Goddamn that's a lot to unpack. I really did just want to come home, eat my sandwich and fall asleep. And now I have to sit here and defend my point of view.
You absolute assholes. All of you.
The problem with DA:I I find is it's story. In particular, its villain. Or lack of one(again, until Trespasser). Corypheus is little more than a cipher for the plot. That's it. The villain of DA:I is so one-dimensional that I just couldn't care. There was no investment for me. To be perfectly honest, I didn't give a shit about the ending of DA:I until that final scene between Flemeth and the Actual Villain who actually has real motivations and real reasons for being a bad guy. And the best part was if you look from a certain light, his reason are somewhat justifiable, if from an extremist standpoint. And that's compelling. That's interesting.
That's what Mass Effect 1 does so well. Goddamn did I hate Saren. The first fight with him on Virmire, he gets away before the bomb detonates, I remember being so goddamn livid. He beats me to relay gate on Illus. But it all pays off, and you have the mother of all goddamn set pieces in gaming with that charge up the Council Tower on gravity boots, with Sovereign just lurking in front of you, shooting your way past Geth and Krogan. That's memorable. That leaves an impact.
The same with Dragon Age 2. Two points really. Challenging the Arishok and when Anders blows up the Chantry. They're memorable, they have impact. I think back to DA:I and there's nothing that really comes to mind. There's no one 'Oh shit' moment. At least, not until the very very very, last two minutes. To me, it wasn't worth that. Especially when I had so little build up.
And it's insulting that I had to slog through what could be between 30 to 100+ hour(depending on how much you did or didn't do)game to get to that point. Once I came down from the "OH SHIT" moment, I realized that, "Hey, fuck this game." for doing that. Never mind the handful of plot holes that DA:I just kind of leaves wide open, even questions asked in DA2 were never actually fully answered. Just kind of, which only left me with more questions.
The Descent DLC did not do DA:I any favors by opening up a whole can of 'WTFuckery' when one really unpacks the ramifications.
The whole graphics bit I can handwave. Partially because I don't care. But if @Thenomain is gonna sit here and say that DA:O had better visuals than DA2, you're off your rocker. I mean, I really hope you're not gonna suggest that DA:O had better facial animations than DA2. Because...well, it didn't. DA:O was about one step above TES Oblivion in ranks of facial expressions. DA2 had a lot more color. Everything seemed to 'pop' out more. There was a vibrancy to the look of things that I appreciated. In DA:O things looked drag and dull. DA2 kind of almost looked cartoony to a certain degree, and well, I kind of liked that.
But when we talk about story, and I've already talked at length about my issues with DA:I, let's go ahead and look at DA2. The reality is that there was two stories. There was everything before the Arishok was killed and everything after. That point is where one story ends and the other starts, with various strands connecting side stories together. You could say that it's one long line of cause and effect, suggested by the fact that Hawke is the real villain of DA:I. Without Hawke, none of DA2 or DA:I even passes. I wonder how s/he sleeps at night, being responsible for an entire war. But that's pretty tangential right now.
DA2 was something different in storytelling according to video games. Or at least, BioWare games. Because really, most BioWare games up to that point had a particular set formula. I'm not going to list that formula, but if you've played KOTOR, ME, DA, and Jade Empire you know exactly the formula I'm talking about. Hell, I could Google image search if I really wanted to.
You know what, screw it, I will
What DA2 wanted to do, or at least tried to do, what throw this whole method into the grinder. There was middling success. Instead of travelling to those three different locations/planets/cities/whatever, with that one bonus one after the third, it kept things in one location and expanded from there. I could see an attempt at making things more scaled down and intimate. In some respects, I saw a certain amount of Fable in DA2. The idea of playing across one character's life, or at least, a large chunk of their life. This was different. Did it succeed? I think so, at least partially. It almost felt like it was trying to be a tv series instead of one long movie.
I look back at the number of various stories in DA2 and I name at least seven impactful side stories. I can't remember a one with DA:I. No, I can't remember two. Cassandra's knights getting wiped out and the fact that Varric's bow is actually named after someone named Bianca. But those are more companion stories so of course you'll remember those better.
I think there was a better message being sent with DA2 that just got lost in translation when people bring up enemy spawns with no tactics, the button mashy combat, the recycled dungeon environments, the list goes on. What I love DA2 is that it tried to do something different. It may be remembered for all it's faults, but people are far too quick to ignore the fact that it had a lot of good going for it. What it had better than other DA to date was character development. We saw characters age. Some mature, some not. We saw their lives move in their own directions while staying somewhat near your character. They weren't just tired to your hip, following behind you wherever you went. They had their own stories, and often times, you were just there to help. Most times when it came to your companions, you took a backseat. And that was cool. It's not all about you, Hawke. There are other people in this world, and life goes on, despite what you're doing. Some what to start a family, some want revenge, others want a prize, some just want to survive. Characters in DA2 felt honest, and I haven't seen that in many games.
And while I bashed on DA:I handily, I don't hate it(despite having the weakest cast, Iron Bull notwithstanding). It was perfectly suitable for what it was trying to do. I did like the weapon crafting, I will say that. It just wasn't memorable. And that's where DA2 shines.
And that's the problem with saying that DA2 is a good game. Because you can't really review something that's 'memorable' or 'intimate'. These are intangible descriptors. Does saying that I think DA2 was more emotive and provacative make DA:I less so? I don't know. I'm sure it's different for someone else.
The point here isn't going to sit here and try to change opinions. Good fuck, I stopped trying to change opinions years ago. I suppose explaining why I like something more than another thing doesn't invaldiate the other thing. I like them both perfectly, just one I happen to enjoy more.
EDIT: Also, Merril is a fucking idiot. Don't get me wrong, I like her, but goddamn is she an idiot. Yeah, let's consort with demons. Nothing ever went wrong there.
