When Dragon Age II Fell Apart

[ms_sunlight]

Regarding "Best served Cold":
This quest follows on a quest where you have to hunt mages for Knight Commander Meredith. Two of these were a danger to the city, the third was not, you can tell Meredith he was killed to help him escape. It doesn't make a good impression however you handle it. And your last big acts of helping mages date back some years. Si i'd say that the rebellious templars suspect you of working for Meredith is not at all illogical. And as the leading mage of the group has personal problems with Hawke, the inability to defuse the hostage situation isn't either.

Exactly. The main kidnapper just hates Hawke, because of something that happened some years previously. Hence "best served cold", I always thought - the kidnapping was someone using heated circumstances to exact their own petty vengeance rather than to sensibly reach some political goal.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Grr, doublepost!

*delete*

 

[Gennadios]

Oh yay!
Another "Let's take a dump on DA2!" rant - because there are totally not enough of those yet ...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you're saying - yes the ending did seem rushed and that quest seemed stupid, but this is about the thousandth time I time I've heard pretty much this exact same rant.

Quiet, you. For once this is coming from a contributing editor of a gaming mag. This is big news, a totem needs to be erected in this article's honor.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

I found the ultimate outcome of either side's support to be a very interesting and different way of showing players that their decision on whom to support may not always be vindicated, especially after choosing your final side in the battle for Kirkwall. Yes, Meredith may be insane, power-hungry and corrupted, taking the Templars to an absurd overreach of their station, BUT she was right about the mages the whole time, since Blood Magic is widespread in the circle, and Orsino himself is a blood mage also. Even if it could be spun as that the mages were practicing Blood Magic to resist Meredith's insanity and repression, demonic possession and corruption -and all the chaos and destruction surrounding that- still occurs, no matter what their original motives were.

I think that the point that BioWare was trying to make here is that both sides were in the wrong, and that no matter who Hawke eventually allied with, it feels like you made the wrong choice. I think it's a fresh and innovative way of showing players that just because they have a story and choices that are unique to them, that does not automatically mean that the story will have an ending where their choices feel vindicated.

If the game had depicted that one side was clearly in the right and lorded it over the other faction whether you allied with them or not, that would be problematic storytelling. However, since the leaders of both factions are revealed to be inherently evil at the end, I think it was a refreshing look at the "no way you can come out of this smelling like a rose" ending.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The main annoyance I have is that there is obvious room for a middle option: Side with the City. You're the Champion of KIRKWALL, not Champion of the Mages, or Champion of the Templars. Hell, there's enough quests where you side with the City Guard that they could be considered their own faction.

 

[ms_sunlight]

If the game had depicted that one side was clearly in the right and lorded it over the other faction whether you allied with them or not, that would be problematic storytelling. However, since the leaders of both factions are revealed to be inherently evil at the end, I think it was a refreshing look at the "no way you can come out of this smelling like a rose" ending.

This. I absolutely loved the ending - both sides are rotten, both choices are a compromise, and neither side will let you abstain from choosing.

The last act showed a city spiralling out of control into fanaticism and violence, and how can one person, even a Champion, stop that? Gamers are so used to being the Chosen One who gets to be all-powerful and decide how everything pans out. The real world isn't like that; DA2 chose to show that fantasy worlds don't have to be like that either.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Why am I reading a whole article on the most simple, obvious flaw in DA2's story almost a full year after it came out?

Because you saw it, clicked the link, read it, then came here to post.

OT: excellent piece. Focusing on one of many examples of terribleness found in DA2. When I got to that bit I was like "I have to do this?" A middle option would have been so much better.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I hate to be that person but... Orsino, not Orsini. Orsino.

Le fixed! Thanks for the heads up.

Would've been uncomfortable to post that alongside the 5/5 review from this site, eh?

Not really. We don't insist that contributors agree with our review scores, and welcome discussion about a game's pros and cons. If Dennis had pitched me this article when the game came out, I'd have run it, then, too.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

BioWare's narrative specialty is giving players the ability to shape worlds through moral choices.

Is it? Maybe this is just a failing of my memory but I can't really recall any Bioware games that have executed on moral choices with meaningful consequences well. They're typically rife with false dichotomies, cartoonish good/evil morality, morality bars with gameplay effects that actively limit choice, and railroading. I always felt that Bioware's narrative specialty was in creating interesting worlds, populating them with some likeable and nuanced characters and having a fairly decent plot with a nice twist or two, but I felt like the choices were generally pretty bullshit.

Actually, Dragon Age Origins did choices pretty well, but other than that, I wouldn't say Bioware is good at it.

 

[Spaec]

Great article. Still don't regret giving the game a pass.
In the end, I think the bigger picture around it boils down to this: BioWare shouldn't be owned by EA. It does not under any circumstance make sense and cripples gaming.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Ahem.

1. Before you start Best Served Cold, you are REQUIRED to complete another quest called "On the Loose" in which Meredith asks you to hunt down some mages who have escaped. You can deal with the mages in a number of ways, but since several of them have gone batshit insane and attack you, you have no choice but to kill them. So you are so totally working for Meredith at the point Best Served Cold comes up.

2. Mages are renowned for going batshit insane, so under stress they're certainly not always going to do the sensible thing. These are not civil, stable people protesting nonviolently against a regime they find unpleasant. Many of them maintain a civilized veneer, but Orsino (apparently the most stable of the lot) actually helped the guy who killed Hawke's mom with some illegal and highly evil researches.

3. "Show, don't Tell" does not apply to secondary details. It is not appropriate to waste vast amounts of time narrating every single thing that ever happens (if you did, it'd be impossible to tell any story of any kind at all). The fact that mages and templars across Thedas are now rebelling is not really part of Hawke's story or significant TO Hawke's story. It simply informs the significance of the events post-story on the overall world. The ending could just as easily have been "and three weeks later the Divine showed up with three thousand templars and they cleaned up the whole mess and shoved it under the rug".

 

[bjj hero]

Dragon Age 2's story is just plain broken.

I loved DA:O but never got around to playing DA2. I hope to at some point. The complaints Ive heard havent put me off I just always have other things to play.

Copy paste dungeons? Well there are plenty of similar buildings thrown up on housing estates etc so is it so far fetched?

Onto the OPs point about "Best served cold". We can all get dragged into things that dont concern us, having worked in prisons Ive seen "neutral" people have to side with gangs from their area because they were targetted by rival gangs thinking they're affiliated. Similar things happen in places like Northern Ireland, and the middle east. You are roped in with a group you dont have any real links with and have to stand your ground or flee. Whats is so far fetched? Sometimes other people make your choices for you.

As far as the ending; what's so wrong with both sides being arse holes? Isn't that most wars ever fought? Look at recent events in Libya where most observers agree that NATO, the pro Gaddafi fighters and the "freedom fighters" are all guilty of war crimes. (Thats Bombing civilian targets, deciding someones a pro Gaddafi supporter to be tortured and killed based on skin colour and burying deserters alive respecively to name a few allegations). Life is not so black and white unless you believe TV and movies.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Also there's the addition of the craptastic dialogue wheel, lack of race choice, lack of aesthetic customization in companions, reused areas, those quests where you would find an item and bring it to some random person for some reason, and the goofy departure from the aesthetic of the first game. All of which make the game a huge step backwards from its predecessor.

Let's not forget those problems.

Or the atrocious writing. Seriously, this thing practically needs its own Plinkett review.

 

[Darkmantle]

I found the ultimate outcome of either side's support to be a very interesting and different way of showing players that their decision on whom to support may not always be vindicated, especially after choosing your final side in the battle for Kirkwall. Yes, Meredith may be insane, power-hungry and corrupted, taking the Templars to an absurd overreach of their station, BUT she was right about the mages the whole time, since Blood Magic is widespread in the circle, and Orsino himself is a blood mage also. Even if it could be spun as that the mages were practicing Blood Magic to resist Meredith's insanity and repression, demonic possession and corruption -and all the chaos and destruction surrounding that- still occurs, no matter what their original motives were.

I think that the point that BioWare was trying to make here is that both sides were in the wrong, and that no matter who Hawke eventually allied with, it feels like you made the wrong choice. I think it's a fresh and innovative way of showing players that just because they have a story and choices that are unique to them, that does not automatically mean that the story will have an ending where their choices feel vindicated.

If the game had depicted that one side was clearly in the right and lorded it over the other faction whether you allied with them or not, that would be problematic storytelling. However, since the leaders of both factions are revealed to be inherently evil at the end, I think it was a refreshing look at the "no way you can come out of this smelling like a rose" ending.

the problem is that the observant or neutral character doesn't have any options, the option to not side with either should be present. Like in the OP, his character took pains to stay neutral, but was forced to choose, where he should have had the option to say "fuck you both". all three could have been downer endings, but it wouldn't feel like you were forced to side with a group you disagree with.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I think the game was falling apart the moment that act III started, though Best Served Cold was probably the most ridiculous instance of the game giving you a middle finger. You finally meet a more rational faction in the game. Their leader orders your sibling released and asks you to join their cause to overthrow the tyrannical faction that rules them all. So then a random blood mage murders that leader in front of EVERYONE and they all side with her against you, forcing you to kill the rational faction and make a decision that will plunge the entire region into absolute chaos. That was the stupidest thing that happened in the entire game. If they didn't want you to have this option, why even present it in the first place? It wasn't tragic when the option disappeared just because of how it disappeared. People weren't exactly joining up with John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln, they hunted the guy down.

Anyway, I think it was falling apart in a narrative sense because of how mages are portrayed at every turn. Every asshole with a paper cut ended up turning into a blood thirsty monster who wanted your flesh. When you remove Orsino from the list at the very end, that adds up to zero sensible mages in the entire game save you or your sister. This game pulled the cardinal sin of not ignoring choices, but invalidating them right before your eyes.

 

[-|-]

I played the game before I read all the nitpicks from the nay-sayers and I liked it. I liked my character and I liked the combat and I liked the story. Another thing it has going for it is the fact that it actually works - I can put the disc into my PS3 and, you know, enjoy the game. Something that I cannot do with skyrim, for all the praise and GOTY awards it's got.

 

[Hyper-space]

snip

This.

One cannot expect the game to mirror YOUR personal view of the character, you can only take into account what has happened in the game, so its natural for the Mages and Templars to think that you are working for Meredith, seeing as you just killed a bunch of them (there is no way for them to know the full story of WHY you had to kill them, so its the only conclusion they can come to). YOU (the author of the article) might have a different view of your character and his alignment, but the truth is that the rebellious Mages and Templars could only see and judge from your actions.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

the problem is that the observant or neutral character doesn't have any options, the option to not side with either should be present. Like in the OP, his character took pains to stay neutral, but was forced to choose, where he should have had the option to say "fuck you both". all three could have been downer endings, but it wouldn't feel like you were forced to side with a group you disagree with.

That's the thing. You DO have the dialogue choice of wanting to stay neutral during the moment of decision. But then, if you stay neutral, what kind of "Champion of Kirkwall" would you be, as the game points out to you when you choose that option? You are a public figurehead who is as inexorably tied to Kirkwall as the Templars and the Circle, and both sides are now engaging in all-out war for what their vision of Kirkwall would be like. The swords would swing and spells would fly whether you walked away or not. To stand aside and let the fate of the city that you Champion be decided by someone else would be cowardly and a fundamental failing of your station as the protector of the city, which you had spent the last decade of your life cultivating. You would lose all credibility as a hero by the people of Kirkwall no matter who won the war if you just did nothing. When Anders struck the first blow of the battle, your time of neutrality ended. You, for the good of the city, had to choose whom to support.

And that's the best part. No matter whom you side with, you're allying yourself with an evil leader. It's an excellent guage in a game of which is the lesser of two evils. And that decision is why, for all its design flaws, I can't fault Dragon Age 2's story.