Unpopular opinion time
Back when Bioware used to make games that people were excited for, there was one title that I would hear about ad nauseum when I was trying to get into fantasy; Dragon Age. And it was for good reason: 'Dragon Age: Origins' remains one of the best western RPGs ever released and it absolutely kills me everytime I see it and remember that's a standard current Bioware are incapable of reaching. It nailed epic scope, character growth, varied player origin stories, simple RPG combat mechanics, a great cast of side characters, an establishment of a new fantasy world and a clear and concise set-up for future entries. It was a blueprint for making a fantasy series which would have the potential to rival any other out there today, and I honestly think it still holds that potential even if it's gone rather unrealised by today's offerings. 'Dragon Age: Inquisition' was good, but it wasn't quite that set-up to the bat that we needed from something as grand as Origins. But hang on- wasn't there a game out there between Inquisition and Origins? One with a decidedly more lazy title? Oh that's right, the black sheep.
Dragon Age 2 doesn't have a lot of defenders out there in today's age, and I can kind of understand why. In comparison to the last classic-of-a-game, Dragon Age 2 is almost unrecognisable to the standard eye. It doesn't tell a sweeping tale over an entire country, there's little fluidity to the main plot and key events are mostly linear and there is even a set backstory that you
have to adhere to leaving no room for individuality. It's just not the game that people who played the first game would have expected to follow it, and that might be due to the way in which the game was allegedly rushed to launch and thus couldn't be ultimately finished. (Which happened to Inquisition as well; at this point I wonder what a totally finished Dragon Age sequel would even look like.) But I'm here today, much as the title implies, to say that despite it's flaws and shortcomings, I actually rate Dragon Age 2 quite a bit in my mind and I'm here to justify why. (Oh, and I was joking with the title. I've always liked Dragon Age 2, I didn't need to learn how to.)
Firstly, I will say that I'm not the sort of person to hold a game accountable to it's predecessor in any other terms than quality. If the game doesn't run as good as the last one or look as good, then I'm going to start raising some hell; but just because the game is structured differently or perhaps even a different genre to the last entry, that doesn't this game is 'betrayer' worthy of unjust derision. Dragon Age 2 isn't as drastic a change from Dragon Age Origins as 'Yakuza: Like a Dragon' was to 'Yakuza 6: Song of life', but the distinctions were there. For me I cherish those distinctions because I don't want a game that's going to retread the same path I've already seen. I bought that game, it was good, now show me something different. What I'm specifically targeting here is the scope of the story. In Origins you dealt with the fate of a nation, large stakes that usually accompany Bioware games, but in 2 you were mostly inside of a single city and dealt with the fate of you family. (with some higher stakes nearer to the end of the narrative) It felt fresh and I liked that.
In fact, the style of the whole narrative was considerably different from Bioware of the past, as Dragon Age 2 presents it's narrative over the course of a handful of years; telling of your family's displacement and then resettlement in the city of Kirkwall. The familiarity and connection you ultimately built with this city, it being your primary surroundings and all, was instrumental in the heart of the plot where you learn to essentially adopt the city and it's people as your family and become their champion. It's a more intimate tale, perhaps, then a struggle to save the entire country from a scourge of people-eating Dark Spawn and their Archdemon dragon boss, but I see it as expanding on the potential of this series and telling us, quite clearly, that Dragon Age can be about the smaller stories as well as the grand world-changing ones. Unfortunately, this year-by-year approach did mean the game had to treat story beats with a lot more linearity, but I feel the sacrifice was worthy for the result.
Expanding upon that, I think that Dragon Age 2's particular approach to storytelling worked best with the companions of that world and the way their relationship with the protagonist blossomed. Traditionally these sorts of party based RPGs would start with the protagonist stumbling upon some like minded individuals and then conscripting them on a journey around the world. How long are they together? Who knows. But by the end these intrepid adventurers will be the best of friends. It's simple, straight forwards and serviceable. But Dragon Age 2 emphasised the passage of time and the way how you and your companions are all living as citizens in this city of the brink of serious change all the time. This allowed the developers to place evolutions in how these friends interacted and grew with each other in a manner that felt natural and like a real friendship forming. As a result, Varric became one of the most widely loved companions Bioware have ever put out because players felt like they'd come to befriend him over the course of many months just like their protagonist had.
Speaking of companions, I also overall liked the companions presented in Dragon Age 2 a lot more than the Origin's cast, and I know this is an extreme matter of personal opinion but let me explain. The Origin's cast is a classic and contains many unforgettable party members; Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan- but it also had a couple of utterly forgettable dud characters thrown in there, like Sten and Oghren. Sten was an dull tough-guy who really had no extreme personality traits and existed merely as a 'introduction to my race' tutorial. (Such to the point where Dragon Age 2 made it clear that Sten is a rank, not a name, so it's not even possible to track him down or the effect his life had in future entries) I just didn't like Oghren as a person. He was written well enough for what he was, but 'what he was' was a dead-end drunk with pretty much no redeeming character traits as a person beyond "I don't agree with murder", I guess. Such was the intention, and the result was that I didn't like him. (Mission accomplished for the writers, I guess.) Is he as bad as Pillars of Eternity's Durance? No, I bitterly hated Durance. Oghren has a bit of charm to him, but I just kind of feel bad laughing along to his misfortunes. It just sort of felt like I was laughing down on him. I understand why some people loved Oghren, but I'm not with them. Oh, Wynne (Eb but boring), Zevran (Elf assassin Husbando) and the others were fine as well.
Dragon Age 2, on the otherhand, didn't present a single companion that I could easily write off as boring or a waste of time. Perhaps that wraps back around to their presentation and the way in which we spend so much time watching these people become who they're meant to be, but I was decently happy hanging around with any of them. Varric was just a funny and charming addendum to any situation, Fenris has an interesting perspective and quest that I was driven to pursue, Anders pretty much could have been the main character because he's so close to the narrative, Merrill is just precious and Isabella has some of the most engaging interactions with the story of any Bioware companion. That she can literally up and leave half way through the game because her own objectives take her away from yours is unheard of in other Bioware RPGs, and I'd love if that sort of thing happened more often. It's as though in the absence of grander storylines the team sought to make the individual storylines better, and it worked so well for all the ones I mentioned and even decently enough on those that I didn't.
All of this isn't to say that Dragon Age 2 didn't have it's glaring problems. The final act in particular handily wears the scars of a truncated development, with a final confrontation that seems to twist itself into being despite the choice you made along the way. The reuse of side quest locations got old real quick, and I can certainly understand how some people would get bored of traversing the same city streets for the duration of the narrative. I was okay with it, but I'm not everyone. I just think that Dragon Age 2 get's a bad rap from a lot out of there who see it as a total failure of a game when I think it has great components inside of it that shouldn't only be lauded, they should be copied. Don't be afraid to tell smaller stories in fantasy RPGs, play with the passage of time and the way that affects your world more, have fun with the way companions interact with the main story! Recent events have made the future of Dragon Age very questionable, what with Bioware being thrown this way and that in the middle of 4's development, but if the team is split and shaken up to the point where they're looking back to the drawing board to know where next to take the series, I'd tell them not to count out the lessons this burnished gem has to teach; I know there's a great follow-up somewhere in this formula.
No comments:
Post a Comment