Dragon Age 2 vs. Baldur’s Gate 2
The comparison of Dragon Age 2 to Baldur’s Gate 2 is intriguing, because Baldur’s Gate 2 is structurally similar to Dragon Age 2 – most of the action takes place around a single city and its neighboring environs, with the city and those environs changing based on decision you make during the game. (Though Baldur’s Gate 2 has the main character travel rather farther afield than in Dragon Age 2, what with multiple other dimensions and the Underdark and all). However, Baldur’s Gate 2 had one very strong elemental that Dragon Age 2 lacked:
I think Baldur’s Gate 2 worked better because Baldur’s Gate 2 had a strong, clearly defined antagonist, and a clear-overarching goal related to that antagonist. Jon Irenicus made for a strong antagonist. He had a sympathetic, even tragic backstory, but his cruelty, brutality, and sheer hubris made him ultimately unsympathetic. Combined with his sheer power, he made a superb RPG villain – the player spends the game chasing Irenicus, first to rescue the kidnapped Imoen, and then to stop Irenicus from destroying the elves and becoming a god. (It didn’t hurt that Irenicus was voiced by David Warner, who has made a fine career playing unsympathetic villains.) Dragon Age 2, by contrast, tried to use social injustice as its antagonist, which was not nearly as effective.
So this is an excellent lesson for fiction writers in any medium, whether books or video games – make sure your characters face a strong antagonist!
-JM
That was an interesting article, thanks for pointing it out!
I do agree with some of what the author said, but he also seemed to be one of those “different for different’s sake is good” kind of people. I always thought that kind of argument was silly, I prefer something to be good, whether it’s different or not. So naturally that’s why I found some of the author’s statements annoying, but over all it was good!
Some things I’d like to comment on:
-I think he was off with the characters, (though I liked them) I did not think they were stronger in the sequel, in fact that is one of the main complaints of DA2: weak and or bland characters.
-I liked the Bioware RPG setup! I know they used that formula alot, but hey, it works, and I’m guessing that is why they kept using it. I hope they don’t throw it away completely!
-As for tragic endings…I have mixed feelings on this. I’m fine with tragic endings, they do have their place in the world (look at ancient Greek literature!), but I think it all comes down to who is telling the story. The aforementioned greeks knew what they were talking about, a post-modern nihilist does not. Greek tragedies are authentically tragic, because there really is something worthwhile that is lost there, i.e. the tragedy has meaning. Post-something something tragedies, are not really tragic, because there is nothing really worthwhile being lost there, i.e. it’s all pointless to begin with, nothing there was really worth saving, so who cares? Things like Shakespearian tragedies fall very strongly in the former category, while things like Song of Ice and Fire fall firmly in the later. So that brings me to DA2. I think overall it was tragic in the good sense, that is, when you put DA2 in the backdrop of the whole DA world. If you judge DA2 solely by itself, I think it’s more of a mixed bag. Bioware darkened the setting up a bit too much, to the point where there was enough blood on everybody’s hands that you could have viewed it all as having a sense of poetic justice (or as you have said before, how the people there kind of deserve each other) more than merely being tragic.
-His summary of the plot structure was spot on, it really was loosely linked, seperate storylines, only brought together in the end, for the sake of altering the DA world. That was one of the negatives to me of DA2. Lacking cohesion, and then only getting it in the end so as to destroy the world, lol.
-I also agree with him that if the game had a different name, things would have went over better. “Dragon Age 2” was misleading, it probably should have been launched as a spin off series, like let’s say “Dragon Age Legends”; a series set aside specifically to deal with smaller DA storylines, and world changing events that are better suited to smaller titles rather than bigger, more epic ones. I actually think this would be very helpful, and would like to see Bioware try it out. It could have been the first of this spin off series, say “Dragon Age Legends: Hawke”, and people would have been kinder to it; the fans would not have felt betrayed, critics would not have been holding it up to DA:O’s standards to begin with, there would have been less hype and expectation over it, after all it was not the true sequel to the splendid original, it was it’s own thing, to be judged on it’s own merits. The negative impact would have been lessened to such an extent as to be noteworthy, I think, especially for Bioware and the Dragon Age series as a whole (both of which took as hit with DA2).
As for what you said: yes, a stronger antagonist would have helped…alot. DA2 really did not have a villian until the end of the game, heh. That was a bad choice decision on Bioware’s part. You keep saying social injustice, well if that what Bioware had meant to be the true villian of the game, then they should have made a physical standard bearer for it, a human representitive. A Jon Irenicus, Darth Malak, or Arch Demon of social injustice, someone who personified it, someone that the player could be focused on, rather than an abstraction.
But personally I think social injustice was a lame villian to give DA2 at all, kind of wish the game had gone differently (even though I enjoyed it regardless).
I guess we will have to wait and see what direction DA3 will take! Now that the founding members of Bioware have left, I think it could go anywhere from here. Time to cross our fingers 😉
“I always thought that kind of argument was silly”
I agree. Change for the sake of change is pointless.
“As for what you said: yes, a stronger antagonist would have helped…alot. DA2 really did not have a villian until the end of the game, heh. That was a bad choice decision on Bioware’s part. You keep saying social injustice, well if that what Bioware had meant to be the true villian of the game, then they should have made a physical standard bearer for it, a human representitive. A Jon Irenicus, Darth Malak, or Arch Demon of social injustice, someone who personified it, someone that the player could be focused on, rather than an abstraction.”
I think they tried to do that with Meredith, but it didn’t really work, especially since she went nuts just because of the lyrium sword. Now, if she had gone mad because of the mages, or if she had been the primary antagonist throughout the game (rather than an occasional ally of Hawke), that might have been different.
“I guess we will have to wait and see what direction DA3 will take! Now that the founding members of Bioware have left, I think it could go anywhere from here. Time to cross our fingers ;)”
Yes indeed. Change for the sake of change is pointless…but not all changes are bad. 🙂