, which sparked the civil war). Bioware did an excellent job on presenting both ways of life (the ferelden and Quanari) as equally right, which made the confrontation with the Arishok one of culture clash and war of philosophy, not one saturday-cartoon villainy. Also, the Shepherding Wolves has to be one of my favorite quest of all time, not because of gameplay mind you, but because of the sheer culture shock i got from seeing that Qunari Mage burn himself, as i thought arrogantly that MY way of dealing with it was the right one.

The third act, despite the weird heel-turn by First Enchanter Orsino, is a case-study in moral choices. I feel like the Bioware team took note from Extra Credits' episode on moral choices, in that the choice was clearly "Rights of the Few vs. the Good of the Many" and "Freedom vs. Discipline". While the climax might be "lacking" in a sense that you are not fighting some big-evil-dragon-who-is-going-to-destroy-EVERYTHING, it more than makes up for it by presenting the struggle to maintain order in Kirkwall as not one of mindless heroics, but of personal desire to not see ones newfound home (as i am sure that after a decade of living there one might become attached to the place) completely destroyed.

The story is "predictable" in that rags to riches, xenophobia, culture clash and civil war has been done before, but the excellent characterization of the races involved and the refreshing formula, makes it a step into the right direction. While the RPG elements MIGHT (again, opinions not fact) have been sacrificed for a more stream-lined experience (AGAIN, no one thing is better), the combat and story is a step in the right direction.

 

[nin_ninja]

I got a kind of "Niko Bellic" feeling, if that makes any sense. Hawke was just a person trying to get his/her life together after fleeing a troubled existance (not a lot of willing takers for "devoured by darkspawn") and kept getting caught up in city-threatening issues, usually given little choice but to resolve things him/herself.

I got that too. And again like GTA IV it felt like most of my actions weren't important and that I was mainly a courier or hired sword. I liked the story it just felt like the T/M war drew me in instead of me getting personally involved.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

It's not...bad per say. It just didn't feel like much of a story line. Considering that this is Thedas, the main character deals with the problems that arise the same way you or I would buy groceries. And with the same enthusiasm. There isn't a defined plotline as much as some events that happen in the span of some years and have little connection to each other.

It's not even a full rags to riches story since even from the first year my character was rather wealthy with all the Fed Ex quests (I assume Thedas hasn't invented couriers yet, for if one person did they would be able to swim in gold) and after the first year it all went to hell. Most events actually seem a little forced, without giving the player the option to do anything about anything.

The third year was just painful for me. The character I role played was a blood mage and was not at all interested in the events of the city. She had her cash, her pint of cheap drinks and Varric and was satisfied like that. So I considered she had no reason to get involved in anything but you were just pushed from behind, with no emotional connections or even need. Varric said it best "I care about either side which is why I won't get involved".

Sadly, you can't take that approach. (Fuck you, Anders)

All in all, it was pretty disappointing even for someone like me, who started with low expectations from the get go. It was a nice game to play if bored (finished it in about 2 days or less) but not one I'd go to for depth and characters.

Edit: I think, in retrospect...that all people in Thedas are stupid. From Cailan to Loghain to Duncan to Anders to Orsino, they're all just idiots who can't think of more than one thing at a time. It's awfully frustrating to play as the only person in the world that makes a little sense.

Basically this. For those complaining about Origin's plot, at least you had a defined goal in that game. It also had more freedom. They throw you into Lothering and go "raise an army". How you went about that was your choice. In DA2, the plot is comprised of barely connected happenings in the city over 7 years and you are stuck doing it with no choice or alternative outcomes. It just meanders around for 30+ hours then ends on a cliffhanger.

Hawke has no real motivation other than "Get rich...maybe?" Hawke wasn't the catalyst for a revolution, He/She just stumbled along and happened to tip the scale. The Third Act is terribly written and only gives you the illusion of choice. It is disappointing.

 

[darth.pixie]

The third act, despite the weird heel-turn by First Enchanter Orsino, is a case-study in moral choices. I feel like the Bioware team took note from Extra Credits' episode on moral choices, in that the choice was clearly "Rights of the Few vs. the Good of the Many" and "Freedom vs. Discipline".

While, not trying to add more to the whole internet arguing, how is it that much of a choice?

It would have been much more interesting or at the very least, say, justified if you would have sided with the mages and the templars would have ended up psycho and if you would have sided with the templars, then Orsino would have done the heel-turn (although he already was involved in shady stuff, as we know from the killer quest).

This way...they're all wrong and you kill everything. I feel as if they would have accomplished more if they would have had the Alpha Protocol approach as in..you don't learn everything on your first playthrough. Because that way, you're doomed if you do, doomed if you don't. It's not really moral if you think of all the apostates that attack on site, the innocent templars killed (there were a few) while presenting very few innocent mages along the way.

If my character would have been impartial instead of a blood mage himself, the most normal choice would have been the templars. And I think a lot of people feel that way. Sure, some were psycho but the way blood magic was portrayed, a scrapped knee or a bully would have unleashed unholy chaos on all.

I think they based their "supporting mages" approach on the single fact that Hawke was from a mage family instead of showing normal mages who just wanted out. The one or two presented were more of an exception that rarely repeated itself. All the while, templars being the sympathetic ones. At least some in any case. Even Cullen said something about taking things to far and Cullen was broken at the end of DA:O.

 

[Hyper-space]

And I think a lot of people feel that way.

You are confusing your own personal opinion as fact and as the one correct moral choice in the situation. This reaction to the choices being presented in the game are a clear indicator that Bioware were successful, I for one could not see how the templars violent crackdown on mages which ended up pushing more and more mages to blood-magic could ever been justified. The side-quests in DA2 provided you with more than just simple rewards of coin, but deeper insight into the struggles. For example, there was a quest in which you had to find 3 mages, one of them was a poor woman who always tried to make a life for her two orphaned friends, but the templars method would have killed her, ensuring that the two orphans would live in squalor for their rest of their lives, so she resorted to blood-magic. I personally (emphasis on personal, its all opinions) sympathized with the mages who did not ask for these responsibilities, but showed great character by making the best of it (such as Anders' clinic) by helping others. The lack of moderation and understanding in the plight of the mages. Sure, there were blood-mages who needed to be put down, but imagine for a second: your are part of group X, you were born into group X and had no choice in being part of group X. From time to time, a small minority (extremely small) of people in group X do something wrong. Imagine, that group Y wants to kill EVERYONE in group X because of the action of the few. Is this justice? does the end justify the means?

This is what moral choices is supposed to accomplish, people who think their choice is the correct one. Complaining however, that Bioware did not cater to YOUR personal choice, is foolishness.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

And I think a lot of people feel that way.

You are confusing your own personal opinion as fact and as the one correct moral choice in the situation. This reaction to the choices being presented in the game are a clear indicator that Bioware were successful, I for one could not see how the templars violent crackdown on mages which ended up pushing more and more mages to blood-magic could ever been justified. The side-quests in DA2 provided you with more than just simple rewards of coin, but deeper insight into the struggles. For example, there was a quest in which you had to find 3 mages, one of them was a poor woman who always tried to make a life for her two orphaned friends, but the templars method would have killed her, ensuring that the two orphans would live in squalor for their rest of their lives, so she resorted to blood-magic. I personally (emphasis on personal, its all opinions) sympathized with the mages who did not ask for these responsibilities, but showed great character by making the best of it (such as Anders' clinic) by helping others. The lack of moderation and understanding in the plight of the mages. Sure, there were blood-mages who needed to be put down, but imagine for a second: your are part of group X, you were born into group X and had no choice in being part of group X. From time to time, a small minority (extremely small) of people in group X do something wrong. Imagine, that group Y wants to kill EVERYONE in group X because of the action of the few. Is this justice? does the end justify the means?

This is what moral choices is supposed to accomplish, people who think their choice is the correct one. Complaining however, that Bioware did not cater to YOUR personal choice, is foolishness.

It is pretty hard to defend the mages when 90% of the ones you encounter outside of the Circle are blood mages. DA2 showed that Templars are necessary. If a mage can turn to blood magic or turn into an abomination at the drop of a hat, as DA2 showed, then they need to be locked up and supervised for the safety of the public.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I liked the story, although it lacked direction from the beginning... The game is built up in acts which doesn't really tie to well together.

But all in all I liked it, there is a whole "Meta Plot" in there which seems to be building up for an expansion or DA3...

 

[kingcom]

Come on guys, let's be realistic. Every Bioware game has a predictable, generic sounding plot but this is balanced out by excellent execution. But since we're talking about the story here's the general scructure.

I disagree, I didn't see much of the Baldurs Gate plot coming until it happened. It also was very different from KotOR which had a good twist, Jade Empire too. So really theres only a couple of games Bioware has made with similiar stories.

I actually find it a bit funny that people wanted to stop saving the world/galaxy/universe in BioWare games and now when you don't, they complain.

Anyway, I thought it was less epic, but way more personal. I liked it more than DA:O.

Different people were complaining about it. There are different people with different opinions, its hard to believe i know.

The big issue is this: do you care about Hawke?

If no, then it is incredibly hard to invest yourself in this game and therfore can find it quite boring.

 

[Hyper-space]

And I think a lot of people feel that way.

You are confusing your own personal opinion as fact and as the one correct moral choice in the situation. This reaction to the choices being presented in the game are a clear indicator that Bioware were successful, I for one could not see how the templars violent crackdown on mages which ended up pushing more and more mages to blood-magic could ever been justified. The side-quests in DA2 provided you with more than just simple rewards of coin, but deeper insight into the struggles. For example, there was a quest in which you had to find 3 mages, one of them was a poor woman who always tried to make a life for her two orphaned friends, but the templars method would have killed her, ensuring that the two orphans would live in squalor for their rest of their lives, so she resorted to blood-magic. I personally (emphasis on personal, its all opinions) sympathized with the mages who did not ask for these responsibilities, but showed great character by making the best of it (such as Anders' clinic) by helping others. The lack of moderation and understanding in the plight of the mages. Sure, there were blood-mages who needed to be put down, but imagine for a second: your are part of group X, you were born into group X and had no choice in being part of group X. From time to time, a small minority (extremely small) of people in group X do something wrong. Imagine, that group Y wants to kill EVERYONE in group X because of the action of the few. Is this justice? does the end justify the means?

This is what moral choices is supposed to accomplish, people who think their choice is the correct one. Complaining however, that Bioware did not cater to YOUR personal choice, is foolishness.

It is pretty hard to defend the mages when 90% of the ones you encounter outside of the Circle are blood mages. DA2 showed that Templars are necessary. If a mage can turn to blood magic or turn into an abomination at the drop of a hat, as DA2 showed, then they need to be locked up and supervised for the safety of the public.

First Enchanter Orsino and other templars + mages were well aware of the fact and promoted moderation, as the increasingly violent methods by the templars only exacerbated the problem of blood-magic.

But again, IT IS STILL YOUR OPINION, FUCK. I THOUGHT I MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY PREVIOUS POST.. Bioware presented you with a choice, that was their role. They were not supposed to dictate others on what is the right choice, unlike what you are proposing.

"But my opinion is the right one!!11!1"
Boohoo.

 

[kingcom]

First Enchanter Orsino and other templars + mages were well aware of the fact and promoted moderation, as the increasingly violent methods by the templars only exacerbated the problem of blood-magic.

But again, IT IS STILL YOUR OPINION, FUCK. I THOUGHT I MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY PREVIOUS POST.. Bioware presented you with a choice, that was their role. They were not supposed to dictate others on what is the right choice, unlike what you are proposing.

"But my opinion is the right one!!11!1"
Boohoo.

Its more of "both choices are wrong". Any game which asks you "Do you want to treat this universe like warhammer 40k?" kinda throws the moral compass out the window.

 

[Hyper-space]

First Enchanter Orsino and other templars + mages were well aware of the fact and promoted moderation, as the increasingly violent methods by the templars only exacerbated the problem of blood-magic.

But again, IT IS STILL YOUR OPINION, FUCK. I THOUGHT I MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY PREVIOUS POST.. Bioware presented you with a choice, that was their role. They were not supposed to dictate others on what is the right choice, unlike what you are proposing.

"But my opinion is the right one!!11!1"
Boohoo.

Its more of "both choices are wrong". Any game which asks you "Do you want to treat this universe like warhammer 40k?" kinda throws the moral compass out the window.

I have never played warhammer 40k, so i am a bit confused on what you mean by treating it as the aforementioned game.

 

[AlternatePFG]

The third act, despite the weird heel-turn by First Enchanter Orsino, is a case-study in moral choices. I feel like the Bioware team took note from Extra Credits' episode on moral choices, in that the choice was clearly "Rights of the Few vs. the Good of the Many" and "Freedom vs. Discipline".

Even Cullen said something about taking things to far and Cullen was broken at the end of DA:O.

Yeah, that's something I don't get. One of the possible endings for Origins had Cullen killing a few mages then fleeing the Circle. How does Cullen manage to get a high ranking position in the templars again after that? I dunno, kinda off topic but it still bugs me.

On Topic: The game is story is okay, but it's very constrained because they're setting for DA3 obviously. Certain things from the first game got retconned and most of the choices just end up changing who you fight in the next encounter.

Act 3 was probably the weakest part of the game for me. Your choices don't matter at all. The final boss is the same, and aside from who is allied with you during a few of the fights, it makes very little difference. Even if you side with the Templars and wipe out the mages, it still kicks off the war between the Mages and the Chantry.

 

[darth.pixie]

And I think a lot of people feel that way.

You are confusing your own personal opinion as fact and as the one correct moral choice in the situation. This reaction to the choices being presented in the game are a clear indicator that Bioware were successful, I for one could not see how the templars violent crackdown on mages which ended up pushing more and more mages to blood-magic could ever been justified. The side-quests in DA2 provided you with more than just simple rewards of coin, but deeper insight into the struggles. For example, there was a quest in which you had to find 3 mages, one of them was a poor woman who always tried to make a life for her two orphaned friends, but the templars method would have killed her, ensuring that the two orphans would live in squalor for their rest of their lives, so she resorted to blood-magic. I personally (emphasis on personal, its all opinions) sympathized with the mages who did not ask for these responsibilities, but showed great character by making the best of it (such as Anders' clinic) by helping others. The lack of moderation and understanding in the plight of the mages. Sure, there were blood-mages who needed to be put down, but imagine for a second: your are part of group X, you were born into group X and had no choice in being part of group X. From time to time, a small minority (extremely small) of people in group X do something wrong. Imagine, that group Y wants to kill EVERYONE in group X because of the action of the few. Is this justice? does the end justify the means?

This is what moral choices is supposed to accomplish, people who think their choice is the correct one. Complaining however, that Bioware did not cater to YOUR personal choice, is foolishness.

I did that quest. And the fact that she did resort to blood magic would have been fine if she would have been able to damn well control herself and not get possessed. I sympathized but it was still a valid example of mages not being able to take care of themselves. Every mage who tried to do something good (and there were many) ended up screwing everything up (even more examples). I helped those who did deserve help but they were so few that they were almost inconsequential, not to mention that Hawke suffered quite a bit from mages (again, killer quest)

I didn't ask for Bioware to cater to my wishes for it, because I didn't expect anything from the game. I wasn't the biggest fan of the first one and I didn't start the second with the fervour of an RPG fan like I do other games. But it would have been better (for me) if it would have had some modicum of balance regarding the mages. If I would have met a single blood mage (besides Merril) who didn't destroy everything or get possessed. Like I said, I sided with the mages despite anticipating who O in the White Lily killer was because...well, it felt more consisted with the character and I did feel that mages were killed for no reason. But then Orsino just flips off and there goes my sympathy....

The mages are basically ruining their own argument (like Anders did...)

The "I think other people agree with me" is just that...a thought. I talked to people who didn't enjoy taking sides for the same reason. I don't speak for everyone especially since a lot of people liked and enjoyed the game. And while I considered that the templars were the proper choice, I still chose the mages.

However, I still think that, if Hawke as Champion, had such trouble going down the street for a midnight stroll and meeting half a dozen of blood mages trying to kill him...how did a civilian fare? Would anyone even go down the street anymore? Was that justice for them?

Yeah, that's something I don't get. One of the possible endings for Origins had Cullen killing a few mages then fleeing the Circle. How does Cullen manage to get a high ranking position in the templars again after that? I dunno, kinda off topic but it still bugs me.

It was said somewhere that he went to cool off his head in the Free Marches and that Meredith felt his view of the mages (KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!) was similar to hers. So she made him high ranked or something.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

And I think a lot of people feel that way.

You are confusing your own personal opinion as fact and as the one correct moral choice in the situation. This reaction to the choices being presented in the game are a clear indicator that Bioware were successful, I for one could not see how the templars violent crackdown on mages which ended up pushing more and more mages to blood-magic could ever been justified. The side-quests in DA2 provided you with more than just simple rewards of coin, but deeper insight into the struggles. For example, there was a quest in which you had to find 3 mages, one of them was a poor woman who always tried to make a life for her two orphaned friends, but the templars method would have killed her, ensuring that the two orphans would live in squalor for their rest of their lives, so she resorted to blood-magic. I personally (emphasis on personal, its all opinions) sympathized with the mages who did not ask for these responsibilities, but showed great character by making the best of it (such as Anders' clinic) by helping others. The lack of moderation and understanding in the plight of the mages. Sure, there were blood-mages who needed to be put down, but imagine for a second: your are part of group X, you were born into group X and had no choice in being part of group X. From time to time, a small minority (extremely small) of people in group X do something wrong. Imagine, that group Y wants to kill EVERYONE in group X because of the action of the few. Is this justice? does the end justify the means?

This is what moral choices is supposed to accomplish, people who think their choice is the correct one. Complaining however, that Bioware did not cater to YOUR personal choice, is foolishness.

It is pretty hard to defend the mages when 90% of the ones you encounter outside of the Circle are blood mages. DA2 showed that Templars are necessary. If a mage can turn to blood magic or turn into an abomination at the drop of a hat, as DA2 showed, then they need to be locked up and supervised for the safety of the public.

First Enchanter Orsino and other templars + mages were well aware of the fact and promoted moderation, as the increasingly violent methods by the templars only exacerbated the problem of blood-magic.

But again, IT IS STILL YOUR OPINION, FUCK. I THOUGHT I MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY PREVIOUS POST.. Bioware presented you with a choice, that was their role. They were not supposed to dictate others on what is the right choice, unlike what you are proposing.

"But my opinion is the right one!!11!1"
Boohoo.

Okay, insulting someone accomplishes nothing. The Veil around Kirkwall is very thin. Meaning that mages are at a higher risk, combine that with their general stupidity and you have a recipe for disaster. If this was Ferelden then I'd agree about the choice. But throughout DA2, they tell/show you repeatedly that the mages there have no control, poor judgment, and will turn to blood magic in a second. There is no right choice, but the odds are stacked against one choice. That is what Darth.Pixie was alluding to. One choice is clearly more sensible than the other.

 

[kingcom]

First Enchanter Orsino and other templars + mages were well aware of the fact and promoted moderation, as the increasingly violent methods by the templars only exacerbated the problem of blood-magic.

But again, IT IS STILL YOUR OPINION, FUCK. I THOUGHT I MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY PREVIOUS POST.. Bioware presented you with a choice, that was their role. They were not supposed to dictate others on what is the right choice, unlike what you are proposing.

"But my opinion is the right one!!11!1"
Boohoo.

Its more of "both choices are wrong". Any game which asks you "Do you want to treat this universe like warhammer 40k?" kinda throws the moral compass out the window.

I have never played warhammer 40k, so i am a bit confused on what you mean by treating it as the aforementioned game.

Contains a cruel and bloody regime that treat its psykers (very VERY similiar to DA mages in that their power is through accessing the Warp, realm of demons and evil stuff) like abominations that need to be contained and put through extremely harrowing rituals to make sure that only the strongest and religiously inclined survive to actually go into service in the Imperium of Man (where they are almost always accompanied by a hangman ready to kill them at the slightest sign of trouble). They basiclly do to psykers what Templars want to do to mages, due to the WH40K universe, its hard to take remotely seriously. Its no longer grey territory and more GRIM DARK.