Just because YOU find it terrible, doesn't mean it is. Do you have any understanding that your perspective is not the only perspective in the world? Are you one of those people who runs around telling everyone who likes something you don't that they are stupid for liking something that you've decided is terrible? Well, obviously you are- look at these posts. But why do you do that? Do you not understand that peoples experiences are subjective? What you don't like, another person may like? Just because you and a vocal group of absolute assholes don't like something doesn't make it bad. Nobody needs to justify themselves to you. Be quiet(er). You've made your "point" and you've "won". Bioware has turned their backs on the people who liked DA2. DA3 will probably be a direct clone of DA:O (boring Fade and all) because obviously the most vocal whiners want to play the same goddamn game over and over again. With the exact same stupid kill-the-big-bad-to-save-the-world story.
Apparently people who don't like the games you do are vocal assholes because you fear Bioware may listen to them? Impressive, how you manage to invalidate your own initial "perspective argument" several sentences later in breathtaking hypocritical fashion!
But the story gets even better as you go on to invoke "Saving the world" from big bad thing trope. Yet I have to ask, what is the difference? You do the same thing in DA2 but on a smaller scale, Meredith and Orsino both turn into monsters that you have to slay to save the day, no? Or did I miss the ending where Bioware played to the strengths of a RPG set within a city(IE robust C&C because of story/setting scope - not multiple Choices with same consequence)?
Loghain as an antagonist was miles ahead of Orsino or Meredith. FFS, the catalyst to the events was a magic juju statue that corrupts people/things. Admittedly, the Qunari arch was better… The lack of choices and consequences involving that arc was not.
And why is this? Because, as I see it, Hawke is the first person in Ferelden to break free of her destiny, meaning that the she starts the game poor, and in the course of the game, rises to power and fame. All through her own actions. And yes, she is maybe a bystander to what happens, and she can't prevent certain events from happening, although she defeats an end boss in the final scenes of the game. However, I've found the relationships with the characters far better than anything else than Bioware has ever written.
But how is that any different from DA:O? Does the dwarf commoner origin from DA:O not break free from his set in stone duster destiny? It's the same framework across a smaller scale - hero starts out small and builds up from there.
-EDIT- Adding to the above thought on destiny…
One thing that really irked me in the beginning sequence was the massive disconnect between player and character. You are replaying events that already have happened and are now being recounted by Varric… So you play through his made up opening event and then have to play the real event all over again! At the end of which combat is broken mid-fight by Flemmeth who by some unknown and unexplained event gets you to Kirkwall in exchange for a favor. The use of deus ex machina so early on(which oddly enough lacks originality in that Flemmeth had saved the PC before in similar fashion at Ostagar) seemed lazy… Oh and back to destiny, you already know you are the champion of Kirkwall from that early Cass/Varric cutscene.
Another major disconnect in the opening sequence was the poor attempt at emotional engagement by arbitrarily killing off a sibling… Which is made all the more poignant if said sibling(or other companion) had previously fallen in battle minutes or seconds earlier and had then gotten back up(what changed between now and then, you know other than Bioware saying time to die?). There is zero emotional engagement as you the player just met this person, feeling any emotional attachment at that point in the game is done so purely through LARPing. Admittedly, the origins in DA:O had similar spins, but to their credit there was some sense of normalcy beforehand which helped set the stage for the impending SHTF.
Long story short Hawke does not break the mold with respect to destiny - you are the chosen one from the onset simply on a smaller scale.
To be honest, I thought(hoped) the settings/scale lent itself to greater exploration of RPG mechanics/elements and even story/plot as affected by C&C. As it was the city remained static throughout the framed narrative and playing as a mage led to zero reaction from the templars or greater populace… Hawke would blow up people in the streets with dazzling displays of kaboom magic and nothing would come of that… Hawke would walk proudly with a mage robe + staff on his back and nada… Hawke + co fought mage style against an Abomination right in front of Cullen, and I get a "Mages are not people like you and I" response?!?
when Isabela left. I even went online to check that haven't done anything wrong. Aveline's story was great - and tragic as well. The whole main story is also a tragic story; Hawke is a person that gets involved in something she really doesn't want to become involved in, it seems. And as such, she becomes the hero of Kirkwall?
