The Varric frame story had its moments (Action Hero Varric vs. Bartand's army of goons, bwah). Overall, though, I think the consensus has been that this particular method of story telling didn't really work. It was a bold experiment in my opinion, but a failed experiment nonetheless. I expect that we won't be seeing it again in the Dragon Age series post-DA2.
We did see it in Legacy, though. And since Legacy seems to have gone over pretty well, and since we're already getting teased with the "______D __R__" thing, I'm guessing we will be seeing more DA2 DLC in the future. I'm wondering, then, whether future DLCs will continue to be narrated by Varric.
Post campaign, it wouldn't be Varric and Cassandra alone in that totally black room any more. Varric's story to Cassandra is over. She already let him go and then went marching off with Leliana and everyone. So if Varric does turn out to be the one telling the story of what happened next, who would he be telling the story to? And where would he be telling it? Or would they just scrap the framed narrative at that point and be done with it?--DarkAger (talk) 03:38, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that storytelling will be used in DA3 (though it will most likely for future DA2 DLC). It was just a way for Bioware to fill us in on what happened over the course of those 10 years (with some minor alterations like the Varric brawl and Bethany's uber-boobs -drool-). The story will probably go more like it did with Origins, with notable modifications from DA2, at least if Legacy was anything to go by. But Maker knows, maybe they will be lazy enough to do storytelling again or something similar. --LordRevan25 (talk) 03:53, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we've seen last of Varric's recounting of the event in Kirkwall to Cassandra, at least for DLC that take place within Acts 1-3. Any post game DLC I think will take place 'live' so to speak. I'm not really a big fan of this form of story telling in a RPG, but the Varric-verse dose have it's moments, the Varric vs Bartrand showdown is one I especially like. Andy the Black (talk) 04:12, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I will disagree with the way the story is told failing because that is really one my favorite things about DA2, and I think it deserves far more praise (pure personal taste) but the reason I do not see it coming back is because Varric will not be telling those stories, and if they created another story teller, it would be to instill another Varricesque character, and that would be fail (not even Leliana) if anything they did that for Varric's character to be even more fun, honestly I think the game needed much more banter between Cass and Varric. But the narrative will stand if the dlc takes place after act 3, there is still 3 yrs before Varric and Cassandra talk. So long as it is before that, there is no doubt Varric will remain the story teller for those add-ons. But maybe just maybe... post interrogation dlc will still have it but it will be either Varric in another tavern, or maker forbid... a party camp 'round the fire. Tommyspa (talk) 04:22, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, where did it say that Varric's interrogation happened 3 years after the fight at the gallows? I missed that. But, it also doesn't solve the Cassandra problem, since regardless of how much time passed, we saw her leave right after hearing about the Last Straw, without asking for more details about what happened to Hawke since then. Unless they retcon that, maybe they will have Varric telling the story of the rest of DA2's DLCs to a different audience in a different setting.
- I'm also kind of wondering where the post-campaign DLCs will start from. Still Hawke's house? That wouldn't make sense for DLCs set after Hawke's flight from Kirkwall. Maybe they'll just have it so that we start the DLC from the loading screen, and then have to import our Hawke, like we could with the Warden for the DAO DLCs.--DarkAger (talk) 17:39, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Let me see if I can clarify better, it's kinda accepted that the ten years is meant that the main game takes up 7 years and then the interrogation is in the tenth year combined with the Hawke/Warden Commander unknown whereabouts Sourceit's also listed on here as taking place in 9:40 Dragon Age, so take that for what it is, (note that Hawke either rules Kirkwall, or flees immediately but always is gone before the interrogation, Varric comes back to Kirkwall and gets caught by the seekers, I assume anyhow, perhaps he went back because he was invited, I don't see him keeping a low profile.) But, you can skim through to see the Cassandra interrogates Varric about the past 10 years, but it is not explicitly stated in game. But if there were to be more post game dlc/expansion, it could be compensated in that convo at the same time through those post game events (or that is how I would like it, basically push it back to the end of it all, opposed to the end of the main game, or maybe just push back the I don't know where Hawke is part, assuming an expansion explains that bit) instead of having say Cassandra come back later, or something meh. But say it does take place after the interrogation, it could fit under my tavern/party camp idea. I could see it starting anywhere, see Golems and Witch Hunt, it's not really bound by Hawke's Estate if it's post campaign is it? Legacy is fine because it's bound in the 7 years. Tommyspa (talk) 22:29, August 2, 2011 (UTC) Edit. Grain of salt the 10th year interrogation thing. Unless someone finds a better "direct" quote.
i dunno, i kinda liked the framed narrative. Would it really be bad if it returned in DA3? the bad part was the time span, jumpin from act 1 to act 2. that was the bad part. I think it would be really cool if DA 3 was more like origins taking place within one year, but after you finish the final battle, someone is telling your story like varric. Or better, he tells the story BEFORE the final battle, which you fight in the present. Like most epic poems such as the Odyssey. Crimpycracker (talk) 06:30, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
The framed narrative was really only used because it takes a whole lot less time to actually make up a story that way. It lets you focus on specific points instead of writing a story from start to finish. Sometimes that works, more often in books, short stories and especially movies, sometimes it does not, like in video games apparently. You can like the story itself, but the manner in which it was presented didn't exactly go over all that well. If taken in individual parts it is better, but taken as a whole, it does not flow and is severely disjointed and lacks immersion. It also leaves way too many questions and tends to lead to a whole lot of "blame the storyteller" syndrome. I highly doubt they'll use this method again after this game. The Grey Unknown (talk) 12:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the flaws you mentioned. I had so many questions and some things didn't seem realistic. Why does it take your character 3 years to get with a companion for instance? What did Hawke do during that time? Did s/he really not level up or encounter ANY bad guys or interesting things during those years? I suppose that's why they thought they could just slide DLC into those blanks, which is a cheap move. Also, they can just retcon whatever they like and say Varric told it wrong, which is just entirely lazy if they do. It doesn't give you much faith in the story. Xelestial (talk) 18:55, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I just find it funny when you play the Legacy DLC with a post-campaign save and you get the framing device of Cassandra and Varric telling the story that he "failed to mention" about the Champion in the main game. It comes off like a bonus feature on a movie DVD with additional content filmed after the movie featuring the same actors. (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 13:22, August 2, 2011 (UTC))
- That happened to me when I played it in Act 2, also.
Now that I think of it more with one of my PC playthroughs being with modded-in additional playable characters that appear rather out of place in the main game's story (Meredith and Orsino being those), it does put a whole new spin on Varric's storytelling as a framing device, that he could possibly "make things up as he goes". (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 13:30, August 2, 2011 (UTC))
I never liked the idea of Dragon Age 2 having a framed narrative from the moment it was first announced and I really hope they don't re-use it in future games, although for the perposes of consistency they should continue to use it for all Dragon Age 2 add-on DLC. I would say that it did work out slightly better than I had expected however it's still not something that I'm particularly fond of and it was somewhat detrimental to the game especially in terms of immersion. Violet Rogue (talk) 15:07, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
My complaint about a framed story as an RPG is that it gives the impression that the story is already finished from the moment you begin playing it. Which I think is why I always have the feeling that none of my in-game decisions matter. The course has not only already been set, but the ship has already sailed and docked at the pre-designated port. I hope they don't do it again with DA3. AL-astaria (talk) 17:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mind the framed narrative for this one game, but if they tried to do it again, that would be entirely fail. I don't think they will do it again. To answer your other questions, I always assumed that Cassandra came back to Varric for information once she realized he might know something about the event that she was talking about. Or she could have just asked him that at some other point which we didn't see. But it'd be really cheap for them to release another DLC and then have Cassandra be like "Okay Varric, you told me about this, but what about this? And this? And this?" everytime a new DLC comes out. They don't even have to use Varric to frame the story tbh, because there was some amount of time (Tommyspa says 3 years) between the final battle and the time the Champion disappears--DLC just can't happen in Kirkwall really, thankfully. At least, I would hope we get some after DA2 DLC but before Hawke disappears. Xelestial (talk) 18:53, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
Frame Narrative is a story telling device; a vehicle for delivering a story to a reader, viewer, or in this case, a game player. The 'frame' tells a main story and also provides a stage for telling another story, or a series of organized short stories, within the main story. As with any other literary device, frame narrative is only as successful as the stories it delivers.
There have been any number of discussions here and elsewhere on the DA2 "story". Significantly, there is no consensus on exactly what the "story" is. Some say it's days in the life of Hawke. Others say it days in the life of Kirkwall. But in either case, there is no single overarching story that emerges.
What about the story of the 'frame', the so-called main story? Does the 'frame' actually tell a separate story in DA2? As far as I can tell there is no story there; we simply have a series of scenes in which one character interrogates another character. Is there a story about Varric? Or Cassandra? Not as far as I can tell.
Bottom line; frame narrative is an extraordinarily demanding literary device that requires a main story and a subsidiary story or series of stories. If the main story fails, frame narrative fails. If the underlying story (or stories) fails, frame narrative fails. In DA2, we simply don't have the required elements for a successful frame narrative. Considering both the unusually short time budgeted for DA2 and the demanding nature of frame narrative, it's surprising that BW chose this literary device for DA2. -- WarPaint (talk) 22:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- The framing story is that the world is at war and the Chantry is "in tatters," and Cassandra has captured Varric because she wants answers about Hawke. In the end it is revealed that the reason she's trying to find Hawke is that she hopes that Hawke can help calm the situation down and end the war.
- There ya go, Warpaint. That wasn't so hard.
- As for the main story of Dragon Age 2, no, that isn't so easy to encapsulate in two sentences. I guess my answer would be that there are three main story threads: mages vs. templars, Qunari vs. Kirkwall, and Crazy Lyrium Idol vs. everyone. The rise and fall of Hawke is the main thread linking these story elements together. It definitely doesn't all come together as neatly as it should have. Two many major plot threads, all kind of tangled together. I'd still say that putting snide scare quotes around "story" like that is unfair, but hey, that's just me.
- I'd also dispute your claim that frame narrative is, in itself, an especially demanding literary device in of itself. Heck, the first God of War game had what amounts to a simple framing story: "Kratos is sad and suicidal because he thinks the gods don't like him any more. Now the middle part of the game will explain why he feels that way. Now it is the game's ending, and the gods save Kratos and even make him a god, not realizing that he is immediately going to start being an even bigger jackass than ever."
- I'd say it's more like the frame narrative just doesn't lend itself very well to RPGs, where player choice is supposed to be important and the frame story necessarily limits you to just one ending.--DarkAger (talk) 23:54, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
- What you describe as the "framing story" isn't much of a story. It's a setting. There's no story arc there. There's no climax. There's no ending. But for the sake of argument let's assume you're right. If so the problem is that it isn't an interesting story. There's no mystery, no tension and no continuity. It neither grabbed nor maintained my interest. Perhaps telling a story is a little harder than you think smart guy. At any rate I stand by what I wrote. Frame narrative is only as successful as the stories it delivers.
- As to your dispute on whether frame narrative is or isn't demanding, you apparently missed the point that frame narrative demands simultaneous success in a plurality of stories. You don't see that as demanding. OK. But on the other hand you apparently don't expect a great deal for a successful story. How was it that you put it? That's wasn't so hard. I guess with your definition of a successful story you must be right. -- WarPaint (talk) 00:54, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. The story wasn't all that great. It was...mediocre at best. Like the game really. It makes the frame narrative even less effective. The game as a whole as well. But it doesn't matter. They won't do this again. It was an experiment with DA2. The whole game was really. The article attached in an earlier thread, and now in the blog area outright states it. You can argue all you want about whether or not you like it or not, but it clearly did not work, and bioware knows it. The Grey Unknown (talk) 01:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Uttering an opinion is rarely hard, Warpaint. I could dispute all of your claims about the Cassandra/Varric thing, but in the end it's mostly just a matter of taste, especially where things like mystery and tension are concerned. I guess all I'm saying is that, regardless of how successful it is, a story is in fact a story. What you seem to be saying is that if you don't like a story then it doesn't exist. Beyond that, I gather that I liked the DA2 story somewhat better than you did, though as I said I didn't find it the greatest thing ever either.--DarkAger (talk) 01:45, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- As to your dispute on whether frame narrative is or isn't demanding, you apparently missed the point that frame narrative demands simultaneous success in a plurality of stories. You don't see that as demanding. OK. But on the other hand you apparently don't expect a great deal for a successful story. How was it that you put it? That's wasn't so hard. I guess with your definition of a successful story you must be right. -- WarPaint (talk) 00:54, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite obvious that "uttering an opinion" is as you put it "rarely hard" for you. Your opinion that mystery and tension are only a matter of taste is a real beauty. You might find "uttering an opinion" somewhat harder if you add the constraint that the opinion ought to pass a common sense test.
- And for your edification I neither said nor implied that if I don't like a story, it doesn't exist. I didn't see the story you saw in the frame narrative. Still don't. IMO one can only get there by selectively focusing on parts of the frame while selectively ignoring other parts.
- Fair enough, I've plainly let this get out of hand. I apologize for causing offense. I find it so easy to get carried away in internet debates. My bad indeed.
- Still, let me say that I don't really see how mystery and tension aren't a matter of taste. In the first Mission Impossible movie years ago, there was a famous scene where Tom Cruise was being dangled down on wires in part of the mission, and he couldn't make any noise or touch the floor or whatever or he'd be caught. I found that a very tense scene, as did a friend of mine who I had seen the movie with. When discussing the movie with someone else later on I was surprised to find that he had found that whole scene boring. What was a tense scene for me was not tense for him. Personal taste.
- Ditto mystery. Take the story of Braid. Some people see a deep mystery behind all the in-game text. There are all kinds of theories out there as to what the story of Tim and the Princess might mean. Other people have dismissed it all as meaningless fluff.
- I wouldn't say I found the Varric/Cassandra scenes mysterious like Dark City (the editor's cut) or tense like District 9 (I found that movie really tense anyway). Still, one mystery for me was what Cassandra intended to do with whatever she learned about Hawke. Most of the tension I felt came from me wondering what was going to happen to Varric, and what he might possibly reveal about Hawke in the end. If you felt none of that I would argue that's at least partially because mystery and tension are actually pretty subjective concepts. A lot more so than things like climax and ending anyhow.--DarkAger (talk) 03:06, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
I believe they used the framing narrative TO save time, I think Gaider even said that in that interview I linked somewhere the other day. I do think it works terribly for RPGs though. But then again, how BioWare plans to tell a whole story between many different games with many different outcomes doesn't work too well either. They end up having to minimize the importantance of the previous game or retcon it. The thing about GoW was more like Kratos is pissed and emo, gods offer cure for pissed and emoness, Kratos does quests to get cure, turns out they lied, and then he's made a god cuz they're dumb. Xelestial (talk) 00:23, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- No but see, Kratos starts out sad and suicidal, standing on a-- Wait, now I'm debating about God of War? Eh, never mind.--DarkAger (talk) 01:48, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
The frame isn't that restrictive really. The only thing we know for sure is that it has to end with Varric being dragged into a dark room with Cassandra. Everything else is up for grabs, including the reason why she dragged him in. The lack of changeable story elements is down to them simply not being implemented where they could have been. Call it laziness, lack of time, lack of resources, or whatever you want. I know which one I'd choose. Michael Largness (talk) 00:59, August 3, 2011 (UTC)