Will Dragon Age 4 require you to do 'homework'?

[Warlock]

This post is about DA4, a sequel to DAI thus why I decided to post it here, subject is for those still willing to give a chance to Dragon Age: Dread Wolf despite DAI's... creative turn from established lore and the new dev team now.

The reason I'm writing is because I noticed how DA:I has characters from novels, books and never really bothers to tell full story or about their character other than a short, oversimplified version in the game. Like with Dalish Apprentice in Hinterlands, Orlesian Civil War, Empress Celene, Gaspard, Florianne, Briala. I think we get so little information about them, like about Michel de Chevin that was never met before, Briala, Florianne, Gaspard and out of them the only one with some character arc was Grand Duke. Everyone else was... vague, unfamiliar. Well, I learnt why and it's something of a trend that became popular now with Marvel, Star Wars and perhaps some other media. Before DA:I there were novels released, one of them was Masked Empire that was published before game release. Now, it's cool and all if some fans are into reading about favorite fantasy world, but why must I, or like anyone be required to do this 'homework' to understand storylines, characters in the video game? I don't remember needing to read some books to understand the story and characters for Dragon Age II, for DA: Origins. The fact that third game now has this sort of requirement to understand in-game characters feels ridiculous, because most characters in the With Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts are unlikable, some are douchebags and arrogant, one is mustache Saturday Morning villain while Empress Celene was degraded significantly, someone that was once mentioned as smart and cunning being none of those traits.

So going back to title question, I guess I would like to ask folks here if next game will require reading novels, comics to understand the story, characters or not because if it will be necessary I'd rather read the wiki then.
Comics, novels and books based on the popular game maybe should be an optional choice and not a requirement to understand the lore, general audience shouldn't do this task to understand the next game.

[Yoinkyz]

your gona hate the witcher

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Yikes:

your gona hate the witcher

Hah, I should've guessed there would be this kind of comeback.
I mean, I hope you do know that Dragon Age wasn't based on any book in the beginning, right? It started off as a game, so all information was learnt in Origins.
Played W3, then Witcher 1-2 and W2 is my favorite so far, afterwards read the books. I've had entire book with every chapter within and had chance to read all the volumes.
Your joke had me smile, but I guess I was lucky to have actually enjoyed the games and then Sapkowski's books.

[Desert Orchid 1]

Sure, there’s crossover between all of the games, but you aren’t going to be completely out of the loop if you start with Dragon Age: Dread Wolf.

As someone who has played all the games so far and is eagerly awaiting Dragon Age 4, however, I do feel I must make the case to play the original titles first.

I believe Origins gave us the most depth out of everything in the series. It starts out with a vibe very similar to games like the Witcher and then dives deeper into the story by letting the relationships you build decide the fate of the story.

While No you don't have to play the others to like or understand inquisition, but it just adds a little more life to the game.

That said, there are returning characters and events that will be referenced that you won't understand if you haven't played both of the previous games. Some characters have important roles in the others, and even protagonists are referenced. Even this can be overlooked and Inquisition is just as enjoyable if you don't know these things (and in fact gives more reasons to replay the game later!)

The only thing is the lore - Origins and DA2 sort of focus on different parts of the lore and are pretty independent, while Inquisition kind of combines everything, so you may be lost concerning some major themes. Nothing that context won't explain pretty well, but some details may seem overwhelming.

In terms of continuity between games, however, the main thing your missing is your interactions with Morrigan. She shows up in Inquisition, but Inquistion Morrigan does not have the same flair as Origins Morrigan. You really just need to play the game to understand.

If you don’t want to go all the way back to Origins, but still want to get some idea of what’s going on, the second installment of the series is a good place to start.

Playing the previous games will absolutely improve your DAI experience, but I don't think not playing them will detract much. The game is designed to be played by anyone, Dragon Age veteran or not.

while you will be lacking some background info you won't really miss it in most cases, I don't think. You will probably be able to tell when additional context would have helped, but not in a way that ruins things, just in the usual way that a sequel story might include a little "well, the last time, this happened" reference from this or that character.

The only thing I will say that the new DA:4 may help is playing the Trespasser dlc for dragon age Inquisition if they builds off where it ended.

[Steve (Dawn's Hubby)]

I don't know the answer to the question, but if they can recapture the magic of Origins (almost no chance, I get it) then I will not mind. I read all of the codex entries in the first game, just because the story was that good.

Well, fingers crossed.

[Metallicus]

The chances of Electronic Arts not screwing it up is next to zero.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

Sure, there’s crossover between all of the games, but you aren’t going to be completely out of the loop if you start with Dragon Age: Dread Wolf.

As someone who has played all the games so far and is eagerly awaiting Dragon Age 4, however, I do feel I must make the case to play the original titles first.

I believe Origins gave us the most depth out of everything in the series. It starts out with a vibe very similar to games like the Witcher and then dives deeper into the story by letting the relationships you build decide the fate of the story.

While No you don't have to play the others to like or understand inquisition, but it just adds a little more life to the game.

That said, there are returning characters and events that will be referenced that you won't understand if you haven't played both of the previous games. Some characters have important roles in the others, and even protagonists are referenced. Even this can be overlooked and Inquisition is just as enjoyable if you don't know these things (and in fact gives more reasons to replay the game later!)

The only thing is the lore - Origins and DA2 sort of focus on different parts of the lore and are pretty independent, while Inquisition kind of combines everything, so you may be lost concerning some major themes. Nothing that context won't explain pretty well, but some details may seem overwhelming.

In terms of continuity between games, however, the main thing your missing is your interactions with Morrigan. She shows up in Inquisition, but Inquistion Morrigan does not have the same flair as Origins Morrigan. You really just need to play the game to understand.

If you don’t want to go all the way back to Origins, but still want to get some idea of what’s going on, the second installment of the series is a good place to start.

Playing the previous games will absolutely improve your DAI experience, but I don't think not playing them will detract much. The game is designed to be played by anyone, Dragon Age veteran or not.

while you will be lacking some background info you won't really miss it in most cases, I don't think. You will probably be able to tell when additional context would have helped, but not in a way that ruins things, just in the usual way that a sequel story might include a little "well, the last time, this happened" reference from this or that character.

The only thing I will say that the new DA:4 may help is playing the Trespasser dlc for dragon age Inquisition if they builds off where it ended.

Forgive me, but I think you didn't understand me.

I have played Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age II and Inquisition, and my favorite was DAO out of three. While I played all three installments, what I meant was DAI requires more than former games to understand it in a way because there were novels/comics released before the game's release to basically explain the plot. There was one about Conclave, I am entirely not sure why couldn't they have given more attention to the event in the game instead of blowing it up and then have MC run away without any clue of what is going one. Second is Masked Empire to explain ACT II in the game, problem is I read neither, I found out about them after playing the Inquisition and the other two games and problem is I don't believe it was wise idea to sacrifice plot part to simply be put in a novel that not everyone will pick up to understand the whole story that happened in Orlais or in Mage crisis. Like I said above, general audience will not find out how Orlesian war started, why because game gives vague answers while direct ones are in a book.

That's basically my, in a way, frustration that there is material outside the games that may be necessary to take to know more. I learnt a lot on DA from Origins than Inquisition, it gave me answers what a Circle Tower is, why mages rebelled in first place and eventually in DAII, what an Alienage is, Dalish clans, etc. I cannot say the same about Inquisition, it's mostly empty biomes and lacks big city hubs (Val Royeaux is small compared to the city of Denerim in a game size).

So to say it shortly: my problem is wherever material outside the games that may be necessary to catch on for DA4 or not, because I have played the trilogy.

Nevertheless, thank you for your reply and answer.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

I don't know the answer to the question, but if they can recapture the magic of Origins (almost no chance, I get it) then I will not mind. I read all of the codex entries in the first game, just because the story was that good.

Well, fingers crossed.

I'm having delusions of Origins system in Tevinter Imperium.
Playing Tevinter Noble Apprentice in their own Circle Tower or a non-magic Tevinter nobleman/peasant. That would be cool game starts instead of what we got in Inquisition with just bare mentions of the MC's past.

I am speculating they will redo Warden plot, next hero will probably be conscripted into Grey Wardens and slowly will be involved in plot stopping Solas and Tevinter political turmoil. If they'll actually do something new and wise like let the main hero himself/herself decide who to join or not, what to do and basically make your destiny then it'd be great.

But again, I did mention I have delusion over this game, so I will be possibly immensely disappointed.

[Desert Orchid 1]

Originally posted by Knight of Revan:

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

Sure, there’s crossover between all of the games, but you aren’t going to be completely out of the loop if you start with Dragon Age: Dread Wolf.

As someone who has played all the games so far and is eagerly awaiting Dragon Age 4, however, I do feel I must make the case to play the original titles first.

I believe Origins gave us the most depth out of everything in the series. It starts out with a vibe very similar to games like the Witcher and then dives deeper into the story by letting the relationships you build decide the fate of the story.

While No you don't have to play the others to like or understand inquisition, but it just adds a little more life to the game.

That said, there are returning characters and events that will be referenced that you won't understand if you haven't played both of the previous games. Some characters have important roles in the others, and even protagonists are referenced. Even this can be overlooked and Inquisition is just as enjoyable if you don't know these things (and in fact gives more reasons to replay the game later!)

The only thing is the lore - Origins and DA2 sort of focus on different parts of the lore and are pretty independent, while Inquisition kind of combines everything, so you may be lost concerning some major themes. Nothing that context won't explain pretty well, but some details may seem overwhelming.

In terms of continuity between games, however, the main thing your missing is your interactions with Morrigan. She shows up in Inquisition, but Inquistion Morrigan does not have the same flair as Origins Morrigan. You really just need to play the game to understand.

If you don’t want to go all the way back to Origins, but still want to get some idea of what’s going on, the second installment of the series is a good place to start.

Playing the previous games will absolutely improve your DAI experience, but I don't think not playing them will detract much. The game is designed to be played by anyone, Dragon Age veteran or not.

while you will be lacking some background info you won't really miss it in most cases, I don't think. You will probably be able to tell when additional context would have helped, but not in a way that ruins things, just in the usual way that a sequel story might include a little "well, the last time, this happened" reference from this or that character.

The only thing I will say that the new DA:4 may help is playing the Trespasser dlc for dragon age Inquisition if they builds off where it ended.

Forgive me, but I think you didn't understand me.

I have played Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age II and Inquisition, and my favorite was DAO out of three. While I played all three installments, what I meant was DAI requires more than former games to understand it in a way because there were novels/comics released before the game's release to basically explain the plot. There was one about Conclave, I am entirely not sure why couldn't they have given more attention to the event in the game instead of blowing it up and then have MC run away without any clue of what is going one. Second is Masked Empire to explain ACT II in the game, problem is I read neither, I found out about them after playing the Inquisition and the other two games and problem is I don't believe it was wise idea to sacrifice plot part to simply be put in a novel that not everyone will pick up to understand the whole story that happened in Orlais or in Mage crisis. Like I said above, general audience will not find out how Orlesian war started, why because game gives vague answers while direct ones are in a book.

That's basically my, in a way, frustration that there is material outside the games that may be necessary to take to know more. I learnt a lot on DA from Origins than Inquisition, it gave me answers what a Circle Tower is, why mages rebelled in first place and eventually in DAII, what an Alienage is, Dalish clans, etc. I cannot say the same about Inquisition, it's mostly empty biomes and lacks big city hubs (Val Royeaux is small compared to the city of Denerim in a game size).

So to say it shortly: my problem is wherever material outside the games that may be necessary to catch on for DA4 or not, because I have played the trilogy.

Nevertheless, thank you for your reply and answer.

No I understood you --

"that there is material outside the games that may be necessary to take to know more"

Yep its called Lore, I don't see it as a hurdle or an obstacle to my enjoyment, of course I do skim when the piece of information isn't all that interesting but I don't think you need to read up on the lore prior to understand the game Playing DAO and DA2 is also not needed, but it certainly help when characters reference certain situations and events.

There's a few references to events in the old games, and creating a custom world state can make you appreciate the dialogue more when it comes up.

But....playing through both previous games isn't really needed. You're the man (or woman) in this game. The story itself is mostly self contained so Playing the game Blind will still give you the full story of DA:I No prior Lore knowledge or read up required unless you want-to immerse yourself further.

That is to say it wraps up all the loose ends from DA:O and DA2 and reaches its own satisfactory conclusion (while leaving things open enough for the universe to continue on).

[Desert Orchid 1]

also to add on " Second is Masked Empire to explain ACT II in the game"
Dragon Age: The Masked Empire is an continuation to events that happened/ plot follows BioWare's own canon take on wicked eyes wicked hearts.

[Desert Orchid 1]

"There was one about Conclave, I am entirely not sure why couldn't they have given more attention to the event in the game instead of blowing it up and then have MC run away without any clue of what is going one."

All found out in game --

Major point of the Plot to find out what happens and why you are there as you know you find our what happend When Corypheus opened the orb, it caused an explosion that opened a breach and killed everyone in the conclave. Solas thought that the resulting explosion would kill Corypheus but obviously that didn't happen forcing you to deal with him yourself.

The scenario there would have been negotiations between mages and templars (mediated by the chantry) and hopefully some kind of peaceful solution could be reached.

The Conclave was aimed at garnering peace between mages and templars, and returning structure to the Chantry

its even revealed in-game afterwards that the 'leaders' of each faction (Lucius/Fiona) didn't even go to the conclave to begin with, shows how little faith they had in it (or how much they thought that something bad would happen, like they'd be targeted for assassination or something)

[Warlock]

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

No I understood you --

"that there is material outside the games that may be necessary to take to know more"

Yep its called Lore, I don't see it as a hurdle or an obstacle to my enjoyment, of course I do skim when the piece of information isn't all that interesting but I don't think you need to read up on the lore prior to understand the game Playing DAO and DA2 is also not needed, but it certainly help when characters reference certain situations and events.

There's a few references to events in the old games, and creating a custom world state can make you appreciate the dialogue more when it comes up.

But....playing through both previous games isn't really needed. You're the man (or woman) in this game. The story itself is mostly self contained so Playing the game Blind will still give you the full story of DA:I No prior Lore knowledge or read up required unless you want-to immerse yourself further.

That is to say it wraps up all the loose ends from DA:O and DA2 and reaches its own satisfactory conclusion (while leaving things open enough for the universe to continue on).

I am aware of the lore, as I had pointed out it can be learnt in the game or in the Codex both of which I used and got to know from. And as you mentioned, I didn't need any outside of games materials to understand DAO and DAII but I meant that to understand some plotlines like Orlesian civil war or how it led to Conclave is somewhat necessary in the released comics/novels since we haven't got the information at the very beginning of the game

Yeah, it's all available in Dragon Age Keep, I am aware of different dialogues and some events play out differently depending on what someone picked. Problem is, DA:Keep kept out some essential quest options/resolutions like some quests before Landsmeet while DA:I part is filled with every quest and choice to be picked from, but some have to be unlocked in order to choose while two other games already have them be unlocked, thus also creating a bit of bias within Keep system.

On one hand of course not, on other hand previous games give very good hindsight on the world of Thedas than Inquisition.

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

also to add on " Second is Masked Empire to explain ACT II in the game"
Dragon Age: The Masked Empire is an continuation to events that happened/ plot follows BioWare's own canon take on wicked eyes wicked hearts.

I didn't know that, I guess this doesn't bother many and it's fine yet this feels like it erases importance of player's main character in rpg if there is canon and not. What made DA and Mass Effect great is that there was no canon and players decided which path to pursue. Now, it doesn't sound great if there is established canon take on Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts, as well as the past demon stuff that happens in Skyhold after Trespasser. But from what I understand the Masked Empire novel also explains the civil war, the attempts to get Dalish on Celene's side (of all people rather than Antiva, Free Marches or anybody. This also considering Celene is strong follower of Chantry according to Leliana's monologue in Inquisition). But this is more me taking on surface of my own problems I have with this.

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

"There was one about Conclave, I am entirely not sure why couldn't they have given more attention to the event in the game instead of blowing it up and then have MC run away without any clue of what is going one."

All found out in game --

Major point of the Plot to find out what happens and why you are there as you know you find our what happend When Corypheus opened the orb, it caused an explosion that opened a breach and killed everyone in the conclave. Solas thought that the resulting explosion would kill Corypheus but obviously that didn't happen forcing you to deal with him yourself.

The scenario there would have been negotiations between mages and templars (mediated by the chantry) and hopefully some kind of peaceful solution could be reached.

The Conclave was aimed at garnering peace between mages and templars, and returning structure to the Chantry

its even revealed in-game afterwards that the 'leaders' of each faction (Lucius/Fiona) didn't even go to the conclave to begin with, shows how little faith they had in it (or how much they thought that something bad would happen, like they'd be targeted for assassination or something)

Yeah, I know what happens at the Conclave, my take on that was how it started and why it started. Mage-Templar conflict is only seen in Hinterlands, but you'd think it would be a very major conflict with every mage tower in rebellion, clashing against Chantry forces, Templars and perhaps Inquisition soldiers, but it's just never seen beside generic enemy npcs clashing with one another and with Inquisition at Hinterlands. This conflict and the event or at least detailed mention of event leading to the Conclave needed to more thorough look than what was seen in the Inquisition. The Mage-Templar plot is resolved in ACT I after which is the choice doesn't affect the Inquisition, it just continues to be strong and unopposed when if picking to side with Rebel Mages and making them allies than conscripts would have had some drastic effect on morale, some consequence instead of what we got.

[Desert Orchid 1]

(I'm explaining from the beginning, this is summary from Dragon age 2)

Event One: Kirkwall's Knight Commander Meredith was extremely oppressive/strict to her charges, the Mages. She was paired with a very independent and stubborn First Enchanter, Orsino, Kirkwall's tension was palpable, and the entire world felt it symbolized the Mage-Templar relation in general, even though Kirkwall was very extreme.

At this point, the mediator was Kirkwall's Grand Cleric Elthina, who remained neutral in the debate despite the Chantry's tendency to lean pro-Templar.

After a rogue Templar tried to make every mage in Kirkwall Tranquil, Warden-Apostate Anders decided a war needed to break out to free the Mages or let them die trying. He did this by murdering Elthina in the most grandiose fashion possible: blowing up her Chantry, a holy ground.

Anders wanted to be martyred after this to further inspire the mages, but he was largely regarded as a madman by both sides and his legacy ruined.

The explosion caused Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment: Every mage in Kirkwall was to be sentenced to death, immediately, as they were considered beyond redemption from possession. This proved Meredith's extremeness because of two reasons: 1. A Circle mage was not responsible for the explosion, and 2. Meredith did not have the authority to invoke this alone. She needed permission from the higher-ups, as Greagoir demonstrated in Fereldan during the Blight when he tried to invoke the Right.

One of two scenarios happened after this. 1.) Hawke sided with the mages, causing them to overthrow Meredith. Even the remaining Templars recognized her madness and retreated. 2.) Hawke sided with the Templars and Orsino's mages were killed. Meredith accused Hawke of blood magic and was killed in the resulting fight. Either way, Orsino himself turned into an abomination to stop the Right and was killed by Hawke.

Either way, the actions at Kirkwall inspired the Circles of Fereldan to act. Many felt they needed independence so their circle would not become the next Kirkwall. Under Grand Enchanter Fiona, the Circle Mages democratically voted on whether to declare independence from the Chantry. They did. Fiona became de-facto ruler.

Most mages had a choice: they could side with the rebels, or remain with the Templars where they were not guaranteed protection anymore. Because of this, even the unwilling joined the Rebellion. First Enchanter Vivienne lead the charge of the 'loyalist' mages, electing to remain dependent on the Templars for protection.

The Monarch(s) of Fereldan grant the Arling of Redcliffe as refuge to the rebel mages since the Circles no longer welcome them. Eventually Arl Teagan is nudged out of his home by the Venatori.

The Chantry did not accept the vote of independence and called it an act of war. The mages were declared rebels, but they fought the Templars tooth and nail to retain freedom. They fought many bloody battles all over Thedas. There was no clear victor. Eventually, the two sides retreated into their homes. The Mages gathered in Redcliffe and the Templars were recalled to Val Royeaux. There was a stalemate, for now.

The Templars had broken so many traditions fighting the mages that their future was unclear. Because of this, the Seekers took up the cause of leading them. The Chantry was no longer really in control.

Eventually the Conclave was called on the most sacred ground known to the Andrastian religion, the Temple of Sacred Ashes, by Divine Justinia. It was Justinia's last desperate attempt to make peace before she lost control of the situation entirely. If the fighting resumed, then the Templars would break completely free and overpower the Chantry, and the Mages would fight to the last man. The Chantry was already on shaky ground, and this was her chance to restore authority. It was respected but neither the Lord Seeker or Grand Enchanter Fiona, the leaders of the respective sides, really trusted that violence would not occur at the Temple. They sent representatives in their places.

Because neither Fiona or Lord Seeker Lucius were killed, the fighting was able to continue after the Conclave, only this time without any hope of mediation. It was only stopped when Corypheus intervened and attempted a coup of both sides simultaneously, yet another showing of his fatal flaw, arrogance.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

(I'm explaining from the beginning, this is summary from Dragon age 2)

Event One: Kirkwall's Knight Commander Meredith was extremely oppressive/strict to her charges, the Mages. She was paired with a very independent and stubborn First Enchanter, Orsino, Kirkwall's tension was palpable, and the entire world felt it symbolized the Mage-Templar relation in general, even though Kirkwall was very extreme.

At this point, the mediator was Kirkwall's Grand Cleric Elthina, who remained neutral in the debate despite the Chantry's tendency to lean pro-Templar.

After a rogue Templar tried to make every mage in Kirkwall Tranquil, Warden-Apostate Anders decided a war needed to break out to free the Mages or let them die trying. He did this by murdering Elthina in the most grandiose fashion possible: blowing up her Chantry, a holy ground.

Anders wanted to be martyred after this to further inspire the mages, but he was largely regarded as a madman by both sides and his legacy ruined.

The explosion caused Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment: Every mage in Kirkwall was to be sentenced to death, immediately, as they were considered beyond redemption from possession. This proved Meredith's extremeness because of two reasons: 1. A Circle mage was not responsible for the explosion, and 2. Meredith did not have the authority to invoke this alone. She needed permission from the higher-ups, as Greagoir demonstrated in Fereldan during the Blight when he tried to invoke the Right.

One of two scenarios happened after this. 1.) Hawke sided with the mages, causing them to overthrow Meredith. Even the remaining Templars recognized her madness and retreated. 2.) Hawke sided with the Templars and Orsino's mages were killed. Meredith accused Hawke of blood magic and was killed in the resulting fight. Either way, Orsino himself turned into an abomination to stop the Right and was killed by Hawke.

Either way, the actions at Kirkwall inspired the Circles of Fereldan to act. Many felt they needed independence so their circle would not become the next Kirkwall. Under Grand Enchanter Fiona, the Circle Mages democratically voted on whether to declare independence from the Chantry. They did. Fiona became de-facto ruler.

Most mages had a choice: they could side with the rebels, or remain with the Templars where they were not guaranteed protection anymore. Because of this, even the unwilling joined the Rebellion. First Enchanter Vivienne lead the charge of the 'loyalist' mages, electing to remain dependent on the Templars for protection.

The Monarch(s) of Fereldan grant the Arling of Redcliffe as refuge to the rebel mages since the Circles no longer welcome them. Eventually Arl Teagan is nudged out of his home by the Venatori.

The Chantry did not accept the vote of independence and called it an act of war. The mages were declared rebels, but they fought the Templars tooth and nail to retain freedom. They fought many bloody battles all over Thedas. There was no clear victor. Eventually, the two sides retreated into their homes. The Mages gathered in Redcliffe and the Templars were recalled to Val Royeaux. There was a stalemate, for now.

The Templars had broken so many traditions fighting the mages that their future was unclear. Because of this, the Seekers took up the cause of leading them. The Chantry was no longer really in control.

Eventually the Conclave was called on the most sacred ground known to the Andrastian religion, the Temple of Sacred Ashes, by Divine Justinia. It was Justinia's last desperate attempt to make peace before she lost control of the situation entirely. If the fighting resumed, then the Templars would break completely free and overpower the Chantry, and the Mages would fight to the last man. The Chantry was already on shaky ground, and this was her chance to restore authority. It was respected but neither the Lord Seeker or Grand Enchanter Fiona, the leaders of the respective sides, really trusted that violence would not occur at the Temple. They sent representatives in their places.

Because neither Fiona or Lord Seeker Lucius were killed, the fighting was able to continue after the Conclave, only this time without any hope of mediation. It was only stopped when Corypheus intervened and attempted a coup of both sides simultaneously, yet another showing of his fatal flaw, arrogance.

I appreciate your explanation, but it wasn't necessary to tell entire plot of DAII since as I mentioned it, I have played it myself. Most of the information you've told was... well already known to me, I'm not gonna ask for details about Orlesian Civil war as I expect them to be same as here, but let's analyze the information we've got here.

The beginning is more detailed explanation and the game also does good job of portraying how situation in Kirkwall deteriorates and eventually breaks out in an open civil war between Mages and Templars. There is a build up to it and eventually templars stop obeying the Chantry as the last cutscene in the game shows and so the last solution the two hands of Divine see is reforging the Inquisition of old (and usually Inquisitions are overzealous factions, but well... I guess writers forgot it when this game's story and all was finalized).

And here things start to become vague, not very detailed storyline started in second game only to become a subplot in this game. Fiona was the First Enchanter but what happened to Irving then or any other Enchanter that was with him at Circle of Ferelden? Surely there'd be more candidates to fill his role and those that didn't read anything outside of games would not be familiar with Fiona and her storyline. So, she conveys a large meeting and the Circle votes for independence and then war breaks out, and things go off as you mentioned and all that.

So, I guess I'll just be nitpicking from here as in for example:

Why Anders' action is not spoken aloud or mentioned one bit in Prologue or Act I when it's more than good reason for any common non-mage to despise or hate mages and their rebellion then? As Hawke and others would point out, Anders destroyed legitimate reasons for mages to be victims and look like terrorists, but for some reasons no one actually ever brings up this argument or there is shown any big contempt for mages despite this huge tragedy in Kirkwall, no one even thinks to suggest that explosion in Conclave was another mage sabotage, why wouldn't it be believed to be so? Red Lyrium was discovered on the site and the only ones that blew temples up were mages, so no one on the Inquisition team ever suggested it or thought of this? Leliana's went from firm believer to this atheist concept of disillusioned believer "Why did Maker let this happen, I believed him and he turned his back" sounds as similar as "Why did God let x happen if he is supposed to be good?" It would make sense for her to cope by making a motivation of finding the killers then this scene in Inquisition. So again, point here is Anders' act of terror is barely if not at all brought up.

Second, there should have been significant battles that were talked about by the people, wanderers or the folks in Haven. This happens in former games like DAO or DAII where NPCs would talk about rumors of battles MC never witnesses but will give the picture of what is going on, it was clear in first game that beside Darkspawn invasion there was a civil war and there was brutal battles, skirmishes and fiefs burnt to rob enemy side of chance to use resources. None of this is mentioned in DAI, there wasn't any big battle between Templars or Mages that would be talked a lot about in different case. Basically, what I mean to say, we needed more options like asking for rumors or seeing sights of huge battles taking place between templars and mages to get a better picture. Hell, maybe if the game actually had started with beginning of Mage-Templar war it'd be cool idea than the Corypheus plotline.

So this subject digresses from original topic that was "Games and novel lore", this is more of a discussion on game itself now, how it poorly presented conflict in my opinion, but let's continue I guess. In DAO, there weren't random encounters were you'd stumble on Bannorn vs Loghain's army, but you could learn rumors of fighting and how brutal it had been. It was talked about and the cutscene after Ostagar presented that Loghain's plan did not go as he expected when Bann Teagan declared Bannorn won't simply accept him as a regent. So, it's more of how the conflict is presented or described because the vaguely it is portrayed the more unrelated or arbitrary it feels to say newcomers or to some people like me. If it's detailed, but ambiguous it's still feels important and gives tension like constantly learning of Loghain scoring victories against the Bannorn, but this conflict also draining Ferelden of manpower to combat the Darkspawn.

So, even if removing the novels, comics and all that would add more detailed information on conflicts and all the game is really not big or feels much of an open world. With this much things unexplored like a perhaps more detailed Mage-Templar War, more on Orlesian Civil War then just simple indirect mention in Act I and then more detailed talk in Act II. It focuses on uninteresting main plot which is Corypheus and his jokey portrayal contributes to the, well, as I said even before this thread weak main storyline.

EDIT: Some corrections in my 'essay response', I guess.

[Desert Orchid 1]

Originally posted by Knight of Revan:

Originally posted by DESERT ORCHID 1:

(I'm explaining from the beginning, this is summary from Dragon age 2)

Event One: Kirkwall's Knight Commander Meredith was extremely oppressive/strict to her charges, the Mages. She was paired with a very independent and stubborn First Enchanter, Orsino, Kirkwall's tension was palpable, and the entire world felt it symbolized the Mage-Templar relation in general, even though Kirkwall was very extreme.

At this point, the mediator was Kirkwall's Grand Cleric Elthina, who remained neutral in the debate despite the Chantry's tendency to lean pro-Templar.

After a rogue Templar tried to make every mage in Kirkwall Tranquil, Warden-Apostate Anders decided a war needed to break out to free the Mages or let them die trying. He did this by murdering Elthina in the most grandiose fashion possible: blowing up her Chantry, a holy ground.

Anders wanted to be martyred after this to further inspire the mages, but he was largely regarded as a madman by both sides and his legacy ruined.

The explosion caused Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment: Every mage in Kirkwall was to be sentenced to death, immediately, as they were considered beyond redemption from possession. This proved Meredith's extremeness because of two reasons: 1. A Circle mage was not responsible for the explosion, and 2. Meredith did not have the authority to invoke this alone. She needed permission from the higher-ups, as Greagoir demonstrated in Fereldan during the Blight when he tried to invoke the Right.

One of two scenarios happened after this. 1.) Hawke sided with the mages, causing them to overthrow Meredith. Even the remaining Templars recognized her madness and retreated. 2.) Hawke sided with the Templars and Orsino's mages were killed. Meredith accused Hawke of blood magic and was killed in the resulting fight. Either way, Orsino himself turned into an abomination to stop the Right and was killed by Hawke.

Either way, the actions at Kirkwall inspired the Circles of Fereldan to act. Many felt they needed independence so their circle would not become the next Kirkwall. Under Grand Enchanter Fiona, the Circle Mages democratically voted on whether to declare independence from the Chantry. They did. Fiona became de-facto ruler.

Most mages had a choice: they could side with the rebels, or remain with the Templars where they were not guaranteed protection anymore. Because of this, even the unwilling joined the Rebellion. First Enchanter Vivienne lead the charge of the 'loyalist' mages, electing to remain dependent on the Templars for protection.

The Monarch(s) of Fereldan grant the Arling of Redcliffe as refuge to the rebel mages since the Circles no longer welcome them. Eventually Arl Teagan is nudged out of his home by the Venatori.

The Chantry did not accept the vote of independence and called it an act of war. The mages were declared rebels, but they fought the Templars tooth and nail to retain freedom. They fought many bloody battles all over Thedas. There was no clear victor. Eventually, the two sides retreated into their homes. The Mages gathered in Redcliffe and the Templars were recalled to Val Royeaux. There was a stalemate, for now.

The Templars had broken so many traditions fighting the mages that their future was unclear. Because of this, the Seekers took up the cause of leading them. The Chantry was no longer really in control.

Eventually the Conclave was called on the most sacred ground known to the Andrastian religion, the Temple of Sacred Ashes, by Divine Justinia. It was Justinia's last desperate attempt to make peace before she lost control of the situation entirely. If the fighting resumed, then the Templars would break completely free and overpower the Chantry, and the Mages would fight to the last man. The Chantry was already on shaky ground, and this was her chance to restore authority. It was respected but neither the Lord Seeker or Grand Enchanter Fiona, the leaders of the respective sides, really trusted that violence would not occur at the Temple. They sent representatives in their places.

Because neither Fiona or Lord Seeker Lucius were killed, the fighting was able to continue after the Conclave, only this time without any hope of mediation. It was only stopped when Corypheus intervened and attempted a coup of both sides simultaneously, yet another showing of his fatal flaw, arrogance.

I appreciate your explanation, but it wasn't necessary to tell entire plot of DAII since as I mentioned it, I have played it myself. Most of the information you've told was... well already known to me, I'm not gonna ask for details about Orlesian Civil war as I expect them to be same as here, but let's analyze the information we've got here.

The beginning is more detailed explanation and the game also does good job of portraying how situation in Kirkwall deteriorates and eventually breaks out in an open civil war between Mages and Templars. There is a build up to it and eventually templars stop obeying the Chantry as the last cutscene in the game shows and so the last solution the two hands of Divine see is reforging the Inquisition of old (and usually Inquisitions are overzealous factions, but well... I guess writers forgot it when this game's story and all was finalized).

And here things start to become vague, not very detailed storyline started in second game only to become a subplot in this game. Fiona was the First Enchanter but what happened to Irving then or any other Enchanter that was with him at Circle of Ferelden? Surely there'd be more candidates to fill his role and those that didn't read anything outside of games would not be familiar with Fiona and her storyline. So, she conveys a large meeting and the Circle votes for independence and then war breaks out, and things go off as you mentioned and all that.

So, I guess I'll just be nitpicking from here as in for example:

Why Anders' action is not spoken aloud or mentioned one bit in Prologue or Act I when it's more than good reason for any common non-mage to despise or hate mages and their rebellion then? As Hawke and others would point out, Anders destroyed legitimate reasons for mages to be victims and look like terrorists, but for some reasons no one actually ever brings up this argument or there is shown any big contempt for mages despite this huge tragedy in Kirkwall, no one even thinks to suggest that explosion in Conclave was another mage sabotage, why wouldn't it be believed to be so? Red Lyrium was discovered on the site and the only ones that blew temples up were mages, so no one on the Inquisition team ever suggested it or thought of this? Leliana's went from firm believer to this atheist concept of disillusioned believer "Why did Maker let this happen, I believed him and he turned his back" sounds as similar as "Why did God let x happen if he is supposed to be good?" It would make sense for her to cope by making a motivation of finding the killers then this scene in Inquisition. So again, point here is Anders' act of terror is barely if not at all brought up.

Second, there should have been significant battles that were talked about by the people, wanderers or the folks in Haven. This happens in former games like DAO or DAII where NPCs would talk about rumors of battles MC never witnesses but will give the picture of what is going on, it was clear in first game that beside Darkspawn invasion there was a civil war and there was brutal battles, skirmishes and fiefs burnt to rob enemy side of chance to use resources. None of this is mentioned in DAI, there wasn't any big battle between Templars or Mages that would be talked a lot about in different case. Basically, what I mean to say, we needed more options like asking for rumors or seeing sights of huge battles taking place between templars and mages to get a better picture. Hell, maybe if the game actually had started with beginning of Mage-Templar war it'd be cool idea than the Corypheus plotline.

So this subject digresses from original topic that was "Games and novel lore", this is more of a discussion on game itself now, how it poorly presented conflict in my opinion, but let's continue I guess. In DAO, there weren't random encounters were you'd stumble on Bannorn vs Loghain's army, but you could learn rumors of fighting and how brutal it had been. It was talked about and the cutscene after Ostagar presented that Loghain's plan did not go as he expected when Bann Teagan declared Bannorn won't simply accept him as a regent. So, it's more of how the conflict is presented or described because the vaguely it is portrayed the more unrelated or arbitrary it feels to say newcomers or to some people like me. If it's detailed, but ambiguous it's still feels important and gives tension like constantly learning of Loghain scoring victories against the Bannorn, but this conflict also draining Ferelden of manpower to combat the Darkspawn.

So, even if removing the novels, comics and all that would add more detailed information on conflicts and all the game is really not big or feels much of an open world. With this much things unexplored like a perhaps more detailed Mage-Templar War, more on Orlesian Civil War then just simple indirect mention in Act I and then more detailed talk in Act II. It focuses on uninteresting main plot which is Corypheus and his jokey portrayal contributes to the, well, as I said even before this thread weak main storyline.

EDIT: Some corrections in my 'essay response', I guess.

Dragon Age Origins take a year.

At the start of DA2 Hawke and family are running away from Lothering (before the Warden gets to Lothering in DAO) and get to Kirkwall.

You join up with the Smugglers or Mercenaries and the game skips to a year later (after the blight/DAO is over).

Sometime between doing the Ferelden Circle quest in DAO and finishing your year with the Smugglers/Mercenaries in DA2, Cullen is transferred to Kirkwall.

Hawke then spends another 7 years in Kirkwall. (so spends 8 years all together in Kirkwall if you include the year DAO takes place).

Two years after the end of DA2 is when Dragon Age Inquisition takes place.

In another part of the world Like I said i find DA:I to be self contained story as compared to the last 2 even though they are in the same world

[Warlock]

Buddy, you're right now retelling me entire game trilogy which I already played and everything I already had in mind. All the things mentioned were already known to me, it's unnecessary to tell every detail or reciting info like we're in Morrowind.

DA:I is direct sequel to DA:II. Wherever someone likes it or not, it sets up the fourth game, it will take place in Tevinter Imperium and its to tie the ending of Trespasser with next game. You can see it as a self-contained story but it technically isn't, it's not same as Mass Effect: Andromeda that can be seen as such and takes place 400 years or something after trilogy. Inquisition is more like a third game in the franchise and it gives direct ending to Mage-Templar conflict and other loose-ends that were in DAII regarding Corypheus, Wardens, etc.