My boyfriend Zach and I have a major difference of opinion regarding BioWare and specifically regarding Dragon Age. First, for anyone who hasn’t read previous posts mentioning Dragon Age, here’s a quick rundown of the first game, Dragon Age: Origins.
When you begin Origins, you can choose one of six “origin stories”, each of which has an impact on how you experience the game, including how characters speak to you and even certain plot paths. After you’ve experienced a sort of prologue in which the origin story is played out, you are recruited by Duncan to join the order of the Grey Wardens, an enigmatic and legendary group of warriors who fight against a specific threat: the Blight. Blights are the uprising of Darkspawn from deep within the earth onto the surface (they’re always around, just usually kept at bay by dwarves). You learn through an initiation rite the terrible truth behind becoming a Grey Warden and at a battle between the allied armies of King Cailan and his general/father-in-law Loghain against a horde of Darkspawn, Loghain purposefully quits the battlefield, ensuring defeat and the death of the king. You and another Grey Warden are of the very few survivors (it’s assumed you died, though).
Thus begins your adventure to gather up allies, learn of the truth behind the Darkspawn, and bring justice to Loghain for betraying the king of Fereldan. You travel all over the kingdom, recruiting mages, dwarves, and elves to help you battle and defeat the dragon leader of the Darkspawn known as the Archdemon.
I loved the game. A few things about it weren’t perfect, such as boring combat unless you were a mage (don’t get me started on how tiresome it was to control other party members during battle), but the story itself was enthralling. Decisions you made had significant impact in the game, and more than once, plot revelations surprised me rather than being obvious from a mile away. (And some of them were fucked up).
So, to continue the point of this post, Zach dislikes the plot and characters (as he dislikes most BioWare plots). He feels the plot is as cookie-cutter as all of BioWare’s other plots. To quote him, “In BioWare games, a mysterious evil force is teeming at the edge of civilization, pent on its destruction. You play someone recruited into an elite force who gathers up allies/companions in the first two acts, at the culmination of which you have a confrontation with a political adversary. In the third act, you have the actual battle against the real evil.” As for BioWare characters, “You always have the stodgy/annoying male companion (Alistair in DA, Karth in KOTOR), the whacky inanimate companion (Shale in DA, HK47 in KOTOR), the moralistic older companion (Wynne in DA, Bastila in KOTOR), the overpowered and reckless companion (Anders in DA: Awakening and DA2, Jack in Mass Effect 2), the immoral, callous character (Morrigan in DA, Isabela in DA2, Canderous in KOTOR), etc.”
In addition, Zach appreciates (somewhat) that DA2 attempted to break away from cookie cutter. In it, you play Hawke, a refugee of Ferelden who ends up in the city of Kirkwall. (Though you can play male or female Hawke, I’m going to just use “he”.) After allowing his prodigal, waste-of-space uncle to sell a year of his service to one of two buyers in exchange for allowing his family into the city, the first act follows Hawke’s struggles to make life easier for his family by raising money to join a Deep Roads expedition (and other stuff happens along the way, including the start of rising tensions between the mages and their Templar “oppressors”). The second act involves Hawke’s deepening involvement in the city’s political troubles, one strain of which culminates in a bloody battle between the city guard and the squatting Qunari. The third act involves the second major political struggle: the ethical issue regarding mages, which also culminates in another battle. While there’s no “inanimate” companion in this game, you could still apply the same personality labels to characters in DA2.
I found less satisfaction with the second Dragon Age and felt that a lot of what made the first game fun was taken away. First off, the sense of traveling and discovering almost became a chore in DA2 because with every new act, you had to explore each area of the city anew to find new things sitting there, and I got sick of seeing the same city streets over and over and over again. The Deep Roads expedition was almost the best part of the game. Also, though Loghain was a more compelling villain than the Archdemon in DA1, I found the Darkspawn to be a more credible threat than the ethical circle-jerk in the second game.
Mostly, though, my dissatisfaction boils down to this: in the first game, the Blight is a reoccurring nightmare that punishes humanity for its hubris. The cycle of Darkspawn tunneling through the dark, crushing depths of the earth to awaken the next incarnation of the Archdemon is one that’s unstoppable. Citizens of Thedas that talk of the Blights (whether recent or in ancient history) always speak with a sense of dread, hate, or resigned misery. In the second game, however, a party companion that you know is mentally troubled (seriously, he’s been possessed for fuck’s sake), that you know is fixated on the “freedom of mages” from under Templar control, and that you know has been up to no good forces the Chantry (Templars) and mages into a battle that will ripple across the entire world. Why the hell can’t you punch him out before he blows things up? Why the hell can’t you strangle him in the first act? Why the hell can’t you knock out Grand Cleric Elthina and haul her out of the Kirkwall Chantry in order to save her life?
It’s unfair.
Hell, in the first Dragon Age, you obviously have no control over what Loghain does in the beginning, but you do get to decide who dies in order to kill the Archdemon at the end (if anyone at all). You maybe even prevent future Blights! Why is that kind of control not given in DA2?
Because they want to force a plot point and make DA3.
So much else about DA2 was aggravating. Isabela is a terrible person. So is Anders, for obvious reasons. The gaps of time between acts, as Zach said, “remove agency” and force more plot onto your character. You can’t make an RPG without railroading, but some RPGs hide it better than others, or at least make cut-scene outcomes less frustrating. In DA2, a lot of choices that my character should have control over are made without my consent. It’s one thing if a king has issued me orders or some guy I don’t know somewhere else did a bad thing and the result has this kind of impact on your character’s circumstances, but so much of this game was railroaded not only in a straighter line, but also in a much more obvious way than in DA1. In the first game, you have more options for what kind of person you are as well, not just a male or female version of the same human fleeing to Kirkwall.
Given all my dissatisfaction, though, I still liked the game a lot. I’m just hoping that DA3 is more like DA1.
As for Zach’s opinion of BioWare plots and DA specifically, I’ve already discussed with him that nothing is new under the sun. Archetypes will be recycled for as long as people want to hear stories, but hopefully presented in new ways. The “inanimate” character in Mass Effect 2 is not “whacky” in any way. He’s pretty awesome, actually. Shale has more depth than you’d expect. All of DA’s characters do. And as frustrating as Anders is, you are shown how defeated he is after the horrifying act he commits. He’s a dick, but he’s unique.
And as much as Zach rants about “cookie cutters”, he has to admit that BioWare has galvanized more discussion in our apartment than any other game developer.