Juggern4ut20 said:
Times have changed. The style in which RPGs are created and written is different than it was. HOWEVER, my big argument is that dragon age: origins was a great game because it was created with the old school style in mind. While you do not feel that your character in DAO was as fleshed out as in DA2, i did and I think that they should have continued the style of the previous game instead of completely changing it to resemble another rpg series they are doing (mass effect). That is why i think the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel did not work in the game.
I wouldn't use the word "better" if I were you, I'd say I liked it more. Neither style is inherently better; the old, Tolkien style story of DA:O or the small-scale character-driven story of DA2. But seeing as I am me, I say I liked DA2's story more, simply because I'm a bit done with the clichéd save-the-world-against-the-demons plot DA:O presented.
I don't see what this has to do with a voiced or silent protagonist though. Worst was that in DA:O your character did have a voice, you select one at the start. But during conversations he was silent all of a sudden. Struck me as very odd. Just voice him completely or make him properly shut up.
As for the wheel, once again, that's just an interface. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for the writing and plot, i will argue till I'm blue in the face about this. Dragon Age 2 did not have good writing. The excavation had little to do with the qunar and both had even less to do with the mage uprising. You might not have liked the 'cliched' simply plot of the first one, which is fine, but you have to realize why they used that simply plot. In the first game, they wanted to explain the entire world set to the player. They wanted to explain how magic worked, how it was treated, how elves were treated, how religion was viewed, how dwarfs lived, what the grey wardens were, and what the deep roads and blight was. In order to do that, they decided to keep the main plot VERY simple to not confuse the issue. That being said, i think that simple plot was done perfectly.
Already explained this in a pervious post; every Act in DA2 basically told a certain part of how Hawke ever got in the powerful position to make the choice he made. Indeed, the expedition to the Deep Roads had nothing to do with the Qunari, but both
did have something to do with how Hawke got where he was; the Deep Roads gained him his fortune, unlocking doors that lead to the higher echelons of Kirkwall's society, and defeating the Qunari gained him the fame and influence that basically made him the 4th power in Kirkwall. The whole plot revolves around Hawke and how he got where he got.
As for DA:O's story, yes for such a clichéd plot it was indeed very well executed, and yes they did a great job of revealing the inner workings of the Dragon Age universe. This is really just a matter of taste.
In dragon age 2, you are given a plot that is not good. What is the artifact that you found in the deep roads? I am still not entirely sure what it was or how it mattered to the game. They could have told the exact same story without ever finding it. That is bad writing. They present a plot point in finding this artifact thing and being betrayed, only to not really ever address what the artifact is and not really resolve the consequences of being betrayed (you got to tie it up in a short side quest at the end of the game). Poor writing. The qunar should not have been in this game. They did nothing but simply distracted from the overarching main plot, which i guess was with Anders and the Templars. I can go on and on. Meredith was introduced too late in the game. You could call the arch demon and Loghain, simple antagonists, but at least you were introduced to them in the beginning and were with them throughout the story. You don't even interact with Meredith till the very end of act 2.
How it mattered in the game? Didn't you notice that Meredith gained a piece of it, making her go even more insane than she already was? They explained that pretty clearly when Meredith confronts you for the final time. You are right however about the origin of the idol, while a bit of mystery is fine, it appearance did seem a bit...random.
But the consequences of the betrayal were also quite clear; the idol was out of your hands, and without you knowing it passed through all kinds of hands, including (as you later find out), Meredith's. This lead to Meredith becoming loko just like Berthrand did. She also
was introduced in the game very early, hell she was introduced from the start. You just didn't interact directly with her but with her underlings and the problems she caused.
As for the Qunari, yes they did matter. As I've explained, defeating them made Hawke really rise to fame, becoming the Champion of Kirkwall and basically gaining the 4th position of power (or 3th, as the Viscount goes out) in Kirkwall. This is important, seeing as gaining this influence got him into the position to choose the direction the Templar-Mage issue takes after the incident with Anders.
That and the pacing sucked. In the first game, you are introduced to your character well before you become a gray warden. You get to see who your character was before their life went to hell. In DA2, you are just thrown in running away from darkspawn. How am i supposed to care about a 'home village' that was never introduced in the plot. Here is the best example that I can explain. At the beginning of the game in DA:O, you fight that ogre at the top of the tower in order to signal a charge to save the king. This boss fight against a single foe is probably one of the best boss fights i've played in a long while, because of the pacing of the game. You had played your character a good deal of hours before reaching that point to take on such a scary opponent. You fought through your origin, survived becoming a gray warden, and struggled to complete your task of lighting the tower. Once you kill the ogre there is a feeling of accomplishment that you had progressed and become stronger. That is good writing. In dragon age 2, you fight an ogre less than half an hour into game play, on top of a hill in the middle of no where. The accomplishment holds little value both in the plot and in gameplay, and there is no feeling of importance. This is how the writing is poor.
Oh? Lothering wasn't introduced in DA:O? DA2 was still a sequel, that's one example that shows it. It might've been a good idea to show a bit of their life before the Blight, but how would that work gameplay-wise? They were just simple villagers afterall. Quests to collect chickens or buy cow feed or something?
As for the ogre in DA2, yes it does hold value in the plot. It basically shows; this guy is powerful, he has potential. Flemith recognises this potential, judging by her reaction, hence why she saves him in the first place. And that's where Hawke's road to fame actually starts.
Mind you, I can't disagree about DA:O's pacing, which was indeed very good. DA2 just had a completely different kind of story, and with that belongs a different kind of pacing.
That and you can go into how the game just skips ahead years for no real reason other than convenience. How the game seems to think that it can just kill characters left and right to produce some sort of emotional investment in the game. I can overlook the combat, the voiced protagonist, the wheel, everything, if they just did a good job writing the plot.
Of course it's convience, what would you fill all those years with? Again, every Act shows an important milestone in Hawke's road to fame and the catalysts that gave rise to the big issue Hawke has to deal with in the end.
Also, kill characters left and right? Honestly I saw surprisingly few characters die off. None of my companions (though one legged it, could've known, damn *****).
BlackIvory said:
You can't realy think about it if you already know in advanced that "Thats good, thats also good but sounds jerky, thats bad". It takes away a major part of the role playing in the game, playing a rash character doesnt mean quickly clicking on the option for the shortest conversation. It means picking the right dialouge options that make him seem rash. Its just the way this wheel was built is really dumbed-down conversation in the worst way
Eh, no you don't know that, seeing as some characters like you being jerky. Worked like that in DA:O, worked like that in DA2. The introduction of the dialogue wheel didn't introduce the black-and-white Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect all of a sudden. It works just the same, you still get friendship/rivalry points for RPing a certain character just like in DA:O, there's still the same style of answers available as in DA:O.
It can't possible be dumbed down seeing as it still works the same. It's just presented in a slicker way that enables players to make both gut-feeling and thought-out choices. DA:O forced you to do one of those, in DA2 you can do both.
You say it takes away of the roleplaying, but I honestly have no idea how. I actually did make a rash character in DA2, leading me to sometimes pick snarky/charming options and sometimes aggressive and direct ones, and I roleplayed the change in my character after his mother died. I really have no idea how roleplaying is diminished in DA2 compared to DA:O. The wheel was just an interface, the actual content was no different from DA:O.
