#i prefer the politics of dai and the justice of da2

[andragoras-in-vanity]

i finished veilguard, my life has no meaning, also what yhe FUCK was that post credit scene, im afraid. and i cant wait for the next one tbh. i hope my rook gets to be a lil well remembered hero who stays ready as the veilguard but has decided to protect thedas from demons and twisted spirits using their expertise as a mourn watcher and my likely connection to the fade, ya boy would spend time learning ancient elvhen funeral practices from bellara and how they effect the fade too.

i just want my boy to have some peace with his husband, go on ...safer adventures...cause his heart nearly gave out a few times and itll take a while to put it back together again. hes always going to be looking for harding and honouring her too, i want to think she was the one he went to when he had panic attacks. i think hed be searching spirits and the fade, and hed go visit hardings mom (would probably cry more than she does too especially if she looks like lace). hed have tea with mahanon and visit the griffins, and the caretaker a lot, but when its all over and everything is mosty recovered and he visits vorgoth and myrna he gets a lecture from myrna and a begrudgingly relieved hug, and vorgoth doesnt really say much but takes him aside and pats his head like when he was child and would hide from his lessons because they made him feel dumb.

i love dragon age, i never want the series to end, i need to revisit inquisition again

[holydragon2808]

Thoughts On Dragon Age II after Replaying (Massive Spoilers)

Hello fellow DA fans! It's been quite some time since I last posted anything here on Tumblr. Hope everyone has been safe during all of the world's craziness. Figured I'd post something to let people know I'm still alive.

Anyway, DA2 was first released back in 2011. I was 20-21 years old at the time. Back then, while I still acknowledged the lack of genuine player agency with Hawke (in comparison to the Warden before them), I did belong in the camp of people believing that people went way overboard with the DA2 critiques regarding those complaints, at least back then.

Now though? After replaying the game again a decade or so later, and also in light of the Inquisitor and DAI, I now personally believe that Hawke's story stands out as (overall), all the more unbalanced in comparison to both the Warden and Inquisitor.

Massive Spoilers for the franchise abound beyond this point. Last warning.

Despite a lot of the old critiques leveled at DA2, it isn't a 100% terrible experience, and despite the oncoming rant, I do love the game overall.

Even though I've personally always thought that DA2 story was centered around tragedy a bit TOO much, in light of the growing franchise and the directional tone of the other protagonists thus far, it unfortunately stands out even more to me, and not in a good way.

A shame really because DA2 could have been a better and interesting contrast to DAO in tone and direction had it been more balanced with meaningful successes and failures for Hawke as a character rather than veering too far over into angst and tragedy.

For example, in DAO, your Warden character is railroaded into success against the Blight no matter what. Regardless of the origin, regardless of what sort of allies you acquire, no matter if you live or die in the end or which warden gets the final blow, you succeed.

This sort of narrative framing gave the writers a much easier way to balance genuine tragedy and success throughout the journey without veering too far in one direction or the other, and also without making nearly everything the player does seem like an exercise in futility.

In other words, there were failures and successes more properly balanced throughout, from experiencing meaningful failures and heartache during the chosen origin stories, to failure at Ostagar, to having more balance with the party members and their struggles (they weren't too boring or too dysfunctional), romances that stood out as a light for the Warden amidst all the fighting and death and their massive burden, to succeeding with building the army to take on the Darkspawn, to potential personal sacrifice to save the world and so on.

The option to play a more tragic, angsty or "evil" character who alienates everyone around them and then ultimately dies in the end is there too. The point is that the game largely gave the player the reins and let THEM decide what sort of story they were interested in shaping within the confines of the narrative railroading.

This balance just isn't there with DA2 as the player progresses. Hawke is railroaded into failure in almost every way from start to finish, whether in their personal life or with the massive political struggles in Kirkwall.

I'm sure most people would have been fine with the main plot between the mages/Templars spiraling out of their control in the end (thanks Anders), the Qunari rampaging no matter what, and even the Hawke family being forcefully separated as the story progressed.

However, to me some of the railroaded bleak tragedy should have been offset by Hawke (and by extension the player) at least having the OPTION of being able to keep their family alive.

I'm fine with the tragedy of losing the whole family being ONE POSSIBLE option in the game, but when this tragedy along with the main plot failures, the dysfunctional party members that are too problematic to help ease Hawke's burdens (in fact, they all add to Hawke's worries, which if Inquisition shows anything, that it finally takes its toll on Hawke) is THE ONE AND ONLY OPTION in light of everything else wrong in Kirkwall, then that's a potential writing issue and could potentially alienate the player more than make them care about anything that happens and wonder why they aren't given the option to just nope out and leave Kirkwall to its fate.

Tragedy can be fine, don't get me wrong, but not everyone wants to role play a COMPLETE AND UTTER tragedy from start to finish with no option to deviate in any way from that narrative. Options in the way people progress (especially where people can break the story down and see the holes in the narrative where it COULD have possible but just wasn't allowed), should be presented in a ROLE PLAYING game.

I personally find it more realistic and relatable when a character experiences a nice blend of both MEANINGFUL success and failure. However, the writers seemed intent on railroading Hawke into just being at the mercy of the main plot with little to no agency.

In stark contrast to DAO, planning for the entire story in DA2 (or just in an RPG period) to end in failure no matter the player choices is already a bold enough risk on its own. It can definitely work with the proper balance of both positive and negative experiences along the way though in both the political and personal aspects of the player characters life, to keep the player actively engaged in a way that doesn't leave them thinking that their presence in the story amounts to little more than the equivalent of holding a book and simply turning the page rather than actively doing something.

But combining an already planned bleak ending with a very corrupt setting where the leaders on all sides are either completely moronic or passive, party members where the majority of them have too many burdens of their own to give Hawke a genuine sense of a reprieve from the madness even if romancing one of them (except for Varric, Aveline, and Bethany, if alive, everyone else is either a whiner or dysfunctional. It's very telling that Hawke's PET DOG gets more no strings attached visits from the party members than Hawke does. Just saying), railroading Hawke to lose the majority of their family in some way, AND having what little success and influence Hawke DOES acquire to come back and bite them in the ass in the end (Hawke struck it rich and became Champion of Kirkwall?! Awesome!.....right up until its revealed the red lyrium idol they found in the deep roads played a part in screwing up everything), then at that point, a serious argument can be made that the writers veered far too heavily into tragic overdone melodrama for some people.

How cool would it have been to be able to leave the game with "Well, okay, I couldn't do anything about the corruption in Kirkwall or the mage/Templar tensions spiraling out of control, but at least my whole family is alive and well"? There could have even been an achievement/trophy for this very outcome called "The pride of the Hawkes" or something.

Just one possible example of how the railroaded political failures could have been offset by giving Hawke, (and by extension the player), the OPTION for personal success in a more meaningful way. The option for extreme tragedy with some or even all of the Hawkes dying can still be there of course for people who want that degree of angst, but again having multiple OPTIONS is more likely to accommodate more people and their preferred play styles or stories, and thus, give more reasons to play the game multiple times.

As it stands now, sure, Hawke can save the life of one sibling, but they're still railroaded into losing one of them before the prologue is over, the other is either killed by the Blight or forced from their side in act 1 because the game said so, and the mother is forced to die in the most shock value induced way possible (nevermind not even being able to warn Leandra in act one or follow up on this quest until it's too late in act two or the guards and Templars being forcefully incompetent for this to play out like the writers want).

Those have just been my thoughts as of late. Some people argue that in a way, this is the entire point of the game. That sometimes only REALLY crappy choices exist and there may not be a third option. I agree with that to a point.

But "there might not be" and "there NEVER is" an option for an ideal third way are two very different things and IMO, DA2 suffered in veering far too heavily in the direction of the latter, often being too focused on heartbreak and shock value (looking at you "All That Remains") to really work as well as it could have.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts a decade later. Make no mistake, I still love DA2 for what it is, love the general concept and idea of DA2, just not the execution. It's just sad to me that this game could have been so much better with more development time, more options to shape Hawke's story on a more personal level (whether with an ideal outcome of everyone in the family living, or a semi tragic one where some can die depending on choices, or everyone dying), and not being railroaded into tragedy to nearly nigh ridiculous levels to the point where a giant spider nightmare residing in the Fade in a whole other game mocks Hawke for their "failure is the only option" status.

And just to further clarify my point here, true, Kirkwall was a ticking time bomb with or without Hawke being there. They made the tensions between the two factions apparent as far back as DAO. A Mage/Templar war was all but inevitable, as was Anders eventually losing himself to Justice/Vengeance and after exhausting all peaceful options, finally doing the unthinkable and "forcing everyone to choose a side". That part was fine. And it makes sense for this part of the story to remain static and unchanged no matter what (as I said before, the issue isn't necessarily that DA2 had a planned tragic ending or was framed as a set story within a story).

The issue is that, at the end of the day, regardless of whether this is framed as a recounting of events already played out, Bioware still chose to present this part of the story to the world as an RPG, not a novel. It's just too easy to pick apart the current execution of the narrative and find too many holes and inconsistencies, far too easy to see that Bioware wanted tragedy and completely railroaded the player into it regardless of whether or not it made sense to do so at times. Part of it is definitely that it was rushed, but not all of it.

" Genuine inevitable tragedy" (example: the mage/Templar rebellion) and "railroaded and just never given the option to question/change anything because the game/developers said so but still forcefully insisting and trying to frame it as an inevitable tragedy" are two very different things (outright confirming in Act 1 that the remains of the serial killer's vicitms did indeed belong to one of the missing women (Ninette's wedding ring) and he gave them white lilies but conveniently never given the option to bring any of this up to the guards/Templars or pursue the quest or warn Leandra until it's far too late). Leandra's death isn't the only example of this problem, but it definitely is one of the most prominent and IMO, takes away from the intended story of a good woman who met a bad end with their oldest son/daughter being unable to prevent it when the game failed to let them (and by extension the player) truly try.

DA2 could have been a great contrast to DAO. Rather than having the influence to shape the fate of the world like the Warden and succeed in their goal, they could have compromised in DA2 with having the fallout of the Kirkwall Chantry destruction and the rebellion still happening no matter what (i.e. Hawke "failing" to stop any of the madness and still ultimately forced to flee Kirkwall in the end after finally dragging the Amell line back into prominence) but still given the player the option to save their immediate family members across the story if certain choices were made throughout. I'm sure most people would have been fine with a more "bittersweet" option being presented for Hawke, (and by extension the player) in the game, especially where again, one can pick apart the narrative and see where it could have been an option, but just wasn't allowed for no other reason than seemingly because of the "True art is angsty" trope.

Bioware could still have their own canon (similarly to how Alistair is shown to be king in their canon no matter what as an example) of the ultimate tragedy if they wanted, but again, DA2 is still an RPG where players expect to have more meaningful choices reflected in how they progress, even with an inescapable darker and downer ending.

Complete and utter tragedy is fine, but I just don't think it was the best decision to have it as THE ONLY option in an RPG.

[basementdwellercreaturefeature]

Current  DA2 Thoughts

Per usual, I have thoughts. 

TL;DR Anders fucked up but that doesn’t make him irredeemable. 

Jennifer Brandes Hepler said, “Personally, my view of it is that Anders wants to blow up the Chantry AND wants to die for it -- that way he gets the revolution he/Justice believes is necessary, but still gives justice to those who died in the Chantry.”

First, yes. People died in the Chantry explosion. Not like, 5 people. A lot of people. Not up for debate. Second, it didn’t start the revolution or the mage rebellion, it was a tragic loss of life. Also not up for debate. The following events of Inquisition confirm this, even if you don’t read any external Dragon Age content. Anders’ actions did not start a mage rebellion.

What Jennifer Brandes Hepler said here touched me though. Anders, like Solas and Loghain, and other controversial characters in the canon, walks his own Din'Anshiral and believes his death is the only atonement he can offer to the victims. With the prompting of Justice, he moves toward violence as a catalyst for his revolution. It’s an illogical move rather than a strategic move toward mages’ freedom. It really is not even discussed in DAI as a significant plot element regarding the Mage Rebellion. Frankly, Anders... it was dumb. Love you the most, but it was dumb.

So I am never going to argue that Anders was right in his final solution because I think the political climate of DAI objectively shows us that he wasn’t. Was he right regarding mages rights? Different topic, one too dense for one post. To me, his final decision doesn’t really matter when it comes him being redeemable/empathetic or not. You want to talk about the merits or issues of the Circle? The potential crimes of Kirkwall’s Chantry specifically? Fine, then whether or not he was “right” matters in the context of those discussions. However, in regards to character study and the merits of his redemption, I feel that him being right or wrong is irrelevant. Here is why.

Kirkwall is a dumpsterfire. Weakened Veil, wealth disparity, alienages, blood mages and Abominations running rampant, poor control of both the Circle AND the Templars, abuse of both, overwhelming refugee influx from the Blight, both Orsino and Meredith and their own brand of crazy, etc. What we have here is a chaotic clash of both magic and material. Basic, real world problems and fantasy RPG elements. Let’s throw fucking Anders in the mix, see what happens.

How would a mage joined with the spirit of Justice not go a little batshit being there?

And that’s just Justice standing alone. With the kinds of injustice present in Kirkwall? I mean, think about it. We aren’t even factoring in a traumatized ex-Warden whose blood may have tainted Justice (or his anger, we don’t know for sure) into Vengeance. Just Justice in itself would have been difficult. Frankly, I am amazed that he was even sane for as long as he was and able to do as much good as he did in his clinic.

Elements of Justice improved Anders, ironically. In DAA, we see a something of a fuckboy who loves his cat and runs away from responsibility and who probably likes Nickelback. In DA2, our first introduction to Anders is in his free healing clinic in an impoverished area where he is offering aide to refugees and Kirkwall’s maligned and he has definitely moved on to Nirvana. Big difference there. Would he have remained a non-violent advocate for mage freedom outside of Kirkwall’s magic influence and internal chaos? Unclear, but I find it interesting to think about. Sometimes in my personal head canon AU Hawke got him out of there and they moved to a farm with cats before it all went to shit. 

JFK said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” BLM taught me that when a group is oppressed long enough, when screaming from the rooftops and offering peaceful solution for decades doesn’t work, when years go by with no change, people get mad because they’re fucking human beings. So, when some protests engaged in looting and rioting and violence (even though it was minor and the news harped on it like a bunch of assholes) it didn’t invalidate the movement. What else do we expect when we ignore their cries for justice for so long? 

You shit on people for years and get surprised when it bothers them?

The question to me is not whether or not Anders was right... but is it fair to not expect this from him? In so many ways, that boy was setup to be a disaster. Childhood trauma, Circle trauma, becoming an Abomination after the taint, then the horrors of Kirkwall... Look at all these red flags we all ignored! But still, he works to improve the lives of refugees and mages in Kirkwall. Did our other companions do the same? No, they laugh off his pleas for mage freedom and dismiss him as a fanatic. What does that say about them? 

It’s strange to me that there is such a cry for empathy for Solas and not for Anders. People dismiss Solas’ actions because “he hasn’t done it yet” but he is advocating for the eradication of entire races knowingly and has already been partially responsible for hundreds of deaths in Haven and at the Conclave. Solas does this without being possessed by anything. Less of the argument with Solas I have noticed is whether or not he is “right” but more so if he is worthy of redemption because of player affinity, empathy, love in some cases. There’s a desire to save the Dread Wolf from himself, despite his past and future mistakes. Because his "intentions” are good and he wants to restore Arlathan. But with Anders, him being “right” often is the most discussed... as if redemption and grace has anything to do with that. Less popular is discussing the value of intentions. It appears to be a minority that want to reach out to the fucked up apostate idiot cat man and offer atonement despite all these external factors, which I think make mercy more... amiable? At least it did to me. The dissonance here is confusing and sometimes I wonder if it comes down to player preference. Solas is pretty damn smooth. Anders? Not so much. Complete dumpsterfire.

When romanced, Anders might be given the chance to live and atone, to come to terms with himself as an Abomination. Hawke can provide a more stable atmosphere and offer grace and mercy in the moments when he curses himself for joining with Justice and the chaos that decision wrought. Whether or not that is healthy or justified is up to the player to decide. But, I have to wonder what it would do to him seeing the mage rebellion prompted entirely by something else years later and the lack of revolution his actions caused. Mages reject him and his own self-hatred may be all-consuming at this point. While I love the idea of my favorite sewer-dwelling apostate and my kick-ass Hawke growing old together, it very likely would be an agonizing journey, ripe with toxicity and painful dynamics for both of them. Frankly, I have yet to decide what my canon decision is there. Thank the Maker its a video game and I can change my mind as often as I want to.

I see a lot of myself in Anders in a way I have yet to experience with other Dragon Age characters, so I can recognize that this factors into my level of empathy. But all the same, I wanted to share my thoughts. Even as someone who loves the guy, I can see that he is a complete fuck up who may be better off dead... then he is at least free. Unsure. What are your thoughts regarding fandom empathy and objectivity towards more controversial characters?  Now excuse me as I return to my Sewer Apostate Spotify playlist and cry for a good two hours looking and Handers fan art like an idiot I just feel for the guy.

[sworntoprotect]

THE POSITIVE & NEGATIVE; Mun & Muse - Meme.

fill out & repost ♥ This meme definitely favors canons more, but I hope OC’s still can make it somehow work with their own lore, and lil’ fandom of friends & mutuals. Multi-Muses pick the muse you are the most invested in atm.

My muse is:   canon / oc / au / canon-divergent (the mere existence of a post-canon verse is diverging from canon) / fandomless / complicated

Is your character popular in the fandom? YES / NO. He started off as a tertiary character in the mage origin/Broken Circle quest in DAO, then ended up becoming something of a staple tertiary/secondary character in DA2 and DAI.

Is your character considered hot™ in the fandom?  YES / NO / IDK. I’m not entirely sure how people feel about DAO Cullen’s appearance but DA2 and onwards he got himself a glow-up and an unwitting thirst trap reputation. What made ramen boy appealing in DAO for some is that if you played a female mage Warden, he’s “the one who got away”... because he literally booked it down the corridor if you got too flirty.

Is your character considered strong in the fandom?  YES / NO / IDK. Perhaps? If you take a stroll through his tag, despite being a Templar, he’s not often portrayed as someone who’s fighting (*winkwonk*).

Are they underrated? YES / NO / IDK. Some in the fandom might even call him overrated, depending on who you ask. 

Were they relevant for the main story?  YES / NO. In DAO he begs for you to kill all the remaining mages in the Circle Tower, and you can accept or decline to do so. In DA2 he solicits a few quests and eventually sides with you to defeat Meredith. In DAI he’s the Commander of the Inquisition and a vital part of the war council. Overall, he’s there to provide a pro-Templar outlook for the character. 

Were they relevant for the main character? YES / NO / THEY’RE THE PROTAG. He’s met every game protagonist thus far and had some level of personal/professional relationship with them. 

Are they widely known in their world? YES / NO. In DAO he was a newly minted Templar. DA2 he was elevated to Knight-Captain very quickly which got his name floating around Kirkwall, and of course by DAI he’s the head of the Inquisition’s forces so he’s even more well-known throughout (at the least) Ferelden and Orlais.

How’s their reputation?  GOOD / BAD / NEUTRAL. Both. The common people and fellow Templars would look up to him, whereas mages and pro-mage sympathisers would absolutely have an issue with the role he’s played over the years.

How strictly do you follow canon? — As closely as I can, without lingering too deeply into the “problematic views” part of his character. I don’t seek to erase them or ignore them, and I don’t have too much issue writing them for the sake of being genuine, but I also don’t want to write him as if he’s some mustache-twirling villain because he is not. 

SELL YOUR MUSE! Aka try to list everything, which makes your muse interesting in your opinion to make them spicy for your mutuals.  —  Since he was 18 years old, Cullen has suffered and struggled through adversity after adversity (torture, sexual assault, brainwashing, night terrors, drug abuse, and a healthy spoonful of “all my friends are dead”), and yet maintained a soft heart underneath the steel wall of being a warrior. His goal since childhood has been to serve and to protect, and his self-awareness, loyalty, intelligence, and drive to make himself a better and more caring man is what sets him apart from others of his ilk who in his shoes would’ve broken a long, long time ago.

Now the OPPOSITE, list everything why your muse could not be so interesting (even if you may not agree, what does the fandom perhaps think?).  — He’s a man who’s allowed atrocities to occur by not standing up to speak against them, has perpetuated the cycle of mage abuse by the hands of others, can be callous, closed-minded, and aggressive, and has a strong prejudice against mages that wasn’t properly resolved in his “redemption” arc – nor was his lyrium addiction/withdrawal.

What inspired you to rp your muse?  —  He’s the type of muse I gravitate towards: bookish, devoted, protective, a softy under all the stone, endearingly awkward. More than that, though, his story intrigues me. Cullen has gone through a lot (he’s either the luckiest or unluckiest person) and watching his trajectory throughout the series has been really interesting. I’d like to provide him proper growth and development that he wasn’t entirely given in the games, or that wasn’t explicitly shown.

What keeps your inspiration going?  —  My amazing roleplay partners with all the good work they put into their characters and the love they have shown me and my character so far. I love you guys <3  (<-- keeping that answer bc agreed)

Some more personal questions for the mun.

Give your mutuals some insight about the way you are in some matters, which could lead them to get more comfortable with you or perhaps not.

Do you think you give your character justice?  YES / NO / I SINCERELY HOPE I DO? i have my doubts sometimes, but i think i do ok. Still, I would love to have more feedback to see how i can improve even more. (<-- keeping bc agreed)

Do you frequently write headcanons?  YES / NO / SORT OF I write quite a few of them that never see the light of day, and I constantly and randomly sling little thoughts at my rp partners as they come to me. As for this blog itself, I’d prefer to have my headcanons evident in my writing, so I don’t post things about Cullen’s favourite colour or what he likes to eat for supper every night (and that’s absolutely no shade to people who do post headcanons that way; I honestly wish I operated the same way lol)

Do you sometimes write drabbles? YES / NO. There’s a few on the blog already, hidden in plain sight.

Do you think a lot about your Muse during the day? YES / NO. Even when I don’t want to think about him, I end up thinking about him. But I like thinking about him, so...

Are you confident in your portrayal? YES / NO / SORT OF? I’m still fairly new to the fandom and I’ve been learning a lot about Cullen, what people think about Cullen, what Cullen thinks about himself and others, etc. etc. Plus there are other, more well-established blogs for him out there. I’m honestly surprised I got more than 20 followers tbh.

Are you confident in your writing?  YES / NO / SOMETIMES. I'm my own worst enemy with this one. Like, I know I’m alright but I’m not good enough for myself.

Are you a sensitive person?  YES / NO / SORTA. Some things do bother me a lot more than others, but any annoyance I feel is pretty quickly done after I vent about it. Then I typically forget after a while.

Do you accept criticism well about your portrayal?  —  I’m always open to constructive criticism that both highlights what I’m doing well and considerately points out what I could improve upon. 

Do you like questions, which help you explore your character?  — Of course! I enjoy delving into his character and wondering the “what ifs” of various situations that may or may not occur. And if we can write it together in a thread? Even better!

If someone disagrees to a headcanon of yours, do you want to know why?  —  No one owes me an explanation as to why they have an opinion, but yes I would like to know why. Maybe I misinterpreted something, or overlooked something. Maybe I made a mistake. I’m human. It happens.

If someone disagrees with your portrayal, how would you take it?  —  same as the above.

If someone really hates your character, how do you take it?  — It only bothers me if it’s directed at me. I fully acknowledge that Cullen is controversial and has a very contentious past (or present) that rubs a good amount of people the wrong way. You don’t have to like him, but I do take some issue with people purposely twisting facts to make him out to be worse than what he actually is. I’ve considered writing a post about it truthfully but I don’t want that unbridled hatred to come to my doorstep if/when someone who’s not a fan of him reads it. It’s not worth it. Might do it anyway though. I don’t know.

Are you okay with people pointing out your grammatical errors?  — Please do. Politely. English is my native language but I’m still out here making mistakes. smh @ myself

Do you think you are easy going as a mun?   —  I’d like to think so, yes. I have a very high tolerance level for a lot of things, don’t get easily triggered, and I’m always willing to chat about character stuff or irl stuff or... anything, basically. 

tagged by: @orsino-the-enchanter tagging: did you read this? then it’s you

[curriebelle]

I’m sure you all guessed this but if you’re lookin for something to do between Thursdays I’m gonna recommend Baldur’s Gate II to e v e r y o n e. Especially if you don’t have a D&D group at home, because it’s the closest you’ll get to D&D without one, and ESPECIALLY if you’re also a Bioware fan. I have some thinky thoughts about it & Dragon Age II here. Not so much the usual #currie academia, but along those lines nonetheless.

So I said in a post before that Baldur’s Gate II is very much like what Dragon Age 2 should have been, and I want to pull that apart for you somewhat. Disclaimer here that while I’ve played DA2 a disgusting number of times, I’m only 20 or so days into BG2 (Chapter 3, I think)

I acknowledge that technically speaking, DA2 is rightfully the lowest-rated game of the Dragon Age franchise, but it’s also my favourite by far. This is largely because I admired what it aspired to be. It wanted to be an in-depth exploration of a single, fascinating locale, and all the conflicts that could arise from it across time. Some of the things people complained about - such as Hawke having such a limited background, the divisiveness of the companions and their behaviour, and the lack of a single overarching villain - were the result of reaching for this goal and failing. Bioware either lost their direction or lacked the time to pull it off . A lot of the other problems with the game, particularly the repeated dungeon maps, but also the useless junk-gathering and slimmed-down combat (which I actually liked, but I get that it’s controversial) managed to cripple this particular aspiration even further. Kirkwall lost parts of its complexity and bigness, but clues of it remained behind - particularly in the morally complex sidequests, which often hold a mirror up to the larger conflicts. My favourite one is when you head out to find the son of some noble or count and it turns out that he’s just a regular old straight-up murderer. No demons in his head, but suffering a mental illness - not one I’m qualified to diagnose, but one that each of the party members misinterprets as a pathetic excuse for his violence. Their preferred solution is to kill the bastard, but a player - if they actually know what mental illness is, and how it can be mismanaged - is left with much more to think about.

The resemblance between Dragon Age II and Baldur’s Gate 2 started out as simple allusions and parallels, which I thought were amusing. Now I know who Edwina the barmaid is, and now I know why the loading screens say “gather your party before venturing forth”, and now I know why they make you collect pantaloons. I’ve also met some of the predecessors of the Dragon Age party members. Imoen looks a heckofa lot like an early-2000s Leliana and gets the same broken-bird treatment. Jan Jansen is Varric after several heavy doses of hallucinatory drugs, from the family merchant business to the hand-made crossbow to the penchant for tall tales. I’m pretty sure Velanna from Awakening is a re-skinned Viconia (and I think they share a VA, to boot). Also, I feel like some of the flatter BG2 characters were revamped, re-examined, or re-incarnated. Anomen is pretty much a sexist prick so far, but he’s had some interesting chats with me about his lawful-neutralness. I wonder if their answer to him was to take the same ethics but fix the sexism problem with a genderflip, because in a lot of ways he reminds me of Aveline. (Disclaimer: this in no way takes away from the fact that Aveline is the greatest thing ever and Anomen is a lil shit). Moreover, Morrigan’s eternally grumpy power-hungry practicality, as well her potential prideful fall, and her return, in a sequel, as a semi-friendly spy embedded in a political clusterfuck (Orlesian court vs. Shadow Thieves) makes her quite reminiscent of Edwin. There are others, too, as there are exceptions. I don’t see a clear Fenris analogue in BG2 yet, nor has Minsc ever been properly revived (though Iron Bull maybe comes close). I think that’s smart, though. Imoen/Leliana is a good template to reuse but Minsc shall never be equaled.

Beyond the people in my party, I started to see traces of Kirkwall in Athkatla. Some of the districts have obvious analogues (Keep = Government, Hightown = Waukeen’s Promenade (same aesthetic, even, with all the white stone), Darktown/Lowtown = Slums/Graveyard, Docks = ....well, Docks). There’s also the sense that there are some really hecked-up things going on in the underbelly of the Athkatla, what with the random lich I found in the Egyptian-style tomb under the graveyard (?), the beholders in the sewers (FUCK) and the strange women Naruto-running around at night and casting dominate on random thugs (???). Plus they have a strangely perpendicular policy on magic. Mages in Athkatla are both the Circle and the Templars - that is, the practice of magic is heavily restricted, but it’s restricted by the Cowled Wizards (who have conveniently cast Immunity to Government on themselves). Or perhaps Athkatla is what the Tevinter Imperium looks like from the inside?

Quest structures are also re-used between the games. The overarching quest of the first part of BG2 is identical to Dragon Age II′s - I have to raise enough money to Save my Sister, either to protect her from the Circle or steal her back from Irenicus. The anti-qunari cult and the weirdness of the Primeval Thaig are not dissimilar to the Cult of the Unseeing Eye quest (except for the FUCKING BEHOLDERS aaah). There’s somebody skinning people in the Bridge District at the moment, and though I haven’t advanced very far in that quest I’m catching the horrible, creeping scent of All That Remains about it. One of the very first quests was to return a handful of acorns to a faerie queen, which requires that you leave Athkatla - and it felt almost exactly like turning over Flemeth’s amulet, even before I found the red dragon hanging out in the same area. I’m even getting companion loyalty quests now (hence, Edwina) and while reuniting Keldorn with his wife was considerably less funny (though just as heartwarming) as convincing Aveline and Donnic to Cup each others’ Joinings, I’m not surprised I’ll be helping people with everything from marriages to magic mishaps. Let’s just hope Jan Jansen doesn’t make me gather poo for his turnip-based explosives so he can bomb the Cowled Wizards or something (Cheers, Justice, I’ll always love you).

But these similarities aren’t really a bad thing at all. I’m certainly not accusing Bioware of copying their own homework - I’m actually accusing them of failing to copy their own homework. Or, to stretch the metaphor, for their horrible teacher Mr. EA to change the deadlines to their homework without telling them so they had to rush it and get a C+ from all the game critics. Poor muffins.

Here’s the thing. The inklings I had about The Point of setting things exclusively in Kirkwall are full-on confirmed by the existence of Baldur’s Gate II and Athkatla. Games like DA:O and DA:I are explorations of breadth, spanning countries; games like DA2 and BG2 are explorations in depth, spanning time, and digging deep into a particular city. Athkatla feels amazingly alive to me, and endlessly fascinating and complex. There are multiple underground ruins alluding to ancient magic and long-forgotten deaths. There are hints in the government district that everyone from nobility to turnip farmers regularly drown in ineffective bureaucracy. The Shadow Thieves, the Cowled Wizards, the noble families, and the Radiant Heart, and the Circus, all of them fill out the middle ranks of a squabbling, rule-breaking, living populace. Party members have ties to everyone from peasants, to nobility, to Cambions from Sigil. And there are strange individuals everywhere, spies and liars and con artists and performers and collectors and people who will only sell me turnips. I just finished a quest where three young boys asked me to buy them swords and I bought them a keg of ale instead. It was awesome.

Anyway, this actually segues into something else that’s interesting for me - Dragon Age 2 was all set to tackle the coolest thing that emerged, quite organically, in BG2 - the fact that of all the characters in the game, Athkatla is the most interesting. Playing it, you begin to understand why the quests are so similar between it and DA2. Exploring things like lost ruins, or the different rewards, invitations and behaviours of different organizations, or serial killers and justice systems, or problems with merchants, or entertainment venues like theatres and circuses, or religious conflicts - those are all quests that deeply engage one in the character of a place. Quite frankly, I like that better than hopping town-to-town and solving problems as you pass, which is the DA:O/DA:I model. It’s far too easy to seem random that way (what did those werewolves in DA:O ever amount to?). And conversely, it’s also why things like the party in Orlais are the most exciting things in those games: they offer you glimpses into the operation of society, into how the fantasy world truly works from the crowns to the cobblestones. BG2 is made of that experience of depth, and DA2 was prepared to be that but more. 

In certain places, you can see how DA2 fixed the very, very few problems BG2 actually had (alongside a decade of technological development, of course.) The rivalry/friendship system in DA2 is a huge improvement on the reputation/alignment system of BG2. I am effective as shit at solving problems so why does Edwin grouse at me just because I’m nice? Moreover, why do I have to choose between mega-discounts and the game’s best wizard? I much prefer the idea of friendship/rivalry, because real people can respect and disagree with you, and (although this might just be because I have his romance mod installed *ahem*) the DA2-esque Rivalry relationship seems to better characterize how Edwin thinks of me anyway. And while I’m on my soapbox, why’d they take that system away from Inquisition? Rivalry was certainly would have given me a better time with Vivienne, whom I desperately wanted to love but couldn’t because I could never get her approval high enough to offer me any quests. Heck, at least Edwin will still get Nether Scroll’d even if he constantly complains about me rescuing kittens.

Moreover, before its flawed execution, the skeleton of DA2 is far more ambitious and intriguing than BG2′s. BG2 is still a defeat-the-evil wizard game, and it stumbled across the story-of-a-city model largely by accident (one of the most graceful stumbles I’ve ever seen, that’s for sure). I assume (though correct me if I’m wrong) that I’ll still be kickin’ Irenicus’s unsympathetic ass as an endgame (unless he goes Sephiroth Supernova or has an evil boss or something). DA2’s conflicts with the qunari, and especially the conflict between the mages and the templars, turned the city into DA2′s most interesting character and its primary villain, which is the logical, brilliant extenstion of what BG2 accomplished. Meredith, Anders and Orsino - the trifecta of DA2’s endgame catalysts - were all emblematic of an impossible social and political conflict, born out of everything Kirkwall was over the span of a decade. Almost every little plotline in DA2 gives you something new to think about in terms of law, order, magic and rule in Kirkwall, and the finale was a culmination of that. It was a narrative waterfall into which the stream of every sidequest fed. It’s a brilliant structure - but it failed to spark the love its narratively inferior predecessor did, and certainly failed to achieve the quality of BG2.

And it’s only because Kirkwall is no Athkatla. It could have been, but it wasn’t. It felt emptier, and thinner, less populated and less complex, even though all the bones were there. This was largely because of those repeated dungeons - there’s something new in every corner in BG2, and the exploration of the wilderness outside the city is more extended, and every room is different, whereas the dungeons in DA2 wear out their welcome before the first act is over. It’s immensely frustrating, because Dragon Age 2 was so close to being BG2 but better. And there are things (particularly that friendship/rivalry thing) that are marks of improvement and reflection borne of lessons learned from BG2 and DA:O. It makes DA2 even more of a tragedy than it already was. Suffice to say I love both these games a lot, and I am indeed recommending that anybody whose curiosity has been piqued immediately download BG2 from gog.com (I hear there’s a bear companion in the Enhanced Edition. His name is Wilson).

But if I might replace the soapbox a second, I think the biggest tragedy of all of this was that Bioware didn’t try again. For all that Dragon Age 2 felt unfinished and unfocused, it was nowhere near as soulless and directionless as Dragon Age Inquisition, at least for me. Inquisition functioned fine, and it’s not a “bad” game by any quantifiable metric, but I could not be asked to play it more than once. I know people like it, and there are things about it to like - from my own perspective, I loved the fancy-party sequence, and there have been few companions in any game as interesting to me as Blackwall (is that a weird choice? I don’t know, I’m not really In This Fandom). But I did not care about my Inquisitor the way I cared about Hawke. I didn’t care about something as indistinct as The Inquisition the way I cared about Kirkwall, as underdeveloped as it was. I admired DA:II’s aspirations; I do not admire Inquisition’s attempt to be Skyrim when that’s not what we come to Bioware for. I don’t want Bioware to make Skyrim, I want Bioware to try BG2/DA2 again. It could be so phenomenal if they pulled it off.