[TrashMan]

Well that's where things could get interesting. It could easily be that the Chantry knew the truth (whatever it was) about the darkspawn and lied about it because it gave them power in their crusade against blood magic. We've seen in the second game that it's pretty easy for someone to go completely to the dark side when it comes to fighting blood magic.

The current story is just a boring "fall from grace" story. Completely uninteresting. Now if the chantry were behind the creation of the Darkspawn, that would be interesting.

Well, I find the "evil lying religion" cliche to be even more boring and uninteresting.

[karajorma]

It doesn't have to be that they're lying. That they're wrong and are in some way helping the wrong side would be just as interesting.

The problem is that as adversaries the Darkspawn are pretty uninteresting. Their goal has been done a thousand times before by far more interesting enemies. Making their goal to be not what you thought might be more interesting (one particularly ****ed up notion I had was that The Maker is so disgusted by the perverted version of the truth he hears in the Chant of Light that he refuses to pay attention to the world while anyone still sings it ).

[TrashMan]

It doesn't have to be that they're lying. That they're wrong and are in some way helping the wrong side would be just as interesting.

Which is again, a subjective perferrence.
Mine is the opposite.

I want them to be right and the right side.

The problem is that as adversaries the Darkspawn are pretty uninteresting. Their goal has been done a thousand times before by far more interesting enemies. Making their goal to be not what you thought might be more interesting (one particularly ****ed up notion I had was that The Maker is so disgusted by the perverted version of the truth he hears in the Chant of Light that he refuses to pay attention to the world while anyone still sings it ).

And doom cults, evil religions and pretty much anything similar is ALSO uninteresting and has been done to death.

One mans "interesting" is another mans "boring as hell"

And I wonder what would be the "pervereted" part of the Chant according to you? What could be so wrong that the Makeer is disgusted?
Let me guess.... treatment of mages?

[karajorma]

The fact that they call Andraste his bride is pretty offensive if she wasn't.

Like how Muslims hate it when people call Jesus the son of God rather than just a prophet.


Anyway, I'm just throwing out ideas, if you don't like them, I really don't care.

[TrashMan]

Well, if you want anything accomplished, you should be throwing your ideas at the delopers.

I kinda doubt they are reading these forums. 

[phatosealpha]

Well, it would be, IMHO, much more interesting to have the Maker be benevolent, well intentioned, and simply wrong.  Omniscience may not be among his list of traits.  Make him into a well-meaning universal father figure, who can't understand how his children keep managing to **** things up so badly, and you could get a very interesting story out of it.

[Scotty]

Omnipotent, but not omniscient could be pretty good if done right.

Being honest, I think I'd prefer something more like "The Maker created the Darkspawn as the next 'step' of life, and the Blights are the result of him trying to remake the world in another image through his acolytes and children, the "old" gods."  So we can have the "wrong" Chantry, the "evil" Maker, interesting Darkspawn objectives (not trying to destroy, trying to rebuild [via destruction to clear the way, of course]), and the all important moral ambiguity.

[Meneldil]

The flip side of this is that who the hell cares about some random bloke who's not trying to save the whole world?

If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.

As for the Darkspawn, what we have now is a boring origin story for a boring enemy. It's a good match so I don't mind it that much.
It would be fun to see the Chantry's version turn out false, but mostly because I dislike the Chantry, and since that's a feeling apparently not shared by all the players, it wouldn't surprise me if Bioware continued trying to maintain Chantry's role potentially ambiguous.

[NGTM-1R]

If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.

Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.

Lesson from innumerable Bad Movie Nights: don't give people chances to say "Holy ****, why can't I watch that story?"

[Luis Dias]

If it's an interesting bloke, the player does.

Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.

Lesson from innumerable Bad Movie Nights: don't give people chances to say "Holy ****, why can't I watch that story?"

Unless that's precisely the theme of the game/movie. One has to have real balls and talent to pull that off though. Kinda reminds me of Consider Phlebas and how increasingly irrelevant the actions of the protagonists were to the big picture of the big war, ending up in the most intimate and personal level, while the big "world" is utterly unaware and uninterested in them. It ain't the kind of story that makes you go back, although it does stay in your memory better than the usual "save da world" script.

[TrashMan]

Unless there's someone more interesting. And saving the world is pretty interesting usually.

Well, people have found a way to frak that story up plenty of times, haven't they?

I really don't consider "world saving" a prequisite for anything.
Just getting from point A to point B can be a great adventure.
Or some personal quest that has nothing to do with the world can be fun and egaging.

[karajorma]

Many non-RPG games are about completing some goal or other. It's just in the RPG genre that everything has to be about saving the world. Are we really that addicted to Tolkien?

[TrashMan]

Oh right..
Like he invented that trope. 

[karajorma]

You do realise that Tolkien pretty much invented the fantasy genre upon which most RPGs are based, right?

I'm not saying that he invented the trope. I'm saying that he's one of the biggest influences to have used it in the fantasy genre and everyone has been copying him ever since.

[MP-Ryan]

You do realise that Tolkien pretty much invented the fantasy genre upon which most RPGs are based, right?

I'm not saying that he invented the trope. I'm saying that he's one of the biggest influences to have used it in the fantasy genre and everyone has been copying him ever since.

To be fair, the Inklings group in general more-or-less invented the fantasy genre as we know it, Tolkein is just the best-known example.

[NGTM-1R]

Many non-RPG games are about completing some goal or other. It's just in the RPG genre that everything has to be about saving the world. Are we really that addicted to Tolkien?

Planescape called. And NWN. And a lot of people's D&D campaigns...yeah actually the that Tolkien addiction thing even its most directly manifested forms isn't terribly bent on saving the world.

However as I said, there is a real danger people are going to get pissed off with your story if your story is not the most interesting thing in the work. I've seen it happen a lot.

[Luis Dias]

That sucks.

[karajorma]

Planescape called. And NWN. And a lot of people's D&D campaigns...yeah actually the that Tolkien addiction thing even its most directly manifested forms isn't terribly bent on saving the world.

I'm referring to computer RPGS not pen and paper. The vast majority of computer RPGs are based around saving the world (or some kingdom thereof) and you yourself were seemingly saying that they should stick to that because otherwise some background character might be doing that.

If that wasn't what you were saying, what were you on about when you answered Meneldil?

Also, I've not played NWN or Planescape but I know that the first one is all about ending a plague and cult behind it. How is that not a "Save the world" type plot?



When it comes down to it, Dragon Age II actually was one of the few CRPGs that I've played where the main plot only involved a local political matter. It's another reason why I regard Dragon Age II as a hugely missed opportunity. Instead of the trite old trope where the player gets dragged into a battle against some ancient evil or some evil nemesis plotting to take over the kingdom, we had a much more interesting plot idea of a power struggle between two political factions with no clear right or wrong side.

It's the main reason why the "Ha! They're both one dimensional bad guys" ending was such a kick in the teeth. 

[starbug]

When it comes down to it, Dragon Age II actually was one of the few CRPGs that I've played where the main plot only involved a local political matter.  It's another reason why I regard Dragon Age II as a hugely missed opportunity. Instead of the trite old trope where the player gets dragged into a battle against some ancient evil or some evil nemesis plotting to take over the kingdom, we had a much more interesting plot idea of a power struggle between two political factions with no clear right or wrong side.

It's the main reason why the "Ha! They're both one dimensional bad guys" ending was such a kick in the teeth. 

I would agree with you one that, DA2's storyline did make a change to the typical RPG "save the world/kingdom" and that it was set just in the one city was brillant. the side quest of Hawkes mother again brillant. Sadly the way it was implemented was poor mainly the reuse of the same interiors, the way they turned into an action game ala darksiders and the ending was very badly handled why they turned the 2 end bosses into one dimensional characters is beyond me. Not sure what happened to DA2 because it had really good ideas and storylines. I still think one of the main factors was that the game was out incredible fast, to fast i think, just 2 years after the first one, development time that is not long.

I hope that Dragon Age 3 is better and that lessons have been learnt, i am hopefull as DA3 is due out to the beginning of 2014 which gives it a longer development time and from what i have been hearing Bioware are listening to the feedback about how not to make a repeat of DA2.

Also in a interview;
Ray Muzyka, BioWare's CEO, said in an interview with Wired.com that Dragon Age III would be influenced by more open world games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which BioWare is "checking out aggressively." Also, the developers promised their fans that they will no longer reuse environments, which was considered a main issue in Dragon Age II.

From that i think Bioware are going in the right direction. I do wonder if DA3 will conclude Hawkes storyline as Bioware said further DLC for 2 would finish his/her storyline but David Gaider has stated that there will be no more DLC for DA 2.

[MP-Ryan]

Let me just say that a game with BioWare's writing (well, some examples of their writing) and TES' open-world game mechanic would be so full of win it isn't funny.

I love the TES games, and I loved DA:O, but the TES games always suffered from some poor non-sensical plot lines, and DA:O was very confined in the environments.