9 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Yes, the knowlege that some of our decisions might kill off some of our companions permanently is a good reminder to thread lightly but for the love of God ease off the plotline deaths.

Why do I say this? Is it because I want the super sweet my little darkspawn unicorn happyending?.....No I personally like Virmire in ME1 and having nothird option in that case.......well not that having a "no one left behind" ending is bad but I'm more worried about the future. Unless Dragon age is turning into a freaking FF-like rpg where we paly a different protagonist each time what's gonna happen in DA3 if like 75% of your group can die?

Ding ding ding.....weeee havea winner people, a whole new group and cameos for the rest followed by special DLC for really beloved characters.

And yet again everyone will moan and groan on the forums and with their friends starting miles long threads about how ridiculous it is to have a whole new group every time......bla bla bla emotional investment.....blah blah blah bioware always delivers...... blah blah BDF badge ..... blah blah blah she was my LI..... blah blah blah Volus lockdown

Seriously tho....it seems to show a certain lack in the far sight department to make it possible to kill so many people only to realize you are not going to be able to make them come back at all in following games if not in the form ofa tiny cameo that everyone will just go "meh" about.

I'd rather have a COUPLE of virmire moments than a ton of crisis situations that will prevent the return of some of my favorite characters (yes that includes their return coupled with a "ah yes a three headed dog brought me back to life" handed to me by the writers)

What do you guys think?

[David Gaider]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Indeed, it won't always translate into the largest of consequences for the franchise, but we know thats purely a development resources thing.

Indeed. We're less concerned about how it would "affect the franchise" as we are about making the experience within that single game as impactful as it can be.

Which is not to say that we're not concerned about what happens in the franchise-- not at all-- just that I find people who look on plot elements only in how they continue onto future games as missing the point a bit. Continuity is great, and that certainly is something we have to concern ourselves with, yes, but there is also no harm in enjoying a single story for what it is and moving on if need be.

Let's not lose sight of the trees for the forest.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 novembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[David Gaider]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
Well, in my humble opinion, Mr. Gaider...Letting the dead Wardens to continue their stories in Awakening kind of screwed up the continuity.

And, to be frank, the situation with Awakening had nothing to do with continuity or our desire (or lack thereof) to preserve it. It's not something we decided to implement in that fashion-- and that's a fact of game development, in that what's best for the story isn't always going to be what we can do. That's not something a writer can plan for, obviously, but there it is... and the most heartfelt forum posts in the world aren't going to change that.

But knowing that the Dragon Age franchise will continue to grow (hopefully, I really hope for a DA3 in the future), I guess it would be nice to continue the story, even if we don't have the control of the same character.
I mean...not bringing back from the dead a character that's...well, dead. Or that sort of stuff...
But I have complete faith in you guys.

And of course we will continue the story. Occasionally we do run into situations where something we did earlier (like killing off a character) makes it incredibly inconvenient down the road. Even faced with that, I still wouldn't sacrifice that earlier moment just to leave my options open later on. There's no guarantee that later will come, after all. And while I recognize that some fans will have a stricter view on continuity even then we will, that doesn't mean we don't think about it or will treat it as inconsequential... it simply means we don't have a problem making an end-run around it when it serves our needs.

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"

Uh...how to put this?

Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death?

That might be comparable if Dragon Age were a single campaign or chronicle. It's not. DA2 is a new story. The same may be true for a potential DA3. A better tabletop comparison would be a player thinking he should be allowed to keep playing his character even though his game master has started a new campaign and has asked him to roll something new.

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
Perhaps, David, your comparison falls a little flat to me because in both my groups of Dark Ages Vampire and AD&D the decision to move on to a whole new story with a whole new cast was always a shared one between me (the DM/ST) and the rest of the players since, after all, it is not only MY story it is theirs too. Perhaps (most likely) this is different with videogame-form RPGs but that is not the point

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the tabletop comparison.

Obviously we have more than six players to craft a story for, therefore any element of personal consultation is out of the question. We are moving onto a new campaign. If you don't want to play, that's entirely up to you-- just leave the damned Doritos, okay? And the Mountain Dew.

My point is, as I said before, that I hope plotline deaths will not be as common. And the point of the thread was to let people voice their opinions on the matter.

Sure, but if someone makes silly analogies that doesn't mean they can't be called on it. There's a point, after all, at which expecting a videogame to have something in common with the tabletop RPG you have going with your friends begins to break down.

Oh and...any news on NG+ David? LOL sorry NG+ is to me what PC gameplay is to Brocklolly

And the amount of my personal interest in either of those issues would cause the universe to implode if it became any less. Yet you people keep asking me about them. Clearly you are nihilists.

[David Gaider]

schalafi wrote...
Well since it is a fantasy, there is nothing to stop the writers from resurrecting some "killed off" character, like having a kindly god, or spirit, bring them back... in a fantastical way of course.

Correct. The fact that it's a hand-wave doesn't belie the fact that we're completely serious about it. It wouldn't be random, but something we wanted to do. Considering that someone is going to end up on the forums raging about how it utterly destroyed their universe is a given-- that's going to happen no matter what we do. So it's hardly going to stop us, is it?

(I'm still waiting for Zu to return someday in JE2,
however I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Excellent choice.

[David Gaider]

TTTX wrote...
David, if you don't mind me asking, couldn't you guys have made a better title for the second game of the Dragon age series?

"Dragon Age 2" doesn't say "second game of the Dragon Age series"?

because it seems the title Dragon Age 2 had confused more people (myself included) in the beginning rather then make people understand that it is a new chapter in the land of Thedas not a direct sequel to origins.

I think the people who mistook the title to mean something else are the ones who wanted to. They would have jumped to the same conclusion no matter what we had called it.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 novembre 2010 - 10:11 .

[David Gaider]

Apollo Starflare wrote...
I'm just wondering if you are referring to his desire for Sagacious Zu to return in a sequel, or the fact he isn't holding his breath whether we'll ever get one. 

I suggest you hold your breath until you figure it out.

[Mary Kirby]

ShrinkingFish wrote...


I honestly think the only title that would have avoided confusion would have been something like:

Dragon Age II: This One Is Definitely Not About The Warden, His Story Is Over, We Have A New Hero Now And His Name Is Hawke... Dead Serious. Warden Gone. New Hero Named Hawke.

And even then I'm pretty sure some people somewhere wouldn't have gotten it right away and still needed it explained.

*Double-checks the title on her Dragon Age box*

Wow. I guess it does say "Dragon Age: Warden, Warden, Warden." How did I miss that?

[Mary Kirby]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Something I posted got a response from a dev! AND it was Mary!

*fangasm* *die happy*

If my posts are murdering fans, I... guess I better work on my nefarious cackle some more.