I've only been playing it for about thirty hours - which isn't a lot for a BioWare game - but I'm a little bored of Dragon Age II already. I'm going to talk about what it got right and what it sadly got wrong. The aim here isn't to discourage anyone, let me say right from the outset I do enjoy this game, I do support game studios that value the importance of good writing and I will absolutely be buying Dragon Age III. I'm just disappointed this game hasn't lived up to the promise of Dragon Age: Origins or the Mass Effect series. It's possible this post will contain some spoilers for DA2 and other BioWare games, but I haven't planned what I'm going to say so I'm not sure yet.
First up, let's talk Moral Choices. This is a key part of BioWare games and they got it just right for the Mass Effect series, but they've taken a step back here with Dragon Age. In their earlier games, like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire, the game provided you with a number of side quests which always had two possible ways to complete. One where you made a small sacrifice - time, items or money - to help someone out, the other where you selfishly took advantage of someone, teaching them that life is hard and they should be stronger. The choice you made would shift your character towards either the Light Side/Open Palm or Dark Side/Closed Fist. It should be noted that while it often seemed that way, the Light Side or Way of the Open Palm was not always a 'Good' choice and the Dark Side not always the 'Evil' one.
The two ongoing franchises, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, took similar but slightly different routes. In Mass Effect you play a heroic character, there is no doubt about that, and the choices offered represent two paths your hero can follow: a noble Paragon seeking to smooth Humanity's ascent into galactic politics or a ruthless Renegade prepared to do anything to protect Humanity's interests. Yes, making a Renegade choice might mean watching your character shoot an unarmed man in the back but at least it always felt like it was to serve a higher purpose.
Dragon Age is full of moral choices to be made, but most of the time the choice is Be A Hero or Be An Asshole. Your decision affects the plot of the game and affects your companions' opinions of you, but there's no personal scale of Light vs Dark or similar and this is where Dragon Age suffers. In Mass Effect for the most part you are encouraged to pick a side and stick with it, keeping your character consistent throughout the game to unlock Paragon or Renegade rewards - having high levels of Paragon or Renegade would open new conversation options, new chances to shoot that unarmed civilian in a cut scene. It would, and this is important, make the story better.
In Dragon Age you are instead encouraged to pander to the whims of your party members. My character's sister and lover are both mages so when they're around it's best to pretend I care deeply for the freedom of the mages. The two warriors I've encountered in the game so far are both distrustful of mages, so when I'm around them it's best I pretend to support the Templars, an organisation seeking to protect the world from the dangers of magic. I don't want to pretend, I want my character to stick to her own philosophy and not be punished for it. Sure, having a party member really dislike you gives them a benefit just as much as if they really love you, but I want to play a good character and good characters are nice to their friends even when they disagree with them. If I want to get a companion to become, in in-game terms, my Rival I'd have to turn down their side quests, denying me some of the best bits of the game.
So yeah, lets talk quests now. Dragon Age 2 splits quests into Primary, Secondary, Companion and Side. Primary being important to the main plot of the game, secondary being your standard opportunity to run around exploring the world. Companion's quests are, as mentioned, your chance to learn more about your little circle of friends and Side Quests happen when you accidently stumble over an item and can return it to its proper owner. They kinda suck.
I'm a way into the second act of the game and things have only just started to get important to anyone except the main character. In the framing device, cut scenes where a companion character of yours tells your history, you keep being referred to as the Champion but for the entire first act your character is a poor refugee trying to scrape together enough money to go on a treasure hunting expedition. A champion indeed. Jade Empire and Baldur's Gate start with your character attacked by unknown foes, seeking your death for unknown reasons. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins get a little more epic, with terrible forces threatening entire cultures. Dragon Age II starts you as a refugee from the events of Dragon Age: Origins. There is, sure, an initial need for mere survival, but slowly greed becomes the driving element of the plot. I've always played the Good character, helping others in need wherever I can, but it's only now that being a capital-H Hero is becoming important to the story.
Secondary Quests add depth to the world. Help the elves with this ritual, help the mages escape that imprisonment, help the guard stop those criminals. There's no thought required for any of these. I can't say I remember that many problem-solving skills required for other BioWare games but it seems far too obvious to me here. A good example of this is a quest given to you by a templar investigating a series of murders he believes are connected. The guard won't help him so it's down to you. He gives you all the information he's uncovered so far, including a note telling you basically to check out a building in the foundry district. From there you're led to a house in the noble district which if you choose to explore rather than heading straight to where the minimap is telling you the plot will happen you will find to be full of clues. Only, the clues aren't for you the player, they're for your character. You don't have to work anything out at all, it'll all be explained to you. BioWare have seriously missed a trick here. An actual murder mystery to solve? A house full of clues, a serial killer on the loose and a suspect with questionable excuses? I would break out a bottle of scotch, complain about dames, put on my detective hat and spend all night chasing down that thing. There's three or four hours of gameplay there totally unrelated to the main plot that would add so much to my immersion into the game and connection to my character. Instead I get a new quest marker to follow.
Actually, they don't all kinda suck. I like the Companion quests. I don't like that they drive your moral choices, but I do like the companions. In Dragon Age and Jade Empire they sat around in your camp waiting for attention. In Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect they waited for you on your spaceship. In all these cases it really worked for the gameplay, giving a place to chat to characters if you wanted more dialogue and depth. In Dragon Age 2 they don't all clump together, instead they've got houses, homes and hovels to live in. I love that, it adds a lot to the world. Merrill has a cosy little house with the other elves in a poor part of town. Anders spends his time at a clinic healing the sick. Fenris squats in a mansion belonging to his former master, waiting for revenge. I love it. Companion quests are where I really feel a lot of thought and design has gone into the world. The companions each have fully fleshed out personalities and are more than just spare Warriors, Rogues or Mages for the party.
Finally, those fucking 'Side Quests'. Really? I'm exploring a cave (more on that in a second) and in a chest I find a scroll about some long forgotten religion. Instantly the character knows who it belongs to and where to find them so I can return it for a little bit of cash. Things like this happen all the fucking time. Fetch quests as a standard were annoying, sure, but taking out half the journey does not solve the problem. These don't add anything to the game in terms of plot development, background depth or gameplay enjoyment. BioWare phoned this one in and that's disappointing.
So yeah, I'm exploring a cave and in a chest I find a scroll. I know where to look for the chest because All The Caves Are Exactly The Same. Dragon Age: Origins took up about twenty gigs on my computer. Dragon Age 2 takes up about five because they reuse the same locations over and over and over. I completed one quest with the climactic fight taking place in the deepest heart of a cave on the Wounded Coast. Exploring the area after the battle I found a little room off to the side with a beautiful ceiling of glowing blue lights. A spiritual retreat for the evil mage I'd just defeated, perhaps? I felt slightly betrayed by the game when a later quest led me to the exact same place in a completely different cave, with the same hidden room of mystic glow-wormy light. This same betrayal of meaning occurs in the noble mansions dotted around the city of Kirkwall, the Warehouses on its docks and its many back alleys where secret meetings, ambushes and oh hey, main plot events take place.
Whenever Pixar announce a new film I get so worried that it won't be a work of art. I was absolutely sure that Toy Story 3 would be just okay. They'd had a string of increasingly good, Oscar winning hits with Ratatouille, WALL-E and the absolutely wonderful Up (at some point I might write a post about just why I love Pixar so much), it seemed impossible they could live up to their own standards. This was even the best time for them to fail since no-one expects a sequel to be as good as its predecessors. I mean, sure Toy Story II was arguably better than Toy Story I, but a second sequel? No chance. Well, I feel the same way about BioWare games. (I'm ignoring The Old Republic because it's Massively Multiplayer just like I'm ignoring Cars 2 because it's, well, Cars.)
Pixar came through for us, BioWare didn't. Dragon Age II is the Toy Story I expected, not the one I got. I like the game, I really do, but I don't love it. I'm not the hero of the story, just the protagonist. I'm not taking apart a gang of thieves to make the city safer, I'm doing it so the captain of the guard likes me a little more. I'm not exploring a world, I'm following quest markers around a single - albeit quite characterful - city. And they had better be leading somewhere good BioWare, because you haven't wowed me yet.
Sunday 20 March 2011
Thursday 17 March 2011
The BHA's Census Campaign
It's Census time! I love the census. I try to get interested in politics but sometimes it's really hard, even when the outcome affects me personally. Like, for example, privatisation. It seems pretty clear to me that everything absolutely essential to the continued success of our country should be not-for-profit and overseen by the government. I'm talking Healthcare, Education, Transport, Defense and Communication. Certainly other things as well, but that's not the focus of this post and I know how my brain works. If I let it run it'll keep coming up with new things I think should be nationalised and I'll feel uncomfortable if I don't include them. Emergency Services. The point is, whenever politicians and the media talk about privatising some of these essential services, I zone out. It's very important, it's something that does concern me but it's like watching the The Inbetweeners. Sheer embarrassment on behalf of everyone involved means I feel I ought to go make myself a drink, or maybe now's a good time for a toilet break and when I get back everything will be better and Simon won't be tripping over his words talking to girls and David will have found the money to pay the police.
But when it's Election time or Census time, everything changes. When it's voting time, I feel Invovled, like maybe my single vote on which way this country should head will Make A Difference. I tend to vote Lib Dem, so secretly I know that it won't and weren't we all a little surprised when the Lib Dems actually became important this time round? And don't we all wish they'd go back to being the sensible but unimportant party so we could feel good about voting for them?
This isn't an Election though, this is a Census. We're not choosing our representatives here, we're telling them who they represent, and that's still awesome and it's still important. It's important because political parties and pressure groups will use the information from the Census to forward their agendas. There are going to be people who look at this data and say "Well, we need the government to encourage more women to go into higher education" or "So many people drive to work in seperate cars, can we increase public transport or carpooling?" There are going to be people who look at the overwhelmingly large number of ethnically White citizens who identify as British and ignore the number of ethnically Black citizens who identify as the same, who will use the data to push what they see as Traditional Values and I what see as Blatant Racism.
That's how the Census works. It's open to abuse, but it is helpful. There's one question in particular I want to talk about. One question that I don't think should be on the census, that was introduced for the first time in 2001 and led to Jedi becoming a national in-joke. It's an optional question but that doesn't make it any better.
"What is your religion?"
Data from this question will be used by religious groups to push for an increase in state funding of faith schools and religious insititutions. It will be used by the government to justify that spending. I've made it pretty clear in the past that I'm a secularist and I don't think there should be any state funding at all of these things but I don't think the government is going to cut the ties completely any time soon - not least while the Church of England is still the Established religion in the country. The best we can do for now is ensure they have the correct data to work off.
If you're not religious, as the British Humanist Association's campaign slogan goes, for God's sake say so. This main focus of the campaign isn't aimed at me and it's not aimed at Britain's admittedly large religious population. It's aimed at people who consider themselves culturally of one religion but without the faith. Maybe you grew up in a Jewish household or went to a Christian school. Maybe you think the Bible is a good basis for an ethical society and we can just ignore all the bits about God. The phrasing of the question itself implies you have a religion, encourages you to select Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever but unless you actually believe in the religious aspects of that culture you should tick 'No religion'. If religion is not a significant aspect of your life, tick 'No religion'.
There is a second front to the Census Campaign, and this one is aimed at me and at the religiously apathetic. In 2001 I - along with nearly four hundred thousand other people - put down my religion as 'Jedi'. This was fun, this was fine, this was still officially counted as 'No religion' but the fact that I didn't tick that box meant Religious groups could use the low number of people who actually declared 'No religion' as a sign that Britain identifies as a God-fearing country. I've seen campaigns run this time encouraging people to declare Jedi, Heavy Metal and Dumbledore's Army - as well as many others - as their religion. This choice will still be counted as no religion, so just tick that box. Give a clear signal that you are not religious. By all means set your religious view on facebook as Heavy Metal but jokes are less funny the second time round and I'm sorry but the Jedis got there first on this one. Tick 'No religion' and move on.
The lovely folks at the BHA Census Campaign have given us a nice little list of some ways the 2001 census data for religion has been misused by government ministers to justify spending on religious groups, which you can read here.
But when it's Election time or Census time, everything changes. When it's voting time, I feel Invovled, like maybe my single vote on which way this country should head will Make A Difference. I tend to vote Lib Dem, so secretly I know that it won't and weren't we all a little surprised when the Lib Dems actually became important this time round? And don't we all wish they'd go back to being the sensible but unimportant party so we could feel good about voting for them?
This isn't an Election though, this is a Census. We're not choosing our representatives here, we're telling them who they represent, and that's still awesome and it's still important. It's important because political parties and pressure groups will use the information from the Census to forward their agendas. There are going to be people who look at this data and say "Well, we need the government to encourage more women to go into higher education" or "So many people drive to work in seperate cars, can we increase public transport or carpooling?" There are going to be people who look at the overwhelmingly large number of ethnically White citizens who identify as British and ignore the number of ethnically Black citizens who identify as the same, who will use the data to push what they see as Traditional Values and I what see as Blatant Racism.
That's how the Census works. It's open to abuse, but it is helpful. There's one question in particular I want to talk about. One question that I don't think should be on the census, that was introduced for the first time in 2001 and led to Jedi becoming a national in-joke. It's an optional question but that doesn't make it any better.
"What is your religion?"
Data from this question will be used by religious groups to push for an increase in state funding of faith schools and religious insititutions. It will be used by the government to justify that spending. I've made it pretty clear in the past that I'm a secularist and I don't think there should be any state funding at all of these things but I don't think the government is going to cut the ties completely any time soon - not least while the Church of England is still the Established religion in the country. The best we can do for now is ensure they have the correct data to work off.
If you're not religious, as the British Humanist Association's campaign slogan goes, for God's sake say so. This main focus of the campaign isn't aimed at me and it's not aimed at Britain's admittedly large religious population. It's aimed at people who consider themselves culturally of one religion but without the faith. Maybe you grew up in a Jewish household or went to a Christian school. Maybe you think the Bible is a good basis for an ethical society and we can just ignore all the bits about God. The phrasing of the question itself implies you have a religion, encourages you to select Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever but unless you actually believe in the religious aspects of that culture you should tick 'No religion'. If religion is not a significant aspect of your life, tick 'No religion'.
There is a second front to the Census Campaign, and this one is aimed at me and at the religiously apathetic. In 2001 I - along with nearly four hundred thousand other people - put down my religion as 'Jedi'. This was fun, this was fine, this was still officially counted as 'No religion' but the fact that I didn't tick that box meant Religious groups could use the low number of people who actually declared 'No religion' as a sign that Britain identifies as a God-fearing country. I've seen campaigns run this time encouraging people to declare Jedi, Heavy Metal and Dumbledore's Army - as well as many others - as their religion. This choice will still be counted as no religion, so just tick that box. Give a clear signal that you are not religious. By all means set your religious view on facebook as Heavy Metal but jokes are less funny the second time round and I'm sorry but the Jedis got there first on this one. Tick 'No religion' and move on.
The lovely folks at the BHA Census Campaign have given us a nice little list of some ways the 2001 census data for religion has been misused by government ministers to justify spending on religious groups, which you can read here.
Thursday 10 March 2011
A Statement of Change of Intent
I'm not entirely happy with the content I've been putting out these past two months. I've learned a fair amount about Alternative Voting and how much power the Queen actually has. I've learnt some stuff about the history of Gay Marriage and Civil Unions in the UK. One thing I still need to learn is whether 'learned' or 'learnt' is the correct past tense of Learn but by the time I finish writing this I'm sure curiosity will have gotten the better of me. I've learnt a whole bunch so this isn't a failure but I don't feel I've connected with my potential audience.
I'm not angry all the time. I'm not even angry a lot. Really, I can only think of two regular experiences I have that make me even a little angry. The first is an hour before my shift at work finishes. I'm feeling pretty angry then but I can't blog at work and by the time I get home it's become a mixture of relief and exhaustion.
The second is reading news online. I get angry at Creationists reading Pharyngula. I get angry at misogynists reading Feministe and its active verb sister Feministing. I get angry at the government reading Comment is Free and I get angry at bad journalism reading The Mail Online. I have places to go if I want to get angry at Videogames (The Escapist), Cinema (Rotten Tomatoes) or just Everyone (YouTube comments) but in every case the thing I'm angry about is up there on the web in a place far more people will see written by someone with a far greater understanding of the issues. Even in the Mail's case, where the writer is often the focus of the anger rather than someone to share discontent with, the chances are I've found this article through someone's response to it. I start writing something for my own blog and realise I've nothing to add to the conversation.
Here are some titles for posts I thought I wanted to write and then realised I really didn't. "The Census Campaign." "There Are Twenty-Six Bishops In The House of Lords." "Why Ellen Page is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "The Census Campaign." "Why James Cameron is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "Polyamorous Love: Where The Hell Do I Stand On This?" "Videogames as an Art Form." "The Census Campaign." "For the love Of God, people, read about The Census Campaign."
(The convention in British English seems to be 'learned' for the past tense and 'learnt' for the past participle so that should have read "I've learnt" both times up the top there. That's something I learned today.)
I don't have anything new to say. Perhaps it's worth putting someone else's arguments in my words to make me think about the issue. Perhaps it's just worth saying I support their cause. That second one would be true if more people read this blog, but my stats page suggests not a lot of people care about what I have to say. I know, this blog is only two months old, hasn't yet reached double digits in number of posts and I'm not exactly pushing it anywhere. A couple of nods on facebook and twitter, but nowhere beyond my online territory. My rationale for this falls somewhere between "I'm a perfectionist and don't want anyone reading my shit until it's flawless." and "I care far more about the opinion of strangers than I wish to admit and don't want anyone reading my shit until I can defend it." Either way, as much as I'd love everyone in the world to homepage this site, I don't want a larger readership until I'm comfortable with the direction this blog is headed.
The intent was to be angry, to give my words an emotional charge. That didn't work as I'd hoped. For me to be happier here, the intent needs to change.
The first post in this blog, the original statement of intent, is the post I'm happiest with. It's not angry at all. It's a lovely little tale of a time when I was young and lost and found a small place on the internet to shelter from the real world for a while. It's a story of growth and maturity, or so we thought since it seems maturing as a person does not mean shouting about politics instead of whining about girls. In fact, to jump from one to the other thinking it would instantly make my writing more worthwhile feels as immature as ever. Leaving LiveJournal was an important step in improving my writing, I have no doubt about that, but a complete paradigm shift wasn't the way to go.
There are some things that really do interest me, that I hope I could write about in personal, interesting ways and I think those should be the focus of the blog. Since starting this I've joined the British Humanist Association and some time before March 27th I really should get that post about the Census Campaign out. I've also spent a lot of time thinking about Video Games as an art form and as the future of entertainment. My opinions there are as strong - if not stronger - as my opinions on the monarchy. Certainly as much as I love voting and its systems (and guys: I seriously love voting) I have far more to say on the subject of Motion Controls.
The intent is changing. In time, when I think of a good one, the title will change but until then we can all sit here in polite silence, uncomfortably aware of the mismatch.
I'm not angry all the time. I'm not even angry a lot. Really, I can only think of two regular experiences I have that make me even a little angry. The first is an hour before my shift at work finishes. I'm feeling pretty angry then but I can't blog at work and by the time I get home it's become a mixture of relief and exhaustion.
The second is reading news online. I get angry at Creationists reading Pharyngula. I get angry at misogynists reading Feministe and its active verb sister Feministing. I get angry at the government reading Comment is Free and I get angry at bad journalism reading The Mail Online. I have places to go if I want to get angry at Videogames (The Escapist), Cinema (Rotten Tomatoes) or just Everyone (YouTube comments) but in every case the thing I'm angry about is up there on the web in a place far more people will see written by someone with a far greater understanding of the issues. Even in the Mail's case, where the writer is often the focus of the anger rather than someone to share discontent with, the chances are I've found this article through someone's response to it. I start writing something for my own blog and realise I've nothing to add to the conversation.
Here are some titles for posts I thought I wanted to write and then realised I really didn't. "The Census Campaign." "There Are Twenty-Six Bishops In The House of Lords." "Why Ellen Page is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "The Census Campaign." "Why James Cameron is the best thing to happen to Feminist Cinema." "Polyamorous Love: Where The Hell Do I Stand On This?" "Videogames as an Art Form." "The Census Campaign." "For the love Of God, people, read about The Census Campaign."
(The convention in British English seems to be 'learned' for the past tense and 'learnt' for the past participle so that should have read "I've learnt" both times up the top there. That's something I learned today.)
I don't have anything new to say. Perhaps it's worth putting someone else's arguments in my words to make me think about the issue. Perhaps it's just worth saying I support their cause. That second one would be true if more people read this blog, but my stats page suggests not a lot of people care about what I have to say. I know, this blog is only two months old, hasn't yet reached double digits in number of posts and I'm not exactly pushing it anywhere. A couple of nods on facebook and twitter, but nowhere beyond my online territory. My rationale for this falls somewhere between "I'm a perfectionist and don't want anyone reading my shit until it's flawless." and "I care far more about the opinion of strangers than I wish to admit and don't want anyone reading my shit until I can defend it." Either way, as much as I'd love everyone in the world to homepage this site, I don't want a larger readership until I'm comfortable with the direction this blog is headed.
The intent was to be angry, to give my words an emotional charge. That didn't work as I'd hoped. For me to be happier here, the intent needs to change.
The first post in this blog, the original statement of intent, is the post I'm happiest with. It's not angry at all. It's a lovely little tale of a time when I was young and lost and found a small place on the internet to shelter from the real world for a while. It's a story of growth and maturity, or so we thought since it seems maturing as a person does not mean shouting about politics instead of whining about girls. In fact, to jump from one to the other thinking it would instantly make my writing more worthwhile feels as immature as ever. Leaving LiveJournal was an important step in improving my writing, I have no doubt about that, but a complete paradigm shift wasn't the way to go.
There are some things that really do interest me, that I hope I could write about in personal, interesting ways and I think those should be the focus of the blog. Since starting this I've joined the British Humanist Association and some time before March 27th I really should get that post about the Census Campaign out. I've also spent a lot of time thinking about Video Games as an art form and as the future of entertainment. My opinions there are as strong - if not stronger - as my opinions on the monarchy. Certainly as much as I love voting and its systems (and guys: I seriously love voting) I have far more to say on the subject of Motion Controls.
The intent is changing. In time, when I think of a good one, the title will change but until then we can all sit here in polite silence, uncomfortably aware of the mismatch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)