Jul 062015
When I started the sequel to one of the best games I played in 2013, I didn’t expect it to make me examine the “show, don’t tell” lesson of storytelling. Dragon Age 2 gets a lot of criticism, mainly for its repetitive environments and combat.
The repeated environments bothered me not because I found them monotonous, but because they tie into a greater problem I’ll discuss in a moment. As for the combat… I honestly didn’t notice much of a difference. Maybe it’s just been too long since I played Dragon Age: Origins, but I can’t explain how the battle system changed.
On the other hand, I’ve heard Dragon Age 2’s story praised in spite of gameplay flaws, but the story–or rather, storytelling–is what lessened the experience for me.
That’s not a jab against BioWare’s decision to make Dragon Age 2 a frame narrative. I liked the idea that the entire game is recounted by Varric to one of the Chantry’s Seekers, Cassandra. It didn’t use the frame narrative structure to its fullest potential, as explained by one reviewer here, but in general it didn’t bother me.
I liked most of the characters. It had great party banter, which is always one of my favorite parts of games like this. My party members’ side conversations ranged from poignant to hilarious, sometimes both at the same time.
I generally wanted to know what would happen in the story, but at the most critical moments, the game just didn’t manage to make me care enough. The plot lacked cohesiveness, with only a couple threads tying the first act to the last. But its biggest problem was that, as if the writers forgot the player wasn’t a passive listener like Cassandra, it insisted upon telling things that would have been more effective if shown.
Nothing demonstrates this better than the time skips. Dragon Age II is divided into acts separated by time skips. The game spans years, but you only get to see a few select segments. Times skips are great… when they actually matter. This is why the repetitive environments bothered me. The city of Kirkwall and its surrounding lands didn’t change after the time skips. The people didn’t change. Even the party members stayed the same, with only the occasional line of dialogue about how long they’ve been friends to remind you that time has passed.
Fortunately, I knew which character I wanted to romance immediately.
Instead of talking to them on a routine basis, new interactions with your party members become available as side quests. This disjointed the experience for me. It felt less natural. Likewise, the romance felt more like I was checking off boxes rather than getting to know the character.
But the problem with Dragon Age 2’s time skips goes a lot deeper than unchanging environments or shallow character relationships. It strikes the core of the plot and the heart of the story’s “show vs. tell” problem. After one time skip, the game dropped me into an argument between the templars’ Knight-Commander and the mages’ First Enchanter and asked who I thought was right.
Imagine you walk into a room, and your friends are arguing about something that happened the previous day without you. Then they ask whose side you’re on. That’s how I felt. Hawke knew if their accusations about the events of the past few years were valid, because she actually lived through them. But me? All I had to go on was a line of narration from Varric and two people arguing. I refused to side with either and assumed the game would help me figure it out as I played more.
Maybe if we argue loud enough, she won’t notice the storytelling flaws.
And this is Dragon Age 2’s great mistake. It wants to tell a morally gray story, but it doesn’t balance the two sides. It repeatedly tells you why one side is wrong, through dialogue and narration. It kept telling me mages were oppressed. Why not show me? Then it tried to balance its anti-templar ranting by tossing in corrupt mages, to an almost ludicrous degree.
Why didn’t the plot take us into the Gallows to see how oppressed mages are? Why didn’t we have a Circle mage as a party member? Heck, why not have a templar party member too?
The game’s crucial moral choice was a difficult decision, not because the game portrayed such a morally gray situation but because it failed to do so. I didn’t believe the First Enchanter was right, because it didn’t show me enough from that side. I didn’t believe the Knight-Commander was right, because her reactions were irrational. The majority of the NPCs had stopped making logical sense by that point, and the game hadn’t convinced me to really care. I wanted to just turn around and leave Kirkwall’s idiocy behind me.
Of course, I couldn’t, so I picked aside and forged ahead… into an ending that made me wonder if my decision mattered at all.
It’s hard for me to pass a verdict on Dragon Age 2. I enjoyed it while I played it. I liked the characters and the idea of the plot. It had some cool moments. The general gameplay didn’t bother me.
But in the end, I found its narrative forgettable rather than compelling.
---If you want posts like this delivered straight to your inbox, enter your email in the box below to subscribe!
Good article ♪
How would you compare Dragon Age 2’s telling-the-story to the criticism of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Dual Destinies that it only really “told” the Dark Age of the Law but didn’t show it?
Hmm, that’s an interesting point. I think a key difference for me is that the Dark Age of the Law never felt that important. They talked about it as though it was, but it only really seemed important in the third case. As far as the overarching plot went, the Dark Age of the Law’s main purpose was to tie Dual Destinies back to Apollo Justice (the two inciting incidents for the Dark Age of the Law) and show that the public didn’t trust the legal system.
Weirdly, that feels more like a late decision than an inability to show it properly. The trailer implies that Ted Tonate hates lawyers and the entire legal system, and that motivation was dropped for the actual game. The closest we get to that in the game is Aura.
I’m getting off track now. Back to the topic at hand, Dual Destinies failed to show the Dark Age of the Law, but it also didn’t bother to integrate the Dark Age of the Law into its plot. Dragon Age 2, on the other hand, does this with a key part of its plot. If you take the Dark Age of the Law out of Dual Destinies, most of the game would still be intact with a little rewriting. If you take the templar/mage conflict out of Dragon Age 2, the last act would fall apart and you’d be left with an incomplete game.
The choice-based nature also influences things. If Dual Destinies expected you to make a serious moral decision related to your trust of the legal system in the Dark Age of the Law, that would create similar problem.
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. ^.^ (In return, I won’t give a detailed or thoughtful reply.)
XD Well, uh… you’re welcome.