dev_chieftain (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-02-06 03:56 pm
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-02-06 03:56 pm
Entry tags:
The Bioware Problem (rambly!)
I've been thinking about Dragon Age 2.
Specifically, I've been thinking about the ending. I've seen lots of different reactions to the ending; my own was not necessarily the one I saw most commonly, though with time and distance I found myself agreeing with the majority, more or less, because in some ways, they were very right.
The problem with the game is that Act 3 feels like Bioware threw it together in much less time than the rest of the game. Act 3's conflict is soulless and uninteresting, because none of the choices are really meaningful. Who gives a shit if you side with the mages or the templars? Everyone is going to go nuts in the end anyway, because there's only one ending. And this pretty squarely returns to what everyone has told me about other Bioware games that I have not played: Bioware, you are pretty bad at endings. According to people around the Bioware forums, their endings are historically pretty half-cocked, lackluster, and all around kind of bad.
'Why did they drop the ball so hard in Act 3?' is the question I heard most in regards to Dragon Age 2. A common accompanying statement was 'Why wasn't the plot with the Qunari the main plot? Everything selling the game implied that it was.'
I think maybe, possibly, there was a very belated realization that it might seem a bit racist to have the primary antagonists of the game be a race of 'monsters' who follow a religious doctrine that is not the pseudo-Christian status quo of Dragon Age thus far. Assuming this is a bit much; Bioware seems to have conveniently 'forgotten' to include the option for same-sex romances in SW:TOR, has never handled gender roles in a way I find fully acceptable, and seems totally unwilling to market their games in a way that accepts the idea of a badass female protagonist as being equally acceptable as 'the canon protagonist' as the male one. (I was, as some may recall, pretty incensed by the promotional materials for DA2, which acted like only Male Hawke was real, and didn't even depict Female Hawke on the cover of the goddamn box. The funniest thing about this, of course, is that I like Marian Hawke way better than Garrett Hawke for 'default appearance'. I loved both VA's and enjoyed playing as both genders, but Bioware acts like it has to be ashamed of offering a female lead whose value isn't determined by her appearance, but her strength, character and gumption (you know, like male characters get to be)).
Whenever Bioware makes efforts to fix their problems-- racism, gender bias towards male characters, efforts to provide same-sex relations-- there's a lot of turbulence along the way. Wildly vocal white-privilege young male members of their forums throw bitchfits, from time to time, about how they're not "paying enough attention" to their "real audience". People they are trying to please by fixing their problems are extremely difficult to satisfy, and unfortunately, as with anything, there are different voices within those communities too-- fans who have different opinions from each other on the proper way to handle the equalization of genders, the removal of racism, or what not. I understand that it's tough, so I wouldn't be surprised if they at some point in production said 'oh shit! This conflict isn't really what we should end this on. Let's rearrange things so that the Qunari conflict comes first, and then the mages/templars thing comes to a head.'
The thing is, it's not that the mages/templars thing coming to a head is bad, necessarily, but since they're trying to write with a direct sequel in mind (not a good idea, I think), they didn't even consider the possibility of doing multiple, equally acceptable canon endings.
I honestly think that multiple, equally acceptable canon endings would have been the best way to handle the end of Dragon Age 2 for three simple reasons:
-A larger number of people will enjoy the ending if they can make a wider variety of choices, reflecting their desires as players more completely
-The fastest way to get better at something you suck at is to practice it as much and intensely as you can. Can you imagine if Bioware had prepared fifteen potential endings to the game? I think I'd have also felt a lot more forgiving of a mediocre ending if I knew that it wasn't the only one.
-Presenting the game as essentially a futile struggle against a horrible event that could never be averted is neither artsy, nor fun for the player.
I could see that trouble was brewing for me LONG before the "decision" ever came to bear, and discovering that I was powerless to stop it made it difficult to finish the game because it sapped my excitement for it. Bioware claims to be providing the option of choices in their games-- that they offer the opportunity to play a game that is unique from other players' experiences because the differences in what you did or said actually, significantly alter your playing experience. The most significant difference I had from other players in my first playthrough was that I hadn't had Isabela around enough to keep her, so I didn't get any third-act quests for her at all because she never came back. That was a pretty significant change, and I respected it-- until I played through a second time, kept her, and discovered how little she contributes to the third act just in case you happen to lose her. Rather than have a very different experience as the Hawke who had Isabela around and thus lived a cheerier life for it, I got to see how little Isabela mattered, whether she was there or not, and I was kind of disappointed by that. I want Isabela to matter-- I want her cheery and boisterous personality to be such a big part of life that things feel noticeably different without her. But BECAUSE Bioware is ultimately catering to people I would pretty much identify as douchebags-- who do horrible things in their playthroughs like sell Fenris back into slavery, kill Merrill, and give Isabela over into the custody of the Arishok after romancing her-- and making sure that their bad choices don't penalize them too much, the game suffers for it.
I feel like these choices SHOULD matter. Your life should be a lot harder, and grittier and darker, if you treat your friends like crap, or throw them casually away. Otherwise, what's the point of playing the game and choosing your character's personality?
In conclusion, Bioware, work on your endings. Do this by making multiple endings for your games that give value to our choices! Please and thank you!
Specifically, I've been thinking about the ending. I've seen lots of different reactions to the ending; my own was not necessarily the one I saw most commonly, though with time and distance I found myself agreeing with the majority, more or less, because in some ways, they were very right.
The problem with the game is that Act 3 feels like Bioware threw it together in much less time than the rest of the game. Act 3's conflict is soulless and uninteresting, because none of the choices are really meaningful. Who gives a shit if you side with the mages or the templars? Everyone is going to go nuts in the end anyway, because there's only one ending. And this pretty squarely returns to what everyone has told me about other Bioware games that I have not played: Bioware, you are pretty bad at endings. According to people around the Bioware forums, their endings are historically pretty half-cocked, lackluster, and all around kind of bad.
'Why did they drop the ball so hard in Act 3?' is the question I heard most in regards to Dragon Age 2. A common accompanying statement was 'Why wasn't the plot with the Qunari the main plot? Everything selling the game implied that it was.'
I think maybe, possibly, there was a very belated realization that it might seem a bit racist to have the primary antagonists of the game be a race of 'monsters' who follow a religious doctrine that is not the pseudo-Christian status quo of Dragon Age thus far. Assuming this is a bit much; Bioware seems to have conveniently 'forgotten' to include the option for same-sex romances in SW:TOR, has never handled gender roles in a way I find fully acceptable, and seems totally unwilling to market their games in a way that accepts the idea of a badass female protagonist as being equally acceptable as 'the canon protagonist' as the male one. (I was, as some may recall, pretty incensed by the promotional materials for DA2, which acted like only Male Hawke was real, and didn't even depict Female Hawke on the cover of the goddamn box. The funniest thing about this, of course, is that I like Marian Hawke way better than Garrett Hawke for 'default appearance'. I loved both VA's and enjoyed playing as both genders, but Bioware acts like it has to be ashamed of offering a female lead whose value isn't determined by her appearance, but her strength, character and gumption (you know, like male characters get to be)).
Whenever Bioware makes efforts to fix their problems-- racism, gender bias towards male characters, efforts to provide same-sex relations-- there's a lot of turbulence along the way. Wildly vocal white-privilege young male members of their forums throw bitchfits, from time to time, about how they're not "paying enough attention" to their "real audience". People they are trying to please by fixing their problems are extremely difficult to satisfy, and unfortunately, as with anything, there are different voices within those communities too-- fans who have different opinions from each other on the proper way to handle the equalization of genders, the removal of racism, or what not. I understand that it's tough, so I wouldn't be surprised if they at some point in production said 'oh shit! This conflict isn't really what we should end this on. Let's rearrange things so that the Qunari conflict comes first, and then the mages/templars thing comes to a head.'
The thing is, it's not that the mages/templars thing coming to a head is bad, necessarily, but since they're trying to write with a direct sequel in mind (not a good idea, I think), they didn't even consider the possibility of doing multiple, equally acceptable canon endings.
I honestly think that multiple, equally acceptable canon endings would have been the best way to handle the end of Dragon Age 2 for three simple reasons:
-A larger number of people will enjoy the ending if they can make a wider variety of choices, reflecting their desires as players more completely
-The fastest way to get better at something you suck at is to practice it as much and intensely as you can. Can you imagine if Bioware had prepared fifteen potential endings to the game? I think I'd have also felt a lot more forgiving of a mediocre ending if I knew that it wasn't the only one.
-Presenting the game as essentially a futile struggle against a horrible event that could never be averted is neither artsy, nor fun for the player.
I could see that trouble was brewing for me LONG before the "decision" ever came to bear, and discovering that I was powerless to stop it made it difficult to finish the game because it sapped my excitement for it. Bioware claims to be providing the option of choices in their games-- that they offer the opportunity to play a game that is unique from other players' experiences because the differences in what you did or said actually, significantly alter your playing experience. The most significant difference I had from other players in my first playthrough was that I hadn't had Isabela around enough to keep her, so I didn't get any third-act quests for her at all because she never came back. That was a pretty significant change, and I respected it-- until I played through a second time, kept her, and discovered how little she contributes to the third act just in case you happen to lose her. Rather than have a very different experience as the Hawke who had Isabela around and thus lived a cheerier life for it, I got to see how little Isabela mattered, whether she was there or not, and I was kind of disappointed by that. I want Isabela to matter-- I want her cheery and boisterous personality to be such a big part of life that things feel noticeably different without her. But BECAUSE Bioware is ultimately catering to people I would pretty much identify as douchebags-- who do horrible things in their playthroughs like sell Fenris back into slavery, kill Merrill, and give Isabela over into the custody of the Arishok after romancing her-- and making sure that their bad choices don't penalize them too much, the game suffers for it.
I feel like these choices SHOULD matter. Your life should be a lot harder, and grittier and darker, if you treat your friends like crap, or throw them casually away. Otherwise, what's the point of playing the game and choosing your character's personality?
In conclusion, Bioware, work on your endings. Do this by making multiple endings for your games that give value to our choices! Please and thank you!