When Dragon Age II Fell Apart

[Susan Arendt]

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.

The reused areas and piddly little fetch quests were fairly lame, but the lack of changes to the companions didn't bother me a bit. I thought it was actually an interesting departure from the norm, really.

 

[Aggieknight]

Thank you for writing this up. You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the point where the game jumped the shark in my opinion and went from "engaging story with OK gameplay" to "unmitigated disaster". "OMG! Templars and mages working together, yeah!" "Wait...why are they attacking me?"

Your research in putting this together is much appreciated.

 

[Darkmantle]

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.

or, as the "protector of kirkwall" would you be more inclined to kill BOTH sides, pfft, only cowards walk away, I would rampage through the middle of BOTH of their armies. If they cant get along, they all deserve to die. Is that decision present? defend the city by eliminating both factions?

cause that's how my char would play it.

 

[Forst1999]

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.

or, as the "protector of kirkwall" would you be more inclined to kill BOTH sides, pfft, only cowards walk away, I would rampage through the middle of BOTH of their armies. If they cant get along, they all deserve to die. Is that decision present? defend the city by eliminating both factions?

cause that's how my char would play it.

Your char is suicidal? From a gameplay pov, it may be possible to kill hundreds of enemies, but as a story option, this but be silly.

 

[Mike Richards]

I haven't gotten around to playing DA2 yet but I've been following it and the controversy surrounding it as closely as I can. That seems like a fantastic ending to me, and right in line with everything else I've heard about the game. DA2 seems to be very much about boldly destroying a lot of the classic fantasy tropes we've come to expect, rather then simply subverting them as it's predecessor usually did. Hero's have lives beyond a single journey that takes them to a single dramatic resolution, tales are unreliable, and not all dwarves have beards.

Maybe the execution was off, I wouldn't know. But just based on the description of the ending that IS a brilliant exercise in tragedy, I don't really see how it could be anything else. There's no right answer and everyone sucks, and all you have to do is decide which one you think sucks less. With all the problems society in this universe faces that feels so much more real to me then the usual method of introducing moral gray areas: where the heroes have a few faults and sometimes the villains almost-but-not-quite start making sense.

 

[Velimirius]

DA:O was great, DA2 was sadly crap...

 

[Gunjester]

Ending sucked. Made no sense considering I could've slaughtered all the Templars or the Mages by myself, all I'd need is enough arrows. No need for lyrium swords or blood magic.
and Final boss then, whoop! Leliana and yer done!
And I sit there going, what? Okay where's my slideshow of "what happened to who" thing you did the in the first game?
Why can't I talk to all my buddies to here of their plans?
WHY THE F*CK CAN'T I CHOOSE WHERE MY CHARACTER GOES AT THE END?!

 

[The Wykydtron]

I liked the tragedy type ending really, it's nice to see Bioware taking a break from the "you are the Chosen One, now go save the world" thing they've been sticking to ever since... Well... Ever i suppose?

Good to see a "Chosen One" who can't do shit for once.

The combat was crap though, i liked the leveling and rival/friend system but the hordes, my god the hordes!

Didn't really care about the copypasta environments though... It's hardly a gamebreaker in my eyes, the fact that all the items had little to no description or name annoyed me more. Weird how you only miss the "+10 staff of penetration" when it's gone...

 

[ImSkeletor]

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.

He was not complaining about it not being black and white. He was mad that if he choses the mages they are evil and the templars are good. If he picks the templars they are evil and the mages are good. The mages should either become abominations neither way or both ways or else it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Forst1999]

He was not complaining about it not being black and white. He was mad that if he choses the mages they are evil and the templars are good. If he picks the templars they are evil and the mages are good. The mages should either become abominations neither way or both ways or else it doesn't make any sense.

But that isn't even the case. Whichever side you pick, Orsino becomes an Abomination (Harvester, actually) and in both cases Meredith is insane and you have to kill her. You only encounter blood mages in the gallows (aside from Orsino) if you sided with the templars.

 

[willis888]

I liked that it was a gray, crapsack world with few clear moral black/white areas.

The ending that I didn't like was playing as a mage, supporting and siding with the mages at every opportunity, Anders' afraid, insecure reactions and dialogue make no sense.

---

He was not complaining about it not being black and white. He was mad that if he choses the mages they are evil and the templars are good. If he picks the templars they are evil and the mages are good. The mages should either become abominations neither way or both ways or else it doesn't make any sense.

A mage needs to be versed in Blood Magic to become an Abomination at will. In all endings, those mages still know how to use Blood Magic, even if some are not driven by the plot to use it in that way.

Spoiler

Meredith always gets the Idol and is driven insane. IIRC, the really actually last final battle is always against berserk Meredith, and the only difference your choices up to this point have is to set the tone of putting her down - is she Old Yeller or is she Cujo?

 

[DSK-]

It's therefore natural when games like Dragon Age II, whose characters and story are arguably stronger than their mechanics, roll around, those narrative-loving critics are so pleased.

I must have read the paragraph this was in 6 times because I thought my sleep deprivation was affecting my ability to read. Did't make much sense to me with that "roll around" in the middle :/

OT: The game for me fell apart when the dialogue I was choosing didn't sound like it mattered. There were times when I declined to do something, only ending up having to do it anyway.

*shrug*

 

[xvbones]

Its like I say:

Dragon Age 2 was not an RPG, simply a playable dramatic documentary like we seen on the BBC.

This.

DA2, sadly, was just The Random Adventures Of This Guy/Gal Who Does Some Stuff And Then Things Happen.

The utter lack of a single storyline ruined the game, sadly. It had potential that it squandered by being a handful of frayed threads, rather than a single story with a lot of sidequests, like the first.

For me DA2 did fall apart in act 3 chiefly because its run by the idiot ball, and not any human motivations anymore.

For me it was when the awesome promise of a kickass storyline coming from the Deep Roads run (end of chapter 1) was utterly wasted by NOTHING HAPPENING.

Seriously, we are shown an ancient idol with clear evil power predating even the Dwarves, we have the fraternal betrayal, the abandonment deep in the earth, surrounded by antediluvian monstrosities and demons and dark ones and then POOF YAY WE ARE HOME AND THERE WERE NO CONSEQUENCES AFTER ALL HAH HAH HAH OH HEY A SIDEQUEST THAT WRAPS ALL THAT UP LATER ON IN A NEAT LITTLE PACKAGE HOORAY.

:c

 

[Darkmantle]

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.

or, as the "protector of kirkwall" would you be more inclined to kill BOTH sides, pfft, only cowards walk away, I would rampage through the middle of BOTH of their armies. If they cant get along, they all deserve to die. Is that decision present? defend the city by eliminating both factions?

cause that's how my char would play it.

Your char is suicidal? From a gameplay pov, it may be possible to kill hundreds of enemies, but as a story option, this but be silly.

See the downer ending comment I made earlier, you would have to be insane or knights-templarish in your devotion to take that path, so STILL no matter what you do it's a downer ending.

What's nice is the choice, the way they have it, your char is just forced.

EDIT: yes my char is like a Knight-templar (figuratively), just how I played him.

 

[Forst1999]

See the downer ending comment I made earlier, you would have to be insane or knights-templarish in your devotion to take that path, so STILL no matter what you do it's a downer ending.

What's nice is the choice, the way they have it, your char is just forced.

You can't make every choice available. DA:O never gave you the choice not to become a warden. In Baldur's Gate you weren't able to say: "Wow, everyone on the sword coast is trying to kill me, i'm outta here!" Very few story-driven games give you the choice not to participate in the story.

 

[Imre Csete]

To me, the whole narrative structure fell apart after the end of act 1, without a clear goal from start to finish. The game felt like a 3 part mini series, with a last act clearly rushed. Act 2 was awesome, but only because the Arishok stole the spotlight, even tough that book twist with Isabela was stupid (you waited 3 years to tell me that?!), and I lost her after wasting an afternoon on Insanity to duel with the Arishok because I didn't use her a lot thanks to her infamous aura glitch. Go me.

I hated Best Served Cold for the aforementioned no reflection of our choices, and I didn't like the ending choice either. I roleplayed an overprotective big brother to Bethany as a warrior Hawke (polite answers most of the time with a few sarcastic ones, but going all agressive when she was threatened). So lacking the choice somewhere along the lines of "I'm not in this for your rebellion, I just want my sister to be safe" really made me pissed, since this game was hyped as a super personal story. That personal story aspect fell flat to its face with Bethany removed at the end of Act 1 (adventuring with her was the best part of Act 1 imo) and your mother killed in Act 2, that last glimmering hope when you meet your cusin in Act 3 wasn't good enough to make it live up for all the praise and hype it got pre-launch. I didn't go for either love interests, so no opinion about those.

I really wanted to replay it a few more times to squeeze out as much roleplaying as I could (planned a sarcastic mage and a dickish/agressive rogue presonality), but thank god 2011 was a blast, and DA ][ was a disappointing opening for a rollercoaster gaming year and I didn't have the time.

 

[Darkmantle]

See the downer ending comment I made earlier, you would have to be insane or knights-templarish in your devotion to take that path, so STILL no matter what you do it's a downer ending.

What's nice is the choice, the way they have it, your char is just forced.

You can't make every choice available. DA:O never gave you the choice not to become a warden. In Baldur's Gate you weren't able to say: "Wow, everyone on the sword coast is trying to kill me, i'm outta here!" Very few story-driven games give you the choice not to participate in the story.

I never said I wanted the choice to leave the story. I wanted the choice to pick the side I wanted to pick, as mentioned in the article, the templar/mage alliance, OR my own damn alliance, so I don't have to side with the two sides, neither of which I like. It's a binary choice, there should be a different option. And how is deciding to protect the city from both of them not participating in the story? and if I DO want the choice to not participate, maybe it's just a bad story.

 

[Kahunaburger]

See the downer ending comment I made earlier, you would have to be insane or knights-templarish in your devotion to take that path, so STILL no matter what you do it's a downer ending.

What's nice is the choice, the way they have it, your char is just forced.

You can't make every choice available. DA:O never gave you the choice not to become a warden. In Baldur's Gate you weren't able to say: "Wow, everyone on the sword coast is trying to kill me, i'm outta here!" Very few story-driven games give you the choice not to participate in the story.

The point was more that the game basically forces you to pick up the idiot ball. There's a difference between asking the player to pick between two equally valid choices and asking the player to pick between two equally invalid choices when they can easily think of a better solution. The "pick a side" dichotomy isn't exactly new ground for video games, either - both Witcher games and New Vegas, to name a few recent ones, did the same thing much more intelligently.

 

[SycoMantis91]

I agree with everything said. There were acts leading up to "Best Served Cold" that while they make it believable, still leave it as quite a stretch. I'm glad the story's getting a more detailed analysis as many of the reviews I've seen focus too much on the dungeons seeming like (as our own Yahtzee so eloquently put it) they'd "started opening franchises", and how non-RPG the combat was and how overly-streamlined the leveling system was. All understandable gripes, but not on the level of the actual story of the game. Something Bioware tends to master and that to many RPG fans, is the most important aspect of said genre. ESPECIALLY in a multiple-game story like that of Dragon Age.

The worst part I think of the story, is that it didn't FEEL like Dragon Age. It felt like some asshole runs around doing remedial tasks for 12-15 hours, then gets thrown into a mini-war ending in a boss fight with not a dragon, but some crazy ***** who got to close too a glow-ey crystal thing. It does little to connect the events or the "Champion" to the world around him or to establish his part in the final game, which was really the whole purpose of Dragon Age II. As i said when I initially reviewed this for a now defunct site about a week after release, it felt like a larger-scale downloadable content story than an actual game. The kind of thing you spend 20 or 30 bucks on to keep the masses busy until the real game comes out. It would have been acceptable, maybe even pretty good for that price, with the lowered expectations of typical DLC, but it just feels too small and too hastily thrown together for a full-fledged game. Yet alone a full-fledged game that's a sequel to one of the best RPG's of this console generation by one of the masters of the art.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

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.

For that to work, you would need two new options:
1. Fight no-one. Hawke would just walk away and leave them to it. This would be a massive anti-climax. Good in a narrative sense, but awful in a gameplay sense.
2. Fight everyone. This would be strong from a gameplay perspective (it would make more sense of the double bosses). This would a popular option, just like the 'no masters, no Gods' option in New Vegas. As for a narrative perspective, I guess it would leave Hawke in an awkward postition. Hawke saved the city, but they would only see the destruction. Hawke would lack allies on either side and be hunted in exile by both. It could've been interesting. I personally wouldn't choose it because Bioware games are about tough decisions, picking the least worst option and not just about solving everything with blood.