6 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

So the quest in which Leandra dies bothers me to no end. For various reasons, but let me stay polite and just say I don't want it in my game and playthrough. So I wonder how a DLC that 'fixes' this would be recieved by players. Obviously most people would save her if they could, and that's more or less the reason why this option is not in the game.

I think a DLC would be a good idea because for once, Bioware is probably not just going to patch it or whatever because the game is done and they won't want to spend money on it unneccessarily. Also I think alot of people would actually buy it, and those who don't want the option to save her can just not buy the DLC. Last but not least the whole Hawke family involvment in DA2 is a bit thin. So more dialogues and maybe even a short quest or two in the last chapter after Hawke has become the Champion would not really be a bad thing to have.

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
Yes if I understood it right they had a version of the quest where Leandra could be saved, but everyone picked to save her in the tests. So actually they should have the material somewhere which should make it even easier to implement it again.

The problem wasn't that "everyone picked to save her". It was that everyone thought they had to save her, and would reload/re-do the quest until the got the outcome that was perceived as the most optimum-- even if the result when Leandra dies is more dramatic and has more of an impact on the larger story.

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

If someone doesn't like it, that's fine. Up to you. But DLC is created to add content, not to skip it-- and, no, there is no material anywhere to make this easy to implement. Dialogue after Act 2 assumes that your mother is dead. Period. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
I loved how the quest went down, but it would have been a neat way to have delayed consequences if in addition to possibly having Leandra die in Act 2 as is, you were able to somehow save Leandra in Act 2 but doing so meant the Blood mage got away to screw over Hawke somehow maybe in Act 3  or later in Act 2. So either way Hawke would face the bad side of blood magic.

An interesting idea, and one that actually did occur to us (just as with many other quests)-- but at the end of the day it's really down to how many permutations we can afford. Hindsight is golden when it comes to such things.

[David Gaider]

Ghurshog wrote...
I dont think optimum is really the point. No one 'likes' having their family members murdered. I think the problem is that most customers want their families in tact (meaning not dead) and at the point where the Champions mother gets killed the player has had a chance to be emotionally connected to the character (as I was). And not having an option to save her was heart wretching because both of my siblings had died also (I didn't have the prescribed party config to save my sister in the deep roads). 

I believe people would choose to save her because of human nature. 

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

[David Gaider]

Piecake wrote...
I realize that there are time constraints and resource allocation and what-not involved, but I think the bigger problem that people have is that there wasn't an "I win" button, the problem is that there was no choice at all, even it was two really bad ones.

Because if that was the case there totally wouldn't be people here complaining about it in an entirely different way.

Not that I necessarily disagree. With enough time, we might have added something-- but the same could be said about a lot of things.

Still, I really really liked the quest.

And that, in the end, is what's important. I don't expect everyone to like it, or even "get" it, but I stand by it as the story I wanted to write. People are free to react as they wish, but I'm personally very pleased at how moved many were by it. To me that's a win.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 mars 2011 - 09:21 .

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think this is necessary, otherwise it would be easy for a contemporary individual to side with the freedom of the mages by default, as modern Western sensibilities would more or less dictate.

This is absolutely true. One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

HallowedWarden wrote...
 "If only we had more time we could..." could apply to every game ever made.

It could indeed. People will read what they want into such things, however. *shrug*

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
I'll put it easy for you so you understand.

And I'll put it easy for you to understand:

We're not going to re-write our quests to suit someone's individual tastes. If you don't like something that much, that's what modding is for. That is the final word on the matter.