Dragon Age 2 - Here be spoilers.

[Khaldun]

[rk47]

The real answer, sadly, is that doing that would probably have meant it would have taken another year for the game to come out. On the plus side that would have been more time for artists to make a few more maps.

There's this one company that takes years and years between games.  Everyone seems to love them.  I think a little extra time is fine, especially for RPGs where setting is important.

Dragon Age: Origins took 5 years. I think if I had to wait 5 years for this one I would have strangled somebody.

Seriously, though, while a convoluted, truly branching RPG would be interesting, even, say, two major forks would be an *immense* increase in the writing load in a game. I'm not sure it would have been worth it, especially in this particular game where one of the central themes is how you can't stop bad things a lot of the time. It happens way too often to be anything but deliberate.

The hell? Not worth it? Was Dragon Age II even worth the 1 year wait ? To EA maybe, to consumers like us, hell no. We got cheated by the rushed development time. Not being able to stop bad things happening isn't a central theme, it just screams rushed writing. Recycled maps, lesser options leading to same outcomes is a trademark of a bad product.

In comparison of shelving DAII within a week of finishing it,  I picked up Alpha Protocol for $15 three weeks ago and I finished my third playthrough already. It was fun knowing my choices made differences in the outcomes, no matter how small you think it is, how you treat people, what you do first, which areas you've completed, the game seems to acknowledge my actions. Now that's what I want more in my RPG, none of this 'OH NO U CANT KILL SISTER PETRICE NOW, NOT YET' bullshit I endured.

[Ingmar]

If my choice is between 5 games as good as DA2, or 5 years of waiting for the *chance* at something that might be better, I'll take the 5 games. DA2 probably has the best character writing of any RPG I've ever played. Now that I've got some distance from it I think it was, overall, clearly a better game than DA:O, in much the same way ME2 was better than ME1. People complained about the story structure in that one too. Apparently anything but the "4 planets" model = bad.

[tmp]

Now that I've got some distance from it I think it was, overall, clearly a better game than DA:O, in much the same way ME2 was better than ME1. People complained about the story structure in that one too. Apparently anything but the "4 planets" model = bad.

What way is it, exactly?

I don't think "anything but 4 planets" is considered bad, story-wise. Rather, these two particular games didn't introduce an alternative that'd be even equally captivating, let alone better.

edit: speaking of captivating and better

[Sjofn]

When you say "these two games," you mean DA2 and ME2? Because ME2 was straight up better than ME1 in my opinion. Even with the ridiculous reaper baby.

[Sheepherder]

Not being able to stop bad things happening isn't a central theme, it just screams rushed writing.

[tmp]

When you say "these two games," you mean DA2 and ME2? Because ME2 was straight up better than ME1 in my opinion. Even with the ridiculous reaper baby.

Yes, i meant these two. At least as far as the story goes i wouldn't call ME2 straight up better -- ME2's story largely failed to engage me and i don't think that's beacuse there wasn't "4 planets" in it. Especially since when you look closer at it, it is using pretty much the same model, except "planets" are tied to individual companions rather than more directly to overall plot (and they're optional rather than mandatory)

[Ingmar]

My rundown would be that in both cases:

- The characters were better. (In DA2 I would probably phrase this as even better as I don't want to imply they were bad in the original. Everyone in ME1 was a little bland except Wrex, but even the returning characters in ME2 were significantly improved.)
- The combat was better. (This is the thing I took the longest to decide about DA2, and I'll grant it isn't as great an improvement as ME2 was over ME1 in this respect.)
- They broke out of the 4 planets mold and tried something new with the plot type and plot structure (ME2 did the dirty dozen plot instead, DA2 did the framed narrative flashback time-passes thing) IMO successfully.
- They both look much better graphically. (ME2 mostly improved in the environments, DA2 was just generally better on everything (except Alistair's face, lawl).)

DA2 gets extra points for:

- Being an RPG where you're NOT saving the world for once. It has a structural advantage over ME2 in that the companion stories can evolve over a longer time and because they used fewer, more-detailed companions the companion interactions can be much more intricate. This is probably the first RPG I've played since BG2 where the companions really felt like they had an existence outside of their interactions with you.
- Better boss fights than the original. (Sorry Reaper Baby).
- Voiced protagonist vs. ol' texty.

The places where DA2 is worse are all in the 'mild annoyance' category for me - map reuse (not the ones where you visit the same place 3 times through time, but the ones where they use a same map for a different location), the loot naming stuff, a few spots where an interrupt system would have been nice, specializations not affecting dialogue, the way the waves of enemies spawn in sometimes. Nothing on that list annoys me like Reaper Baby annoyed me, for example.

So yeah, I'd absolutely prefer to have this game now, and then maybe a year or two down the line have an even better DA3, than just sit around waiting for the 'perfect' game.

[Lantyssa]

There's a lot of difference to waiting an extra year and taking five extra years.  Considering the time between DA1 and DA2, I don't think another year would have been excessive.  It also sets a precedent to skimp on all future titles, which might turn out even worse.  Would you really want DA3 in a year if it's nothing more than shovelware?

[Ingmar]

Of course not, but I don't see how there's any precedent for expecting Bioware (CANADA) to suddenly fall into the category of shovelware. Yes, yes, owned by EA, etc., but so far that hasn't led to a bad game, or anything even vaguely in the neighborhood of a bad game. The games are getting generally better, not worse. Shit even the franchise-related Facebook/browser games are decent.

DLC, I'll grant you, some of that has been pretty weak.

[tmp]

- The characters were better. (In DA2 I would probably phrase this as even better as I don't want to imply they were bad in the original. Everyone in ME1 was a little bland except Wrex, but even the returning characters in ME2 were significantly improved.)
- The combat was better. (This is the thing I took the longest to decide about DA2, and I'll grant it isn't as great an improvement as ME2 was over ME1 in this respect.)
- They broke out of the 4 planets mold and tried something new with the plot type and plot structure (ME2 did the dirty dozen plot instead, DA2 did the framed narrative flashback time-passes thing) IMO successfully.
- They both look much better graphically. (ME2 mostly improved in the environments, DA2 was just generally better on everything (except Alistair's face, lawl).)

The graphics -- between ridiculously low resolution given to ambient NPCs, animations straight snapping from one into another mid-frame without any blending (even in situations as simple as walking and turning around) and absolutely bland environments cleaned on purpose from most of the typical clutter... well, let's just say there's much in DA2 that i find to be worse when it comes to graphics, and large part of it is on technical level rather than matter of taste (which is another tale entirely, let's just say i'm not much of fan of their "gibbing everything is badass a-a-a-wesome and you can't have enough blood spray" philosophy)

I'd also question the "better characters" since most feel like one-trick ponies and that's definitely not an improvement in my book, and combat which ultimately comes down to simple recent experience -- as it happens i have loaded a mid-game DAO save yesterday and promptly managed to get my party wiped out in first random encounter i ran into, because i was totally trying to approach it in DA2 manner out of habit. It really drove the point home just how simplified both the combat and the enemy AI got in the sequel.

I don't find the plot they've introduced to be an improvement since it's not exactly new, either -- instead of "4 planets" they went for the "planet A, then planet B then planet C" linear approach and such pure enforced linearity is... well, it's something the good doctors mercilessly mocked the jRPG makers about not too long ago, as a display of RPG designers over there being stuck in the rut    The framed narrative they tried to wrap around it in hindsight falls rather short -- maybe because Drakensang River of Time did about the exact same thing year earlier, with the execution being close to identical.

so, uhmm. I guess we just view it different  

edit: as it happens, there's rather interesting article on how the different interaction mechanics shape impression of companions in the sequel, here.

[Koyasha]

My rundown would be that in both cases:

- The characters were better. (In DA2 I would probably phrase this as even better as I don't want to imply they were bad in the original. Everyone in ME1 was a little bland except Wrex, but even the returning characters in ME2 were significantly improved.)
- The combat was better. (This is the thing I took the longest to decide about DA2, and I'll grant it isn't as great an improvement as ME2 was over ME1 in this respect.)
- They broke out of the 4 planets mold and tried something new with the plot type and plot structure (ME2 did the dirty dozen plot instead, DA2 did the framed narrative flashback time-passes thing) IMO successfully.
- They both look much better graphically. (ME2 mostly improved in the environments, DA2 was just generally better on everything (except Alistair's face, lawl).)

DA2 gets extra points for:

- Being an RPG where you're NOT saving the world for once. It has a structural advantage over ME2 in that the companion stories can evolve over a longer time and because they used fewer, more-detailed companions the companion interactions can be much more intricate. This is probably the first RPG I've played since BG2 where the companions really felt like they had an existence outside of their interactions with you.
- Better boss fights than the original. (Sorry Reaper Baby).
- Voiced protagonist vs. ol' texty.

I'd have to partly disagree with most of your points, myself.  I am not sure I would call DA2 a better game than DA:O, although I think I would call ME2 better than ME, if only slightly.

-The characters were better, but in DA:O I also felt like I got to know the characters better.  Particularly Morrigan, Alistair, Zevran, and to a slightly lesser extent, Leliana.  Sten, Oghren, and Wynne far less so.
-I can't say the combat was universally better in either of these games, myself.  DA2 did improve on numerous aspects of combat, but it also regressed on other equally important aspects like the overall tactical nature.  Waves of enemies make numerous tactics impossible because they come literally out of nowhere.  In the ME series, I think combat was actually worse in almost every aspect in ME2 - all abilities were on a shared cooldown, making every ability except the best one worthless to use, and frankly I didn't care for the ammo system.
-I didn't like DA2's framed narrative.  It spoiled some things that shouldn't have been (Varric saying 'she never would have let her sister go into that blighted hole' for example) and often didn't really make much sense (why would Cassandra think the Champion came to spread subversion against the Chantry if you supported the templars at the end?) so while it had good points - and I did like that it wasn't '4 planets' again, there was a lot I didn't like.  Overall I'd say that one comes out as a wash, neither an improvement nor a downgrade.  ME2's plot structure would have been better had it not felt so damn disconnected.  The fact that every area and every mission was such a completely discrete experience with no effects from previous missions and no effects on later missions was what made it not work so well for me in that regard.  With '4 planets' at least numerous missions at each hub are often interconnected.
-No arguments on the graphics, they do look much better.

And as to the last three points on DA2:

-Yes, not being saving the world was much better, and while I didn't get to know the companions as well as I did in DA:O, they also felt like they had more of a life outside the mission (since there was no mission).  Although Fenris needs to learn how to clean up, and I guess being lyrium branded means you have no sense of smell, because damn those 6-year-old corpses were unpleasant.
-Wouldn't say the boss fights were better.  Nope, not a bit.  Ancient Rock Wraith and its infinite bullshit HP (ok, not quite infinite but feels like it), Act 2 end boss and 'keep your distance, sidestep, then attack after charges', and then harvester, which was as far as I could tell, identical to the fight in Golems of Amgarrak...even the final boss was, I think, inferior to the Archdemon.  Partly because it was such a wtf weird fight - not as bad as Reaper Baby, but way more out there than the Archdemon.
-Voiced protagonist in DA2 definitely came off well, especially with the personality system.  Cannot give enough props for that, because it seems to be the most awesome advancement in protagonist characterization.

Overall though I think people saying it's crap or a bad game are insane.  Hell, if you play it only once, a lot of the flaws aren't even noticeable - it's only on multiple playthroughs that many of the problems become apparent, and if you're doing multiple playthroughs then you can no longer claim it to be a bad game cause, well, you're having enough fun to play it more than once.

[tmp]

and if you're doing multiple playthroughs then you can no longer claim it to be a bad game cause, well, you're having enough fun to play it more than once.

The idea it's necessary to have fun in order to play a game for prolonged periods of time was disproved shortly after first MMOs appeared, i'd think?

[Sjofn]

I don't find the plot they've introduced to be an improvement since it's not exactly new, either -- instead of "4 planets" they went for the "planet A, then planet B then planet C" linear approach and such pure enforced linearity is... well, it's something the good doctors mercilessly mocked the jRPG makers about not too long ago, as a display of RPG designers over there being stuck in the rut  

You know, comparing the time jump thing to the linearity of a JRPG makes it really, really hard to take you at all seriously. They aren't really even in the same ballpark.

As for the lady who fell in love with Alistair and is disappointed she did not fall in love with Anders, while I get what she's saying (I involuntarily blushed more at Alistair and Zevran than Anders and not at all at Fenris), for me it was less "I don't get to interact with them enough" and more "these dudes aren't my type." Your companions never shut up if you take them WITH you. I feel I know the DA2 companions about as well as the DA1 ones, but I learned about the DA2 ones by taking them out in the world and seeing them in it, rather than grilling them back at camp, and the pacing is a bit better in that you can't burn through, say, almost all of Alistair's dialogue before the third planet and then he's got nothing much to say until the Landsmeet. Ideally you would have both, where you can stop in the middle of a werewolf cave, covered in gore, and have a hilariously sweet-but-inappropriate Rose Moment, and the characters having shit to say all the time during quest dialogue. If I absolutely have to choose, I think I prefer having them pipe up during quests, as it feels more like they are, you know, actually there, but that is definitely a personal taste thing.

[rk47]

You know, comparing the time jump thing to the linearity of a JRPG makes it really, really hard to take you at all seriously. They aren't really even in the same ballpark.

It wasn't the time jump. It was the lack of decision. Or taking away of choice that made some people remember that remark.
What that Bioware commented was JRPGs take away choice from the hero, they had to accomplish the task, no matter what.

Guess what? That's exactly what Hawke was given at the finale. No choice.

[Rasix]

Bioware doesn't tend to go beyond binary decisions for their endings and then the endings don't really end up being that different.  The game with the most different and truly distinct outcome is KOTOR (and that was a product of a near-the-end binary decision), and that's largely washed over in KOTORII.  Doesn't change who you fight in the end either; you've never been able to really alter that.

The choices you make in Bioware games are mostly cosmetic and for your own sense of attachment to the story.  You always kill the big bad, whether you diddled blue alien A or sailor b.


Alpha Protocol is an interesting game to bring up.  The choices you make there are ultimately more interesting, but the game is not. The entire exercise of playing the game just feels like filler between the conversation bits.  The mechanics are just so laughably bad. The AI and the stealth aspects were nearly completely broken. The shooting was an unbalanced disaster.  The boss fights are some of the absolute stupidest shit in any game I've played.   On top of that, it's a technical nightmare on the PC.  The tweaks I had to use made it barely playable from a control and UI perspective.

If the mechanics had been solid and if playing the game between the dialog sessions was remotely interesting, then perhaps I would have given it another run. As is, I have a hard time playing games just to see out how different dialog choices pan out, especially when they're so far away from the decisions I thought were the right ones in that scenario (plus, there's only 3 real endings, 2 of which I wouldn't go for).  I haven't been able to complete a puppy kicking run through a game since Mass Effect 1 and before that KOTOR.  My replays mostly come down to seeing how different play styles work and refining my choices from an earlier play through. 

[Sheepherder]

Or someone could create a game where the crux of the story is that the main character is irredeemably damned by his own hand, the game is merely a grim revelry through the carnage your past self has wrought, the player may make amends or pillage the victims one last time as they see fit, and in the end fate comes to collect it's due.

Fuck, I'm a genius.  Someone pay me to write for their game.

[Rasix]

Next time you bring up Planescape will be your last.  LET IT GO.  

Seriously, bringing it up as a point of comparison to anything is fucking ridiculous, especially in regards to story.  It's like breaking out the Sonoran dog when discussing hotdogs. There is no counter.

[tmp]

You know, comparing the time jump thing to the linearity of a JRPG makes it really, really hard to take you at all seriously. They aren't really even in the same ballpark.

How aren't they, really?

Your companions never shut up if you take them WITH you.

Hmm, mine do, actually. There's 2-3 trigger spots on each map which prompts them to say their phrases pretty much like it was in DAO, but since i do running back and forth a lot checking shops and whatnot, it was quite common occurence to traverse the map without as much as a peep because the amount of stuff they have to say is limited and they try to pace themselves. Or plain run out of stuff to say that was granted them for the given period of time.

But ultimately i think what damages the NPCs is inability of the player to interact with them on his/her own terms. Not being able to initiate any "real" discussion with them when you feel like it not only when the game feels like it, and giving you only single canned phrases even though they have no problem going on and on between one another... that creates very one-sided dynamics and it just kept reminding me these "people" are really just NPCs, ones that don't even have any real reason to tag along with the player, given this limited interaction and all the make-believe you're provided how they have much more fun in their own company when you aren't there.

[tmp]

The choices you make in Bioware games are mostly cosmetic and for your own sense of attachment to the story.  You always kill the big bad, whether you diddled blue alien A or sailor b.

The "big" choices they provided in DAO were interesting as they've affected large groups of people. There's only one comparable instance of that in DA2 that i can think of (in the sense of situation where you make such decision rather than have it dropped on your lap with "but thou must" label or the game twisting the effects to come to the same results either way) and even that is kind of an accidental footnote in a dumb companion's side-quest, one that everyone seemingly glances over as if it never happened and/or didn't matter. And to be fair to them, it doesn't seem like it does matter indeed.

[Ingmar]

You know, comparing the time jump thing to the linearity of a JRPG makes it really, really hard to take you at all seriously. They aren't really even in the same ballpark.

How aren't they, really?

There's a lot of do-stuff-in-any-order and optional content in between the story chokepoints that I can't recall in any JRPG I've played. I mostly loathe them for the combat, though, not necessarily the stories.

The choices you make in Bioware games are mostly cosmetic and for your own sense of attachment to the story.  You always kill the big bad, whether you diddled blue alien A or sailor b.

The "big" choices they provided in DAO were interesting as they've affected large groups of people. There's only one comparable instance of that in DA2 that i can think of (in the sense of situation where you make such decision rather than have it dropped on your lap with "but thou must" label or the game twisting the effects to come to the same results either way) and even that is kind of an accidental footnote in a dumb companion's side-quest, one that everyone seemingly glances over as if it never happened and/or didn't matter. And to be fair to them, it doesn't seem like it does matter indeed.

See, I think this comes around to the 'not saving the world' thing. Why is it so important to you that your character in an RPG has a huge effect on lots of people? What's wrong with telling a smaller story than 'save the world'?

I am trying really hard not to bring up Planescape as a point of comparison myself here. 

[Sjofn]

While there are giant plot related things you can never not do in their specific order, by and large, you don't get to pick an order at all in a JRPG. There are the map bits that might have a blob bat and blob fight one way and a random encounter of a blob blob and bat the other way, but they're really not very close in terms of "linear."

Oh, and when I say the companions never shut up, I mean all of them have something to say while you're doing quests, generally in the conversation cut scenes. They pipe up a lot more than the DA:O companions (most of their words seem to be spent on the traditional campside Q&A marathons), which makes me feel a lot more like we're doing this shit as a group.

[tmp]

There's a lot of do-stuff-in-any-order and optional content in between the story chokepoints that I can't recall in any JRPG I've played. I mostly loathe them for the combat, though, not necessarily the stories.

"Your lost garbage, serah."

there's just as much of that kind of optional content in say, Persona 4. And more. Combined with the relationship building mechanics which, frankly, i feel blow DA2 out of water. Not in the least because it's also leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to creating impression your companions have their own lives outside of associating with the player's character.

See, I think this comes around to the 'not saving the world' thing. Why is it so important to you that your character in an RPG has a huge effect on lots of people? What's wrong with telling a smaller story than 'save the world'?

I am trying really hard not to bring up Planescape as a point of comparison myself here.  

I think it's interesting, not necessarily important. Telling smaller story is fine, and i've "played" my share of visual novels which do exactly that. I've been also perfectly happy with games like Harvest Moon or Academagia. But these games actually had engaging --if simple-- stories which didn't tend to collapse under the weight of their own inconsistences.

Perhaps this is what saves Planescape since you bring it up -- if the story wasn't as interesting as it was and the writing wasn't as good as it was, and if the world wasn't so lovingly furbished with all the ambient stuff that makes it feel alive... what exactly would that game have going for it? Not that much, no? And yet i'd say it's precisely these area where DA2 suffers, amongst others.

edit: it could also be argued that Planescape in large part revolves around re-discovering just how influential figure your character was. Do you feel it'd have the same sort of hook that kept you going and generate the same fond feelings if it was revealed early on that say, he never did anything beyond sitting in tavern all day, completely unmemorable to anyone and the game concluded with "And that's all, folks!"?

[tmp]

While there are giant plot related things you can never not do in their specific order, by and large, you don't get to pick an order at all in a JRPG. There are the map bits that might have a blob bat and blob fight one way and a random encounter of a blob blob and bat the other way, but they're really not very close in terms of "linear."

You don't get to choose the order at all in jRPG when it comes to the main plot. Just as you can't choose the order in DA2 when it comes to the main plot.

The only actual difference that i can see here is, in jRPG the main plot may take considerably larger part of the game. But in terms of being linear they're very, very close. And when the comparison is made with jRPG which does include decent amount of optional activities on the side it'd be very difficult imo to make any argument these two are in any way different structure-wise.

Oh, and when I say the companions never shut up, I mean all of them have something to say while you're doing quests, generally in the conversation cut scenes. They pipe up a lot more than the DA:O companions (most of their words seem to be spent on the traditional campside Q&A marathons), which makes me feel a lot more like we're doing this shit as a group.

Ahh. You know, i don't think that ever really registered for me. Maybe because so much of the dialogue suffers from the Cool Oneliners syndrome and ends up absolutely inane, Hawke's in particular... that it largely overshadowed any contributions made there.

[Sjofn]

I just really can't get behind the "oh god so linear" complaint. I guess because there's more to DA2 than the three major OKAY THIS TIME PERIOD IS OVER things, wheras in a JRPG, that is all the game would be, period. It just doesn't bother me in the least that Plot Thing One happens before Plot Thing Two. No more than having to do the four treaties before the Landsmeet. Each act has a bunch of shit to do and accomplish before that Act's landsmeet, essentially.

[caladein]

If you brought along Varric and Isabella and rode charming lines the whole way, yeah, you'll get tons of oneliners.  Playing a game without both of those say, with Anders and Fenris, gets you tons of quasi-expository getting-on-each-other's-tits.

Also, if most JRPGs were like Persona 4 (or 3) that comment about JRPGs wouldn't have made any sense, but they're not.  Both games are reasonably similar to modern BioWare titles because of their dual-JRPG/relationship sim nature.  The caveat is that at least with Persona 3, it can be played "optimally", and so it becomes a game less about relationships and more about time management.  (Although, once you ignore that it becomes a much better game .)

I do love both series and in both I find the thread of the main plot as set dressing or pretext for the talky bits.  I'd compare it to game of Battlestar Galactica: the best parts are the inbetween parts (or in your head), once your Cylons are revealed and you're chugging towards end-game, it's actually quite dull.

[Sheepherder]

Seriously, bringing it up as a point of comparison to anything is fucking ridiculous, especially in regards to story.  It's like breaking out the Sonoran dog when discussing hotdogs. There is no counter.

This isn't entirely true.  Bioware just seems to be really bad at knowing when and how to rein the player in and limit the scope of their game without leaving god sized fingerprints all over the damn place.  Which usually results in "Why am I listening to this dude monologue when I know he's going to kill the hostage right afterwards?" or "Magical plot faeries invaded my brain and made me surrender."

[tmp]

I just really can't get behind the "oh god so linear" complaint.

Well technically it's not "oh god so linear" but "it's linear so not exactly a new plot structure"   That is to say, not really objection to the type of game they've made, but rather i can't get behind the "it's different, yay" line of cheering.

Of course, not like coming up with something actually different is easy; but that simply means i don't expect to be  on any RPG for its innovative approach to storytelling in foreseeable future.

[Lantyssa]

I just really can't get behind the "oh god so linear" complaint. I guess because there's more to DA2 than the three major OKAY THIS TIME PERIOD IS OVER things, wheras in a JRPG, that is all the game would be, period. It just doesn't bother me in the least that Plot Thing One happens before Plot Thing Two. No more than having to do the four treaties before the Landsmeet. Each act has a bunch of shit to do and accomplish before that Act's landsmeet, essentially.

How many JRPGs have you played?  I didn't think it was something you or Ingmar played much of, so I think you're generalizing a bit much.

[Sjofn]

It's entirely possible. I've played more than Ingmar, but that's more like "a handful" versus "two." It's a silly argument anyway, because linear isn't something that I think is TEH DEVIL. It's certainly not why I dislike JRPGs. If it needs to be more "linear" to make the story make sense, I can deal with it pretty easily.

[Koyasha]

"Linear" has become such a dirty word that nobody wants to touch it for some reason.  To me, linear is not bad, linear can be good, because it gives more opportunity for something you do at one point to affect other things.  With the '4 planets' setup, or ME2's totally discrete missions, things don't interconnect.  They could, but the amount of work required to make choices in Area A affect areas B, C, and D, OR any other order of play you might choose, including only partially completing only one of those areas, is incredibly huge.  Unfortunately, I don't feel like DA2 took very much advantage of that linear thing to make it feel like stuff you do early on actually has effects, because there are so few obvious effects to Hawke's presence at all.

Aveline's companion quests are often considered to be some of the best in the game from what I have heard people say, for instance.  I think a lot of that is because you can see Hawke actually have an effect on Aveline's life, and things change for her over the years.  At least it seems that way.  I'm not sure whether the result of the act 1 quests are the same (I haven't tried not completing them yet, gonna have to try that and see what she's like in act 2) but I know that if you don't do the quests in act 2, she doesn't sort things out on her own.

[Khaldun]

I don't mind linear in the sense of "this big event is coming and it will mark the end of one section of the game". I do mind if the choices I make in between do not lead to some substantially different pathways within a given section of the game which are then subsequently remembered or referenced later on. In DA2, I ultimately felt like it really didn't matter much whether I was pro-mage or pro-templar or somewhere in between. About the only things that seemed affected by my choices were companions, and even there, it was only the romance option that seemed to produce a radically different reaction until the very end and the taking of sides at that point.

[Simond]

Next time you bring up Planescape will be your last.  LET IT GO.  

Seriously, bringing it up as a point of comparison to anything is fucking ridiculous, especially in regards to story.  It's like breaking out the Sonoran dog when discussing hotdogs. There is no counter.

KOTOR2 had the potential to be in the same ballpark as Planescape: Torment if EA hadn't fucked Obsidian over.

[rk47]

It's just a bad case of Xmas deadline priority over everything else. And it wasn't EA. It was LucasArts.

[Sheepherder]

KOTOR2 had the potential to be in the same ballpark as Planescape: Torment if EA hadn't fucked Obsidian over.

Based on what I can glean from the LP Archives: Yes.

The ability to gently corral players into a limited set of solutions also tends to make for a good DM in a pen and paper game as well.