147 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?

[Herr Uhl]

crimzontearz wrote...

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?

This with an over-arching plotline methinks.

And I'd like it too.

[blothulfur]

No for DA3 I want a suit of armour made from all former companions skulls, and I will laugh as the forumites wail and gnash their teeth at the loss of beloved favourites and thrust out my leliana skull jockstrap and proclaim "eat this".

[DarthCaine]

I think what's a really dumb design choice is that they make major character killable. It just decreases their chance of coming back for the sequel. Look at the Witcher, NONE of the major characters (which people love) are killable, and almost every last one will be back for the sequel. Same goes for Deus Ex

[Seagloom]

I think we will see a different protagonist in every game, and that sits well with me. I like that the franchise is focused on different stories in different places to provide us further insight into the lives and struggles of people on Thedas. There are so many fascinating adventures we can experience. I see no reason for the writers to handcuff themselves with a single character. This is doubly the case after seeing how "Mass Effect 2" dropped the ball with Shepard's resurrection footnote.



Killing off characters can serve two purposes. Firstly, it could make for dramatic moments in the plot if handled properly. Secondly, the death of a character the player found useful in gameplay reinforces that loss further than writing and acting alone can convey. As long as a character death is used with care and precision, it can be very meaningful. There is a reason the OP brought up Final Fantasy as an example. Like it or hate it, anyone who gamed back then remembers Aeris's death because it was done in a way that instilled a reaction from the player.



I doubt "Dragon Age 2" will become a dreary party member graveyard of a game. Overusing any event is going to cheapen it--character death included.

[crimzontearz]

hehehe I knew Darth would say that

[DarthCaine]

crimzontearz wrote...

hehehe I knew Darth would say that

Hah, I just copy paste my responses from other threads

[Ziggeh]

I agree that replacing 90% cast each time, ala ME would feel a touch contrived, and having become attached to the characters it can be unpalatable.

Two things to consider though:

Companions dying is perhaps the biggest game consequence they can level at us, it effects the rest of your playthrough. Consequences are a good thing. You also have the sense of risk in the narative, which is hard to maintain if no one is ever in actual peril.

The second thing is what the writers want to write. Consider that they've already explored that character once. Can they find some new facet to explore? Maybe, but that won't always be the case. Where would Ohgren fall on your list of favourite Origins characters? Where would he fall in Awakenings? He just didn't have a lot to say, very little new to reveal and little character arc. It can work (Tali is a good case, she had much unresolved), but as much as we might have enjoyed a character, seeing them again involves the writers finding, and indeed wanting to find new, interesting elements to explore, when maybe they'd rather be writing a something fresh and altogether different.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 24 novembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[Shepard Lives]

blothulfur wrote...

No for DA3 I want a suit of armour made from all former companions skulls, and I will laugh as the forumites wail and gnash their teeth at the loss of beloved favourites and thrust out my leliana skull jockstrap and proclaim "eat this".

You forgot a belt made out of their spines, and an amulet powered by the pain of their trapped, tormented souls.
Also, Zevran's ears as a Halloween costume.

Modifié par shepard_lives, 24 novembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[blothulfur]

Damn now i've got to go back to the tailors.

[Piecake]

I'm perfectly fine having new characters in every new Dragon age game. In fact, I prefer it that way. I dont want the same 'heroes' fighting the new threat to ferelden every time. It just seems absurd to me that your few band of heroes are the only ones capable to deal with those situations. That reminds me too much of 24. New threat to the United States? Why, lets get Jack Bauer, because the rest of us are a bunch of incompetent idiots and only he can save the day!

[crimzontearz]

I disagree to a point....sure characters deathis the biggest consequence of our actions that can befall us but the so is their return if we chose to let them live yet you know as well as I do that it translates solely in a cruddy cameo in the following game.....so much for dealing with consequences

[Gleym]

crimzontearz wrote...

Unless Dragon age is turning into a freaking FF-like rpg

Don't be silly. Dragon Age 2 isn't even an RPG in the first place (if adding stats to level up abilities counts as an RPG, I guess that means God of War is one too; similarly, if customizing my armor and appearance makes it an RPG, then so is Halo - and no, multiple choice answers in a cutscene isn't enough to count as an RPG), so how could it turn into a Final Fantasy knockoff?

Modifié par Gleym, 24 novembre 2010 - 03:00 .

[ejoslin]

Well, there are consequences within the game itself for letting someone live/die. I'm not sure that that always has to mean far reaching consequences. If the warden is going to be basically something happening in the background in DA2, the companions would be of even less notice.

[Khayness]

And there were times when companions could die in combat, and sometimes it was worth the effort to run around trying to resurrect them or just leave them dead instead to reload, because the encounter was hard.

[Brockololly]

As far as death and companions goes, I don't like how it was handled in most of Origins. Being able to kill off just about every companion is nice in the choice it brings, but only if that choice of killing them has some sort of meaningful consequence beyond simply missing out on content. In cases like Leliana turning on you at the Sacred Ashes or being able to kill Zevran right off the bat, those sorts of deaths feel cheap to me in how they're handled. But Loghain's possible death at the Landsmeet or whoever dies killing the Archdemon? Those are good death scenes handled with a bit more gravity.

My issue with being able to just kill off anyone willy nilly is that so far all we've seen is that it means regardless of whether you killed them or not, going beyond that one game, they're no longer in a unique role, but end up in some generic role- like Wrex simply filling generic Krogan ruler role in ME2 or Ashley/Kaiden going so far as to have the exact same dialogue on Horizon. If there is any question at all whether they may want to bring a character back, I'd rather you just gravely injure the person and have them scamper off.

So yeah, if you're going to kill off a major companion or character it should be thought out really well and done in a memorable manner that lends it some gravitas- not slicing off Leliana's head at the Ashes only to loot her corpse like any other enemy, with no reaction at all from your companions. The death is a consequence to be sure, but I'd like to think that any companion/character death would have further reverberations beyond just the act of killing them- like maybe because you killed character X, quest Y takes on some different dimension now or some other character now hates/loves you for it. I don't just want immediate consequences, I'd like some Witcher style delayed, far reaching consequences, so long as they don't end up as "GOTCHA!" moments.


As for new  party members and new PC's each go around- I'm fine with that provided the prior PC has some closure and a solid ending. And that any major loose ends are able to be dealt with by that PC in the future *cough* DR Warden/Morrigan/Old God Baby *cough*

What I'd really think would be different and cool, would be to have a DA game with multiple PC's- or maybe DA3 where you have some big event happening in the world- like whatever this "Change" is thats coming- and almost like Starcraft, have different chapters/campaigns, maybe one with a new PC, one with Hawke and one with the Hero of Ferelden/Orlesian Warden. Likely? Probably not, but something like that would certainly shake up the usual BioWare formula.

[Ziggeh]

crimzontearz wrote...

I disagree to a point....sure characters deathis the biggest consequence of our actions that can befall us but the so is their return if we chose to let them live yet you know as well as I do that it translates solely in a cruddy cameo in the following game.....so much for dealing with consequences

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

[Bullets McDeath]

I think the way they are handling it is fine. It seems if we're switching heroes every game, we're likely to get a brand new cast each time anyway. So having most characters be killable is fine, as long as they have flags to keep track of this stuff.



I'd imagine most of the time if they figure a character will be important or used again down the line, they don't allow the option to kill them (Morrigan, anyone?). However, it is not like video game characters have such a great track record of staying dead anyway. If they want some one back who was killable in a previous game, they'll snort a line of Handwavium and find a way to do it. I believe Gaider even said as much in the "Zevran in DA2" thread.

[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 .

[errant_knight]

Brockololly wrote...

As far as death and companions goes, I don't like how it was handled in most of Origins. Being able to kill off just about every companion is nice in the choice it brings, but only if that choice of killing them has some sort of meaningful consequence beyond simply missing out on content. In cases like Leliana turning on you at the Sacred Ashes or being able to kill Zevran right off the bat, those sorts of deaths feel cheap to me in how they're handled. But Loghain's possible death at the Landsmeet or whoever dies killing the Archdemon? Those are good death scenes handled with a bit more gravity.

My issue with being able to just kill off anyone willy nilly is that so far all we've seen is that it means regardless of whether you killed them or not, going beyond that one game, they're no longer in a unique role, but end up in some generic role- like Wrex simply filling generic Krogan ruler role in ME2 or Ashley/Kaiden going so far as to have the exact same dialogue on Horizon. If there is any question at all whether they may want to bring a character back, I'd rather you just gravely injure the person and have them scamper off.

So yeah, if you're going to kill off a major companion or character it should be thought out really well and done in a memorable manner that lends it some gravitas- not slicing off Leliana's head at the Ashes only to loot her corpse like any other enemy, with no reaction at all from your companions. The death is a consequence to be sure, but I'd like to think that any companion/character death would have further reverberations beyond just the act of killing them- like maybe because you killed character X, quest Y takes on some different dimension now or some other character now hates/loves you for it. I don't just want immediate consequences, I'd like some Witcher style delayed, far reaching consequences, so long as they don't end up as "GOTCHA!" moments.


As for new  party members and new PC's each go around- I'm fine with that provided the prior PC has some closure and a solid ending. And that any major loose ends are able to be dealt with by that PC in the future *cough* DR Warden/Morrigan/Old God Baby *cough*

What I'd really think would be different and cool, would be to have a DA game with multiple PC's- or maybe DA3 where you have some big event happening in the world- like whatever this "Change" is thats coming- and almost like Starcraft, have different chapters/campaigns, maybe one with a new PC, one with Hawke and one with the Hero of Ferelden/Orlesian Warden. Likely? Probably not, but something like that would certainly shake up the usual BioWare formula.

I have to agree that if you killed your companions, or otherwise got rid of them, it makes no sense to me that the other characters wouldn't have a strong reaction of some kind. They've been travelling with them for months. They might hate that person, or like them very much. They'd say or do something. It wouldn't be business as usual afterwards. They wouldn't just say goodbye at the gate as though nothing ever happened.

I suppose this is where the balance in not punishing the player for their choices comes in, like not having half the team storm off in a huff, but it can seem weird.

Modifié par errant_knight, 24 novembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[Brockololly]

It will be interesting to see how the whole 10 year time period and the framed narrative affects things like character death in DA2 though. Whether maybe having Carver or whoever in Hawke's family die at the beginning changes anything later on in the timeline, beyond just missing out on content.

errant_knight wrote...
I
have to agree that if you killed your companions, or otherwise got rid
of them, it makes no sense to me that the other characters wouldn't have
a strong reaction of some kind. They've been travelling with them for
months. They might hate that person, or like them very much. They'd say
or do something. It wouldn't be business as usual afterwards. They
wouldn't just say goodbye at the gate as though nothing ever
happened.

That sort of thing might not be as big of a deal in DA2, seeing as the companions sort of do their own thing when not out adventuring, but in DAO at least, it would have been interesting if there had been some sort of Total War/CIv style overall party approval system in addition to the individual approval, kind of how in Total War games you have the overall approval/disapproval of a given region. So like if you just whacked Leliana or somebody, maybe it puts the whole party in a crisis mode where it culminates in a big sit down moment  where everybody airs their grieveances to the PC- or a scene like in ME1 after Virmire.

Modifié par Brockololly, 24 novembre 2010 - 04:09 .

[Lord_Valandil]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Hmm...
Well, in my humble opinion, Mr. Gaider...Letting the dead Wardens to continue their stories in Awakening kind of screwed up the continuity.
Continuity is great...I know many (if not all) of us like it, and want to know what will happen in the future. And of course, I enjoy the games as a single story, in fact...I discovered Bioware with Origins, and didn't expect a sequel anytime soon.
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.

[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.

[Revan312]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I agree for the most part, except in a self proclaimed trilogy like mass effect. The chance that none of your squad dies all the way down to only 2 members living at the end of ME2 seems as if the chances for meaningful and in depth character returns from said squad seems.... limited at best, especially if there will be new characters for 3 which has been surmized as much..

Now Dragon Age isn't Mass Effect, and I don't have a worry as yet about such things happening, but that ending in ME2, even before I played it, rang hollow to me when thinking about character roles in the last installment. If you guys can avoid that then I'm all for you guys writing the best stand alone story you can, character death included..

[Lord_Valandil]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Hmm...I understand now, and I have to agree Mr. Gaider.

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.

That makes me feel happy. Thanks for answering, Mr. Gaider. Sometimes I feel like agent Smith...