About Dragon Age II's story...

[TheDrunkNinja]

As I just said above: I'm not defending the quality of the story as it is impossible to PROVE to someone else that they're opinion of not liking something is wrong. Whatever their reasons are, they still won't like it. I'm saying that DA 2 did have a story.

My point wasn't that it was a bad story or that I didn't like it. My point was it shouldn't have been Dragon Age 2.

As for my comparisons, allow me to elaborate . . .

Yeah I got that, but like I said, if Dragon Age 3 continues on from Dragon Age 2, it still wouldn't be a trilogy since the first Dragon Age's story is inconsequential to the two sequels.

As for DA 2 not continuing the storyline from DAO, that's because of what they clearly have in store for DA3.

That's EXACTLY my problem.

The epilogue for DAO says that The Warden ended up wandering off to have his/her own adventures in a story yet to be told. That's how DA2 ends: The Champion ends up wandering off to have his/her own adventures in a story yet to be told. Which is the signifigance of the ending when The Seeker releases Varric and steps outside only to be greeted by Leliana.
L: "And the Champion?"
S: "Gone, just like The Warden. It can't be a coincidence."
I thought this made it quite clear that BOTH The Warden and The Champion will turn up in DA3.

I knew that, though doubtful they'll ever see the light of day beyond a mere mentioning like the Warden in 2, but that's for another discussion.

I don't know what they have in store for DA3, but it is very likely we'll see the Grey Wardens back in action.

Let's hope.

As for the complaint about "There's no over-arching threat that ties the two games together." Well what did you expect? Another Blight? The Dark Spawn had been defeated and as such the great and evil peril that threatened the land had been stopped.

Did you play Awakening? Now THAT'S what you call a sequel. And the way it ended with everything that happened with the Architect and Mother made it clear that there was something far more sinister and complex at work than a simple Archdemon resurgence. It was clearly a set up to a jumping off point for the series. I understand that Origins is a complete story that had a beginning, middle, and end with the defeat of the Archdemon. But Awakening still expanded on it without any trouble. It added more intrigue to the darkspawn other than the fact that they were just evil minions by setting up two opposing factions. Why the hell did we not continue with that? Awakening is 10 times the sequel that Dragon Age 2 is. If 2's story was necessary to be told, I wish they had switched roles where 2 was the expansion and Awakening was the sequel. It just makes much more sense which is why my entire point is based on the fact that Dragon Age 2 isn't a real sequel.

And guess what DA2 set up: the climatic world-encompassing civil war between mages and templars. Pretty sure that's what DA3 is going to focus around. So if anything, you could say that DAO is the story that doesn't fit seeing as how the last 2 games (most likely) are focusing around mages being pissed off at the church.

And that is a horribly misguided and poorly thought-out move on BioWare's part if that is the case. The better story and REAL sequel should be continuing with what Awakening set up. Dragon Age 2's mage vs. templar story has some weight but ultimately feels more like a side story compared to the world-encompassing threat of the Blight and whatever malicious force was behind Awakening's plot. In fact, I almost compare the mage civil war to the civil disputes the Warden would have to solve in order to get the land to shut up and focus on the real threat. It's just not SEQUEL material in the slightest!

But regardless of all that, again, I will not try to convince you that DA2's story was a good one (though I truly did enjoy it), all I'm saying is that for all of the problems that game has, "there is no story" is not one of them. All your complaints seem to be reasons as to why you didn't like the story and that's perfectly fine. I'm just saying that there is a full and complete story there for you to not like.

Again, it isn't about the fact that I don't like 2's narrative. I don't. What I don't like is the fact that it isn't really a sequel to Origins in any respect. It's a spinoff, it's an entry in an anthology of the Dragon Age franchise. It's not a sequel, but because it's being treated like one, and there is no longer any connection to the original in regards to narrative. Dragon Age 2 is what we will be following in terms of narrative in the next sequel since it technically isn't finished. You said it yourself. This is a terrible direction for the series. It's like if after Mass Effect 1, they ignored the Reaper threat and focused on a conflict between the Turians and Humans. I wouldn't care about whether or not I like Dragon Age 2's narrative if it wasn't for the fact that it was defining the next game in the series.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

I think the whole problem stems from the fact that it's dragon age TWO, as in a sequel, but it isn't one. They should've just named it Dragon age: Hawke's Adventures or something and everyone would've been kinder to it.

The story is just disjointed though and there are some major plot points you just skim through, because not much effort has been made to draw the attention there. They DO explain everything, but there are still plot holes the size of Europa. (kidnapping your lover/sister/brother/whatever even though you aligned yourself with the mages CONSTANTLY, Orsino resorting to blood magic even though we were winning, etc etc). It isn't a bad GAME, it's a bad and rushed SEQUEL to DA:O.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

The point is that DA2 is what it is: a sequel, and it follows the sequel formula like many franchises before it.

I'm sorry, but I had stop reading as soon as I read this, right here. Dragon Age 2 can use the same world, some characters from the last game and even mention the hero of the last game. But Dragon Age 2 is in no way a sequel. The game doesn't continue where Origins left off, it branches away from Origins to show us the story of some random person that no one even knew existed in Origins. The plot is in no way tied to Origins in any possible manner. Sure it'll reference it at several points, but neither of the games are at all related to one another in the way that a true sequel would be related to its prequel.

Seems as though you fell into the same trap that I often fall into: not reading all the comments (which really can't be blamed, you've got a point and you wanna make it without reading a massive wall of text formed by various other people). However, allow me to point out where you're wrong in that there most specifically IS a tie-in to the events of the first game.

As for DA 2 not continuing the storyline from DAO, that's because of what they clearly have in store for DA3. The epilogue for DAO says that The Warden ended up wandering off to have his/her own adventures in a story yet to be told. That's how DA2 ends: The Champion ends up wandering off to have his/her own adventures in a story yet to be told. Which is the signifigance of the ending when The Seeker releases Varric and steps outside only to be greeted by Leliana.
L: "And the Champion?"
S: "Gone, just like The Warden. It can't be a coincidence."
I thought this made it quite clear that BOTH The Warden and The Champion will turn up in DA3

A prime example of this comes in the form of Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Other than the story involving Jack and the gang from the first movie, it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot from the first movie. Again, following sequel format: develope characters, expand the plot, set up the 3rd installment.

Another way to look at it is "What if they just up and skipped the entire plot of DA2, making whatever they have in store for DA3 as being DA2 and giving us another game afterwords?" The problem with that is that the 3rd game has obviously been set up to revolve around the mage conflict...which begins with Hawke in the story of Kirkwall. So if we just skipped all that and you show up as the Warden in the middle of a mage civil war, you'd be left thinking "Huh? What the fuck? I go from kicking Dark Spawn ass and saving the world from a terrible threat to all of a sudden every mage in the world is pissed off and fighting against the church? Was there a book or something I didn't read that had how all this crap started?" So again I assert that DA2 does what a sequel is meant to do: drive the plot and set up the 3rd installment.

But in the end I must remind you that I am not making a defense of the DA2 stoy as being "good", my defense of the story is "it actually exists".

For all intents and purposes, Dragon Age 2 is indeed a good game. I don't pretend it has no story, but you and I have different definitions of "sequel." The kind of sequel I grew up with directly continues the game that came before it. Picks up where the last one dropped off. Dragon Age 2 doesn't really do that, as it branches away from Origins. The only ties Dragon Age 2 has to Origins is that Hawke disappears like the Warden does(except you know what happens to the Warden is you play Witch Hunt a certain way). But how does one explain the continuity error that is Leliana at the end of Dragon Age 2? I killed Leliana. I cut her head off. She's dead. I imported that save into Dragon Age 2. Leliana should not be alive. Does this void the canon value of the Urn of Sacred Ashes segment of Origins, or just the choice you make to defile the ashes? I don't believe sequels should have their own canon that voids the choices you make in the previous game, where Dragon Age 2 is a red-handed culprit. That would be like Mass Effect 2 bringing Wrex into the game despite the fact that you killed him in the first one.

I'm not here to tell you that DA2 has no story, because it most certainly does. But DA2 will never be the sequel to Origins in my eyes. Not until DA3 is actually confirmed to bring these two games together with a tie that connects all three of them. As it stands, your assertion is mere conjecture to me. An assumption that DA3 will go this way, when it's very possible that it won't. Do note, though, that I am in no way trying to tell you that you're wrong. It's just the way I see things.

 

[Ascarus]

In the end I still say that DA2 was, as a whole, a disappointment. There are PLENTY of faults to point at it, all I'm saying is that "lack of a story" is not one of them.

among the countless other fuck ups in DA2, the game lacked any narrative focus whatsoever.

the plot in twilight was a sea of complexity compared to the "story" in DA2.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Again i point out that the game is supposed to be disjounted.

This is something that just bugs me a little. "Because it is supposed to be" isn't a real good excuse if the final product suffers because of it. If the story is supposed to be disjointed and you can't find a way to make it flow well, choose another way to tell your story or change your story. Just like Varric telling the narrative, if it presents too many problems, then just don't use it.

 

[CoL0sS]

I mostly keep my copy of Dragon Age II as a remainder not to pre-order any fucking game ever again. Game was rushed and in no way a sequel to Origins.
I also didn't like what I considered to be lack of story focus and poor narrative. Now, some people may look deeper, say the game has slow build-up which eventually explodes into this world-changing conflict, but to me it just felt that with 14-month development time, they couldn't expand on the existing world in way they wanted to, so they just created a new setting. Chapters felt disjointed, which wasn't helped by those random jumps in time and stuff getting resolved behind the scenes.

I also thought (and this is probably just me) that it was ironic how one of the strongest parts of the game was ultimately the thing that bothered me most. Hawke I created didn't care about whole mages vs templars thing. He tried to walk the middle line, ignore them, wait until they destroy each other in that senseless conflict. Neither side was right in his mind, no one was innocent. But despite how much he tried to avoid it he kept getting pulled in. On one part this was totally brilliant, but since both factions were further divided amongst themselves, and player didn't have enough freedom to exploit that, it created a lot of plot-holes that eventually brought the story down (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9353-When-Dragon-Age-II-Fell-Apart - author explained it better than I could). As Hawke became single most important person in the city, they missed the opportunity to create a third side to that conflict which could have perhaps finished that chapter of Dragon Age right there and then. This way it was just another spin-off; a set-up to give them another alley to explore with further expansions or sequel. Now that I think about it it's a pretty good move business-wise.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think DA II is a bad game; it just didn't have to be Dragon Age.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's less that it has no story and more that it tells several stories badly.

 

[RJ 17]

Please forgive the rather massive size of this post, it was either make one big fatty or 5 individual responses, and since a few of my responses reference other responses, I figured one big fatty would be the best way to go.

That said, let me go ahead and sum things up for all the TL/DR people out there. Quite simply: if you don't like to read or don't want to read, get off the internet. Escapist is full of 2,3, even 4 page articles and I don't see you guys "TL/DR"ing those.

Alright, lets get started here...

Huge Snippage

All of your points are perfectly valid and I won't try to argue against any of them, however they do indeed all fall under the category of "didn't like the story". Specifically for you, you didn't like how this story was the sequel to DAO and I can fully understand that. It is indeed a huge shift from battling the Darkspawn in an epic battle to save the world to suddenly zooming in on one specific person's life who has very little to do with the story from the first game. It feels like we might be having two different discussions here, as I once again point out that I'm not defending DA2's story itself, I'm defending the fact that it has a story at all while you're arguing that the story doesn't make for a good sequel to the first game. I actually do disagree with that statement as well, as I'll discuss later on in this post. But my real argument for the sake of this topic is against people who say stuff like this:

Again i point out that the game is supposed to be disjounted.

This is something that just bugs me a little. "Because it is supposed to be" isn't a real good excuse if the final product suffers because of it. If the story is supposed to be disjointed and you can't find a way to make it flow well, choose another way to tell your story or change your story. Just like Varric telling the narrative, if it presents too many problems, then just don't use it.

Perhaps I should clarify my point. To me the story isn't disjointed, but that is the argument that other peoople make against, and I'm saying that's just how the style of the story is supposed to be. If you ask me, people who say that DA2's story lacks focus and is disjointed weren't paying attention, allow me to explain the flow of the story.

Edit: Figured I should probably put an entire breakdown of the story in "spoilers"
Chapter 1: Hawke arrives as a refuge and as such has absolutely no standing whatsoever, he/she is nothing but another beleaguered peasant that showed up in Kirkwall, so you join up with a band of thieves or mercenaries who offer to buy your way into the city in exchange for a year of service.

Chapter 2: Hawke, believing that his/her mother deserves better than to live in a run-down hovel in Lowtown, decides that he/she wants to make a name for himself/herself by joining up with an expedition to the Deep Roads in order to gain money and recognition so that the Viscount will restore the Hawke/Amelle(spelling) family name to its rightful place amongst the nobility. In the process of doing odd-jobs to raise enough money to join the expedition, you hear rumors that the Templars are a bunch of pricks who treat mages like actual prisoners rather than special people free to study and practice their art while under supervision, you also get introduced to the Qunari via the dwarf who wants to buy their explosives.

Chapter 3: Having regained the status of nobility that his/her family once possessed in Kirkwall, Hawke is now officially a "somebody". Tensions are rising with the Qunari and since Hawke is perhaps the only person in the city that the Arishok has a modicom (spelling) of respect for, Hawke is called upon to try and ease the tension. In the process of doing this, you also learn that the situation between the Templars and the Mages is growing steadily worse, however the main threat to the city is now the Qunari. Things come to a boiling point and the Arishok declares war upon Kirkwall while Hawke is standing right in front of him. Having no choice but to fight to save his/her new home, Hawke proceeds to defeat the Arishok in 1 on 1 combat, thus single-handedly saving the entire city and being declared Champion. With such a title and the Viscount dead, Hawke is now officially one of the 4 most important people in the city along with Orsino of the Mages, Meredith of the Templars, and Grand Cleric what's-her-name.

Chapter 4: Being one of the 4 most important people in the city, Hawke's word now carries considerable weight, and so many look to him/her to try and difuse the ever-escalating conflict between the Templars and Mages. Shit goes down, a church gets blown up, and it is up to Kirkwall's Champion (and therefor protector) to finally bring resolution to the whole mess. Will Hawke side with the long-tortured mages? Or will Hawke join the zealously driven Templars? This is the conflict that has been playing out throughout the entire story, while the entire story is how Hawke became important enough for anyone to give a damn about what he/she has to say in the matter.

Personally I think it all flows very well with numerous stories being told beneath the umbrella of the Templar vs Mage story.

In the end I still say that DA2 was, as a whole, a disappointment. There are PLENTY of faults to point at it, all I'm saying is that "lack of a story" is not one of them.

among the countless other fuck ups in DA2, the game lacked any narrative focus whatsoever.

the plot in twilight was a sea of complexity compared to the "story" in DA2.

See the above breakdown of the story. Don't blame Bioware just because you weren't able to see/understand it. If you didn't like it, that's one thing, but there IS a story there.

Another Huge Snip-snap

And that's perfectly alright, like I've said numerous times now: I'm just combating the argument that DA2 is just a bunch of random crap, none of which has anything to do with anything else. But I will go ahead and discuss some of the points you bring up just because I think they might not be entirely correct.

You say that DA2 isn't a sequel to DA 1 because a sequel should pick up and carry on the story from the first game. A fair and valid statement. However I would simply point you to what happened at the very beginning of DA2. Your family is still in Fereldin fleeing the Darkspawn and the Blight. Presumably this occurs after Lothering has been consumed which was at the very beginning of the game of DAO, so there's a direct tie-in right there. Granted, Hawke's story is more of a tangent than a direct continuation.

Numerous people have brought up Awakening as being more suited to be a sequel and I cannot argue against the fact that strictly speaking: it is indeed a much better continuation of The Warden's story. But again I must say that Bioware makes it clear that The Warden and The Champion will both play some kind of role (token or major) in DA 3.

Someone pointed out that this was all just speculation on my part, and that is 100% true, I don't know any of this to be certain, I'm just going by what my gut tells me as a writer myelf. All I can say is that Bioware is setting DA 3 to be a direct continuation of DA 2 in that it will take place during a mage civil war and that The Warden and The Champion will have some role to play in it. Now, DA 3 could come out and prove me absolutely wrong on this theory, it could be set during the mage civil war but have absolutely nothing to do with The Warden or The Champion, in which case I will concede that the series as a whole is just one big discombobulated tale that has no true sense of direction.

I can only imagine that the evolved Darkspawn from Awakening will also play a role in DA 3 because if you take Anders and your sibling to the Deep Roads, your sibling joins the Grey Wardens rather than dying. This opens up a quest where you have to go find Erl Howe's son (think it's his son, he's also from Awakening) in the Deep Roads and he mentions the events of Awakening and that The Wardens are moving behind the scenes to deal with these new evolved Darkspawn. It's the same way there is absolutely no reference to the Rachni in Mass Effect 2 other than the asari on Illium who has a message for you from the queen.

As for the whole Leliana thing, yeah, I've got nothing on that. I'm not trying to defend the plot-holes in the DA story of which I fully admit there are plenty. If you carried on a save from DAO in which Leliana's dead, she most specifically should not be in the corresponding playthrough of DA 2. But this wouldn't be the first time that Bioware has arbitrarilly set a canon for their games in which you're supposed to set your own canon. From what I hear, canon now dictates that Darth Revan was a man who redemed himself as a Jedi and led the Old Republic in destroying the Star Forge and beating the Sith while The Exile was a woman who apparently had the hots for Revan and wanted to go join whatever cause he was currently fighting.

Personally I've always felt that, while Bioware does make fun games with entertaining stories, their best series thus far has been Mass Effect. That seems to be the series where all your choices actually do make a difference in the end.

And last but not least...

MOAR WITCHEZ SNIPPAGE!

True, they could have simply glazed over the explosion of the mage vs templar conflict in the prologue to DA 3, but that would be even worse story telling than what most people are complaining about. That'd be like jumping straight from A New Hope to Return of the Jedi with the rolling intro-text to Jedi saying "So yeah, Luke met up with Yoda and trained to become a jedi. His powers with The Force are growing but he still has a long way to go. Meanwhile Han got captured by Boba Fett and taken to Jabba and Luke finds out that Vader is actually his father." Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't be sitting there like "What the hell?! Why didn't we see any of this?! Vader is Luke's frickin' dad?!"

Similarly, in the hypothetical situation where DA 3 is actually DA 2 and the events of DA 2 are just glossed over in the prologue, the game would start "After The Warden defeated the Arch Demon and stopped the Blight, everything calmed down for about 10 years. Then the Knight Commander of the Templars in a city you've never heard of starts going crazy and openly persecuting the mages in her charge. Anders from Awakening has become an abomination by merging with Justice, thus turning himself into a zealous terrorist who blows up a church and thus murders the Grand Cleric. Now all mages across the world are in a civil war. Oh, by the way, there's a badass named Hawke who could quite possibly be the only one to bring peace to the land." Personally I'd want to know how the hell the world got to the state it's in and would have considered it atrocious story-telling if they pulled something like this with Hawke just showing up at the beginning of this hypothetical DA 2 and act like a character of grand importance that we're supposed to already know everything about.

Though admittedly, this depends on whether or not Hawke or The Warden even have a part to play in DA 3. If they don't, then yeah, pretty much everything I said will have been proven false and indeed the DA series will go down as a hopelessly lost trilogy that didn't know what it wanted to do with itself.

As for your second point, no I would not conside such a game to have a story/plot if it's just one person running around doing random disconnected junk. Please refer to the story's summary as presented in the 2nd response I made in this rather massive post. THAT is the story of DA 2. It's there, you cannot deny it. Well, you can if you still want to be stubborn about it. But the story is there, it all fits together, and it flows nicely.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Huge Snippage

All of your points are perfectly valid and I won't try to argue against any of them, however they do indeed all fall under the category of "didn't like the story". Specifically for you, you didn't like how this story was the sequel to DAO and I can fully understand that. It is indeed a huge shift from battling the Darkspawn in an epic battle to save the world to suddenly zooming in on one specific person's life who has very little to do with the story from the first game. It feels like we might be having two different discussions here, as I once again point out that I'm not defending DA2's story itself, I'm defending the fact that it has a story at all while you're arguing that the story doesn't make for a good sequel to the first game. I actually do disagree with that statement as well, as I'll discuss later on in this post.

Oh, no-no-no-no-no. I'm not arguing about your main point of whether or not the game has a story. I'm arguing against this:

I'm just saying don't fault the story for being what it is: a sequel. A link between games 1 and 3 centered around character developement with something major happening at the end. It was the same with Mass Effect 2, it was the same with Gears of War 2, and it was the same with Halo 2. The point is that DA2 is what it is: a sequel, and it follows the sequel formula like many franchises before it.

I specifically picked out that part of your original post seeing as it's the part I have the most opinion on since I feel Dragon Age 2's story doesn't follow the sequel formula by tangenting way off course from the original and shouldn't be the narrative to continue off of in future installments. Hell, in that sentence, I just called Dragon Age 2's plot a "narrative".

Again, it doesn't fall under the category of "didn't like the story" since my entire point is that I fault it for not being a "sequel" at all. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place.

 

[Krantos]

the story itself boils down to "This is how Hawke went from being a refuge to being the most important person in the city and a central figure at the start of a world-wide mage rebellion." Hawke spends what, 10 years in Kirkwall when all is said and done? Obviously not every day of every year is going to have Hawke running around the city putting out fires (despite how much the parts you actually play might have you believe). It just focuses around the major points in Hawke's rise.

See, but that's not a plot, it's a character arch. That's the sticking point for many people. Forgetting everything else about the game (combat, etc.), the problem people have with the story is it simply isn't a complete narrative.

Compare the Grey Warden's (Player Character from Origins) arch to that of Hawke's. They're basically the same: Start on the bottom (exiled from your family/tribe (Dwarf Noble/Dalish), or a criminal conscripted to keep you out of prison (City elf/Dwarf commoner/Mage), or your family is wiped out and you lost everything (Human Noble), Refugee (Hawke), and through various acts become the Hero of a country/city, fall in love (maybe) and find what you were looking for.

The arches are similar, but the thing that separates them is the Warden had a driving motivation (the Blight), whereas Hawke is limited to what amounts to some short stories.

Now, if you liked that, that's fine. It's your opinion, just understand the reason others don't. Many people prefer stories that contain a central motivation for the characters.

Personally, I found it really hard to feel any connection to Hawke at all, simply because (s)he lacked any real motivation. Hawke never needed to be doing what they were doing. You were only tied to the various mini-plots for the sake of having something to do.

And remember plot =/= story =/= theme. The Story is Hawke's rise to power. The plot is a loosely connected series of events. The lacking element is the Theme. There is no central theme to tie the plot points together and as a result the story is just a single character's arch.

 

[RJ 17]

Huge Snippage

All of your points are perfectly valid and I won't try to argue against any of them, however they do indeed all fall under the category of "didn't like the story". Specifically for you, you didn't like how this story was the sequel to DAO and I can fully understand that. It is indeed a huge shift from battling the Darkspawn in an epic battle to save the world to suddenly zooming in on one specific person's life who has very little to do with the story from the first game. It feels like we might be having two different discussions here, as I once again point out that I'm not defending DA2's story itself, I'm defending the fact that it has a story at all while you're arguing that the story doesn't make for a good sequel to the first game. I actually do disagree with that statement as well, as I'll discuss later on in this post.

Oh, no-no-no-no-no. I'm not arguing about your main point of whether or not the game has a story. I'm arguing against this:

I'm just saying don't fault the story for being what it is: a sequel. A link between games 1 and 3 centered around character developement with something major happening at the end. It was the same with Mass Effect 2, it was the same with Gears of War 2, and it was the same with Halo 2. The point is that DA2 is what it is: a sequel, and it follows the sequel formula like many franchises before it.

I specifically picked out that part of your original post seeing as it's the part I have the most opinion on since I feel Dragon Age 2's story doesn't follow the sequel formula by tangenting way off course from the original and shouldn't be the narrative to continue off of in future installments. Hell, in that sentence, I just called Dragon Age 2's plot a "narrative".

Again, it doesn't fall under the category of "didn't like the story" since my entire point is that I fault it for not being a "sequel" at all. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place.

Ahhh, well as I said in another one of my responses, this is just my theory on what DA 3 will involve. Basically one of us will be proven right when DA 3 comes out. To me the first two games have been setting up key figures that will take part in the third game. If both Hawke and The Warden are present as key figures in DA 3, then the story will be complete and DA 2 will be a worthy sequel. If The Warden isn't present as a key figure, you will be proven correct except that in that case, DAO becomes the superfluous game. If Hawke isn't present as a key figure, then DA 2 will be a failure as a sequel to DAO as it will be more of a prequel to DA 3...which I do have to say is a very odd construction for a trilogy though I still think that Hawke's story - being the start of the mage civil war - is an important one to experience. If neither are present in key roles, then DA 3 will go down as a trilogy with no direction at all.

So yeah, guess the best thing I can say to you is that only once the story is completed in DA 3 will we know if DA 2 works as a sequel.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

The keyword in the section that you quoted is "boils down to", meaning that a brief summary is to follow. I already wrote a more expanded explination of the plot in the spoiler in my rather large post, but I'll go ahead and draw out the motivations for each chapter.

Motivation in Chapter 1: Escape the Darkspawn and gain entrance into Kirkwall.

Motivation in Chapter 2: Earn enough money to go on an expedition that will rise you from the slums and allow you to retake your family's heritage of nobility.

Motivation in Chapter 3: Summoned by the Viscount, he reveals that the Arishok has personally requested to speak with you. Given that Kirkwall is officially your home now and you're officially amongst the nobility, it would probably be wise to do whatever you can to keep the platoon of angry giants happy so they don't go on a rampage. As such, you agree to do what you can to ease the tensions and ultimately end up defending your home from being destroyed with everyone either indoctrinated into The Qun or executed.

Motivation in Chapter 4: Being one of the 4 most important people in the city and holding the title of Champion which implies "Protector and Peacekepper", people actually care what you have to say on important matters...such as the matter of templars and mages being on the verge of open conflict. Once again, not wanting to see the city you call home torn apart by these factions, it would be in your best interest to do what you can to keep them from each other's throats.

Pretty sure that just about covers motivation. I've already covered the story. The plot gels well together when you consider that the theme of the story is Hawke's rise to power.

Edit: To clarify, the story is what actually happens, the theme is what the story is about.

 

[Krantos]

Snip

sni- er.. double snip?

Anyway, I understand the intended motivation in the individual sections, but there is no overriding motivation. I already acknowledged that Hawke's arch is basically a collection of short stories. With no core plot thread to tie things together, however, it seems disjointed and vestigial. To me, at least.

I say "intended" motivations, because I don't really buy most of them. I understand what the developers wanted you to feel, but none of them really gel that well with the first thing we learn about the character: Hawke is a coward.

Remember running from Lothering and slaughtering dozens of Darkspawn and an ogre? All before hitting level 4? Maybe Hawke and his family would have been good allies for the Wardens to have. Nope, screw you Fereldan, I'm running to Kirkwall.

I guess I just don't see why Hawke has suddenly changed from actively fleeing from his/her home country to actively defending his/her home or venturing into the deep roads. It would have been different if (s)he'd been less capable in the beginning, but at the very start of the game Hawke is steamrolling the darkspawn. Call it inconsistent characterization (or just plot convenient) but it really ruined the character for me.

Maybe that's why I didn't like the character. At the very beginning I'm being forced to do something extremely unheroic. It painted Hawke in a very negative light for me and now I'm getting off topic....

Back to the point I was trying to make: I guess I just have a hard time buying the motivations the game gives you:

M1 - Fleeing darkspawn. Ok. Cowardly, but OK.

M2 - Joining the Deep Roads expedition. Ok, but didn't M1 have Hawke running with his tail between his legs and now we're supposed to believe he'd wade right into the Deep Roads themselves? It's not like he leveled up that much in the year since he got to Kirkwall. Why the change of heart?

M3 - Protecting the City and Home. Hawke has already shown he's willing to run if his house gets destroyed. Does that mean that if the Qunari's first act had been to torch Hawke's manor he'd have legged it. Also, there's an entire army of templars and soldiers in Kirkwall. If Hawke is doing this at the Viscount's request (and with the Captain of the Guard no less) shouldn't he be able to get some reinforcements. Lead the army maybe?

M4 - Pretty much the same as M3 but with a little more weight if Hawke feels strongly about either the mages or the templars. Kind of ruined by the way you have to pick a side and then the game just ends the same way regardless. And its still just one city. Hawke displayed the ability to turn his back on an entire country. This might have made more sense if they'd addressed it more, but no one mentions it.

I keep saying the story isn't so much a narrative as it is an arch, but I don't really think its that either. Check out the Mass Effect games if you want to see the main character have a good arch. The only thing that's really developing is Hawke's financial situation. The amount of Character the character actually has(little to none)never really changes. Hawke never grows, never becomes more than he started as (aside from his title). As far as personality goes, he's utterly stagnant.

The story is about Hawke, but Hawke is also the least interesting thing in it. That's a fail on so many levels.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

sni- er.. double snip?

I'll raise your double snip with a triple snip!

I'm not going to try and change your impression of the story, however do allow me to offer a counter (or perhaps oversight) to your argument that Hawke is, from the very start, a coward.

True, they are running for their lives at the very beginning. However they just saw their homes and friends murdered by a seemingly endless horde of monsters that used to look like Lord of the Rings orcs but now look like standard undead soldiers. I'd say at that point people won't think you're a coward for wanting to get the hell out of there. Indeed they did defeat a couple waves of Darkspawn and an Ogre, that Ogre also killed one of Hawke's siblings and everyone else would have died right then and there had Flemmeth not arrived. Perhaps they could have tried to seek out and join the two remaining Grey Wardens somewhere out in Fereldin, but as Flemmeth is quick to point out as Aveline's husband lies dying of the taint: "They are far beyond your reach now."

In short, the argument of "They should have stayed and fought! Hawke is just a coward!" is simply not true. Despite Hawke and his/her sibling's prowess in combat, there's still the fact that they're with their normal housewife of a mother and I can only imagine that getting to Kirkwall where you're expecting to have a wealthy family awaiting you is a bit healthier a path than charging off into a massive army in search of the only two Grey Wardens in Fereldin.

Come to think of it, I'm actually pretty certain I remember this all being explained in the game when Flemmeth makes her offer to take you to the port that you sail to Kirkwall from. If you want to remain amongst the living, you have no choice but to accept her offer.

So here's my counters to your motivational chart:

Chap 1: Given the choice of "go to Kirkwall where you and the rest of your family will be safe" or die, Hawke and crew make the choice that involves staying alive.

Chap 2: Since remaining alive is a smart choice and not a cowardly choice and the fact that you've already spent a year doing uncowardly things with a band of thieves or a group of mercenaries, when the oportunity arises to climb out of Lowtown, Hawke takes it.

Chap 3: Again, not being a coward, Hawke stands and fights to defend his/her new home from a threat that can actually be defeated...not endless waves of the undead Darkspawn. Your presumption that Hawke is a coward leads you to believe at the first sign of trouble Hawke will run away. But seeing as how Hawke isn't a coward, he/she isn't about to let the Arishok wreck up his/her city.

Chap 4: I do fully agree that the lack of any real meaning behind whichever side you pick IS disappointing. However from a motivational point, just as you used the same statement for Chapters 3 and 4 so will I. Hawke - still not coward (and in fact having proven just the oposite of that by facing the Arishok in a one on one deathmatch) and still wanting to protect the home he/she has spent the last 10 years in - doesn't want to see his/her home city torn apart by a bunch of zealous psychopaths.

I just don't understand where your vision of Hawke as an apathetic coward who honestly shouldn't be bothered to take part in the things he/she does stems from. But evidently you saw a family running for their lives and immediately thought "what a bunch of sissies". So yeah, I guess what it comes down to is indeed how to interpret the opening moments of the game. Was Hawke's family wise for fleeing their hometown which was hopelessly overrun by a massive army of horrific creatures? Or were they cowards for not staying there and dying like everyone else?

A very close analogy would be to imagine if you, two siblings, your mother, and a cop are the survivors in a zombie apocolypse. You're in the town square with the zombie hordes closing in from all sides. Despite being armed with M16s, a few grenades, and a large pile of ammo, there's just no end to the zombies in sight and one of your siblings just got mauled. Suddenly a helicopter arrives overhead offering you a rope ladder. Would you tell the pilot to fuck off because you're no coward? Or would you praise god and climb aboard as fast as you could?

If you chose the latter, then you agree that leaving a situation 100% guarenteed to lead to your death is smart and not cowardly. If you chose the former, fair enough I suppose. But by that logic I'd happily prefer to be a living coward than a dead - yet courageous - moron.

 

[Krantos]

Snip ^4

I guess it just comes down to personal interpretation of the character. Hawke is willing to fight and die (ha! as if, he knows he's the protagonist) to save Kirkwall, but rather than sending his Mother to the chantry or something and helping the Wardens, he just abandon's Ferelden and never looks back.

Like I said, I know it's just personal interpretation, but that's how I saw the character.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with the section is that it could have been handled better. There really was no need to make Hawke a resident of Lothering. I feel they just did it to provide a (tenuous) link to Origins.

It also could have been better if Hawke and his sibs weren't so capable. Rather then facing waves of Hurlocks and an ogre, why not just some Genlocks and blight wolves. That would have at least given the impression they weren't capable enough at that point to help take on the blight. Instead Hawke is actually MORE competent when we first play him than the Warden was.

Finally, I would have forgiven it if they'd addressed it at all later on. Maybe when the Qunari attack Hawke (or someone close to him) could compare it to the Blight mess and they could make a point about not running away this time. Instead, like I said, once it happens, no one really mentions it again. Hawke never even shows the slightest remorse for abandoning Ferelden.


Oh, and your analogy is slightly off. It would be more accurate to say the choice is between having the helicopter pilot take you to another country or to a place where people are rallying to take on the zombies. Remember, Hawke and his family had decided to flee to Kirkwall before meeting Flemeth.

And incidentally, Kirkwall is in the opposite direction from where they were running (a fact Flemeth herself points out, iirc). It would actually require more effort to get there than staying in Ferelden would have.

The sticking point, I guess is that Flemeth wanted them to take something to Kirkwall for her in exchange for helping them. However, they still made the decision to leave Ferelden before they met her, so I guess it could go either way.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip ^4

Moar Snippage

Well at least we've come to agreement on one matter.

I just don't understand where your vision of Hawke as an apathetic coward who honestly shouldn't be bothered to take part in the things he/she does stems from. But evidently you saw a family running for their lives and immediately thought "what a bunch of sissies". So yeah, I guess what it comes down to is indeed how to interpret the opening moments of the game. Was Hawke's family wise for fleeing their hometown which was hopelessly overrun by a massive army of horrific creatures? Or were they cowards for not staying there and dying like everyone else?

I still say that you can't be labled a coward for leaving what equates to the zombie apocolypse. Again: everything they ever knew and loved was destroyed and the land so tainted it will take generations to purify. There's nothing holding them to Fereldin, nothing left for them there other than smoldering ruin and death. Kirkwall, as your mother points out, is where you have some family. A safe haven that you can go to and start a new life. Sure Fereldin is where their true home was, but their true home is now likely a burned down shell of a house surrounded by poisonous land. There are a number of moments throughout the story where Hawke or someone brings up the past life in Fereldin. One of the last character conversations you have with Aveline is that she was apparently invited to go back to Fereldin to rejoin the army as a commanding officer. SHE didn't see fit to leave the city she had spent the last decade in, so why should Hawke feel any urge to return to Fereldin where he/she would essentially have to start all over....again! And I don't remember the specific line, but after you've made your choice as to which group you want to pay your way into the city, Hawke turns to everyone and says something that equates to "Today is the first day of the rest of our lives."

As for Flemmeth, indeed she needs that amulet delivered to the Sunder Mount, but even if she didn't want to make sure that she'd survive the encounter she apparently foresaw between her and The Warden, I highly doubt the old crone is the type to happily play baby-sitter to a band of people, let alone act as their taxi service wisking you all around Fereldin in searh of wardens when they were likely in the Deep Roads spending half a year in search of a long-lost Paragon (god I hated the Deep Roads in DAO...they never end!).

In fact she straight up tells Hawke that the only reason she rescued them was because she happened to be in the neighborhood. She would be more than happy to consider it a good deed done and abandon them there until they mention that they're heading to Kirkwall, as per Hawke's mother's desire to go back to HER home. I bold that part because that, as much as anything else, is reason enough to abandon Fereldin and start a new life in Kirkwall.

So back to the analogy, since Flemmeth is a ***** who was only willing to help them if they delivered the amulet to the elvens near Kirkwall, then indeed the chopper pilot would be a prick as well offering to take you to another country to deliver a box of chocolates for him and if you refuse then no rope ladder for you.

And just before Flemmeth's intervention, the game makes it clear (or at least tries to) that everyone is growing quite exhausted from non-stop fighting and was officially about to be overwhelmed before lady luck arrived in the form of a dragon.

I now understand where you're coming from, you think that Hawke let go of his/her past way too easily. That he/she just threw away all the memories and fondness for home and pays no mind to them at all. Well when "going home" actually translates into "sailing back across the sea to find a place that WASN'T ravaged by the civil war and/or Darkspawn to buy a house and start life over AGAIN", I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to stay with life you've already got going for you in your new home.

Buuuuuuuuut that'll be my last comment on this particular matter. At this point we're both just a oouple of goats bleating repeatedly at one another. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not going to try to change your interpretation because in literature classes I've always believed that so long as there's evidence in the story to support your claim then it's just as valid as any other. You see Hawke waving goodbye to a land that officially has nothing left for him/her as being a coward and use the opening sequence as your evidence. With Hawke thus being a coward you form the basis for the rest of your claims. I look at the opening sequence and see a family doing what it needs to survive what, for all they know at the time, could very well be the apocolypse. So lets consider this discussion of ours simply as us both justifying the different interpretations the opening sequence left us with.

I guess the main reason I got into this discussion with you is simply because I was getting tired of repeating myself over and over that the entire point of my OT wasn't to defend the story like I just did, but rather to assert that there is a story, which I think I proved a few posts ago before this shifted into a conversation about how you did't like the story because you think Hawke is a coward and thus his/her motivations don't make sense. Even if that's true, the fact does remain that the game DOES have a story.