11 réponses à ce sujet

[DanteCousland]

Contray to your popular beleif of peop;e crying plothole whenever they see something they either "Don't understand or don't like"  that doesn't mean that Dragon Age 2 isn't riddled with some very big story flaws. Namely Plotholes and retcons. I was hoping we could make a thread and compile all the plotholes for the devs to see and comment. I'll start.

Lelianas Miraculous revival. Yes you can do it, it's your game but for those who killed her it makes no sense and before yoyu go "But you was in a room full of magic dust L0L" let me mention she only turns on you if you DESTROY the ashes and take what you want for Eamon...Also when I killed her i did a decapitation move on her, pretty sure it's tricky to heal that.

The Timing doesn't add up. It takes only a small amount of common sense to realise that when you arrive at Kirkwall the events of Awakening should be happening. DAA BEGAN 6 months after origins. Yet you meet Anders and Sandal 1 year and the maxinum of 2-3 months (although 2-3 months is a stretch for the flight from ostagar/ lothering to 2 weeks on a ship and 4 days in the gallows...)... This isn't even mentioning Sandal being in Witch Hunt which was 6 months or soafte awakening correct, by then he is definitely in Kirkwall.
Discuss and add .

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
No clue. My favorite so far is the thread addressed to David that complains about companion inventory being static.

I read that Jennifer ruined combat in the game because she's not a fan of combat, despite having nothing whatsoever to do with that part of the game.

As for me, speaking on the forums evidently makes me in charge of everything that goes into the game, and I get to write whatever takes my fancy. Because this is how game development works, didn't you know?

DanteCousland wrote...
Contray to your popular beleif of
peop;e crying plothole whenever they see something they either "Don't
understand or don't like"  that doesn't mean that Dragon Age 2 isn't
riddled with some very big story flaws. Namely Plotholes and retcons.

And? I said that people often misuse the term "cliffhangers" as much as they do "plot hole" and "cliche"... because they do. That doesn't mean that everyone does so, or that they're always wrong.

Lelianas Miraculous revival.
Yes you can do it, it's your game but for those who killed her it makes
no sense and before yoyu go "But you was in a room full of magic dust
L0L" let me mention she only turns on you if you DESTROY the ashes and
take what you want for Eamon...Also when I killed her i did a
decapitation move on her, pretty sure it's tricky to heal that.

I don't think we've offered any kind of explanation regarding Leliana yet.

The
Timing doesn't add up. It takes only a small amount of common sense to
realise that when you arrive at Kirkwall the events of Awakening should
be happening. DAA BEGAN 6 months after origins. Yet you meet Anders and
Sandal 1 year and the maxinum of 2-3 months (although 2-3 months is a
stretch for the flight from ostagar/ lothering to 2 weeks on a ship and 4
days in the gallows...)... This isn't even mentioning Sandal being in
Witch Hunt which was 6 months or soafte awakening correct, by then he is
definitely in Kirkwall.

I'll just kindly point out that your assumption of how much time passed in Awakening, when there's nothing in the game that suggests anything more than the 6 months between Origin's end and Awakening's start, does not constitute a plot hole. Merely an erroneous assumption on your part.

But feel free to prove my point.

As for whether or not you or anyone else thinks that good storytelling is involved, I simply said that I understood the origin of the complaints even if not the conclusion drawn. I'm not passing judgement on someone's opinion. If you don't like something, I'm sure the technicality of whether or not it's a cliffhanger or plot hole is unimportant-- but as someone who uses words for a living I feel compelled to point out when they're abused. That said, any reasonable feedback is welcome.

Modifié par David Gaider, 31 mars 2011 - 10:04 .

[John Epler]

Aradace wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
No clue. My favorite so far is the thread addressed to David that complains about companion inventory being static.

I read that Jennifer ruined combat in the game because she's not a fan of combat, despite having nothing whatsoever to do with that part of the game.

As for me, speaking on the forums evidently makes me in charge of everything that goes into the game, and I get to write whatever takes my fancy. Because this is how game development works, didn't you know?

To the void with that, what I want to know is when you guys plan on releasing a console version patch?  Reason Im asking is because if the rumors are true that you guys arent, that way I can go ahead and sell my copy of DA2 to gamestop for some other poor schmuck to buy off the bargain bin

I'm not in any way involved with the patch team, but here's the latest word.

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's an issue of choice, nedpepper. I didn't kill Leliana or Zevran, but it's ridiculous when a choice you make is ignored completely when you're told your actions will have an impact on the world around you. I had the same feeling about the Magi boon being turned down, and finding out months later why Awakening made no acknowledgement of it when the ruler of Ferelden said it would happen. If your selling point is that your protagonist can make choices that matter, then it's an issue when those choices are blatantly ignored and overwritten.

Not every choice is going to have an impact-- we never suggested that was the case. Some choices will, small and large, while others will not. The point of making a choice is not solely because it will carry forward onto some future game. It affected the game it occurred within, and that's all it was ever meant to do.

The world is shaped by your choices, as much as we are able to accommodate them. If the results of some of your choices-- like with Leliana-- are not what you expected, then so be it. That's going to happen. It does not, however, suddenly invalidate everything. If someone feels it does, then fair enough-- I'm not about to argue the point, or apologize for it. Perhaps it would have been simpler to simply establish a canon and move forward from there. Certainly nobody could have complained about that.

[David Gaider]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
Just a funny thought...
I remember that way back in time, I asked you a question about how the fact that a Dead Warden can return in Awakening was going to be solved in DA2.
Then you said that it was gameplay-wise and not related to the story, so no Zombie Warden or something like that, fair enough.
But then you said something like "We're not bringing people back from the dead", so what happened with Leliana? Of course, her appearance doesn't "invalidate" the whole game, but it's still a bit weird after killing her, chopping her head off.
I don't have the post here, so don't take my words for gospel.

As I recall from that response, the question was with regards to whether the player who brings their DAO Warden into Awakening (who chose the Ultimate Sacrifice ending) would be explained. I said it wasn't. It wasn't an "in-world" event, it was the player ret-conning their own decision-- and not by my choice, certainly. I would have preferred if that wasn't necessary, but logistics made it necessary.

Not quite the same thing.

Also...while I understand what you're saying, then what's the point in killing a character if he or she is coming back anyway?

The point of killing a character is not so they won't come back. That's not the point of the option being there.

As I said before, not every choice you make will have the result you think it will. This doesn't mean everyone's leaping back to life at random, and with regards to Leliana we haven't explained what's up-- and won't anytime soon. An explanation won't matter in terms of it being an effective ret-con, sure, but we've no intention of simply changing what happened. What happened, happened... and I'll leave it at that.

[David Gaider]

JakePT wrote...
Picture you're reading a book, say, since I know you've read it, A Game of Thrones. Now say a major character who dies shows up in A Clash of Kings, perfectly OK. It appears the death didn't happen, their head is on their shoulders and none of the other characters seem to think anything is up. Now, I don't know about you, but that's just downright stupid. How would that be acceptable storytelling in any medium?

That depends on whether it's ever explained at all.

If it is, and I just don't like the explanation. then I rant for a while about stupid author perogative and how the story in my head was so much better... and when I calm down, I go back to reading. Or I don't. It's not a science.

I can't think of any film/book/play sequel or anything where a major character has DIED only for them to show up in the sequel with the events that caused their death never happening.

What never happened? Who said something never happened?

In any other medium it would be bad, not to mention lazy, storytelling, but because it's a game it gets a free pass? No, sorry, you don't. The story you've told me has terrible continuity. Oh? You say that it would make sense to some other people you told the story to? I don't care!

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about, here. Who said anything about a free pass? And who are these other people I told the story to? What?

And I do believe continuity in important, incidentally. That doesn't mean I'm not going to occasionally arrange events to happen the way I want them to (or need them to). If that means I don't consider some things sacred cows the way you do-- then I guess we're at an impasse. Sorry about that.

[David Gaider]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
Right.
David Gaider said..."Don't expect to receive an explanation anytime soon".
In other words, "We don't have an explanation, so stop complaining and get over it".

Err... no. It means it's not something that's going to be explained on a forum thread.

[David Gaider]

Pyrate_d wrote...
There is absolutely no REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION that can explain for Leliana and Zevran being alive.

Zevran is not alive if you killed him. His appearance, for some, is a bug that will hopefully be fixed soon. As for Leliana, we have an explanation-- whether or not you think it's a good one will be up to you.

Lord Gremlin wrote...
May I ask then, are there any large DLC or any such new DA content planned to be released anytime soon?

Sorry, but even if I wanted to I couldn't comment on this.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 10:16 .

[David Gaider]

petipas1414 wrote...
Is it so hard to admit you guys messed up? I could watch threat level midnight on the ****ing office and see a situation like this handled better. At least Michael admits he's wrong.

Your words are spreading the internets as well : http://www.escapistm...in-Dragon-Age-2

I'm not sure what it is you expect me to say. I'm not about to apologize for our choices, though I certainly recognize that not everyone is happy with them. As for threads elsewhere, if someone wants to go to other places on the internet to complain-- okay? I'm not sure what that proves, other than that some people are really determined to be right.

There is no right or wrong here, however-- there's people who enjoyed the story and there's people who didn't. I hear plenty from both. Feel free to explain why you think so, and I'll listen, but don't expect more than that.

Perhaps it's better if I simply said nothing in response. In fact, it very likely is.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 avril 2011 - 12:50 .

[David Gaider]

Ksandor wrote...
I am not surprised with Mr. Gaider's reaction. He says “I am the writer, this is my prerogative, go pout, I win”

Just a note that this is an unfair characterization of my response. I am not saying "go pout, I win". I am simply pointing out what I think should be obvious: that we are willing to make changes as we see fit, and that while some people may not like the idea of "retcons" (whether they are literal changes to past events or simply explanations for events that someone doesn't buy) they're going to happen. If someone wants to hold the opinion that not having every single choice carry forward as they expect ruins the credibility for all in-game reality... understood. I never claimed that reaction was invalid, or that anyone should "go pout".

It is, however, our perogative... and that is "our" and not just mine. I am the Lead Writer but I do not dictate everything about what a story will be. I know it is difficult for some to picture, but writing for a game is not like writing for a book. The story is only one element of a game and must work hand-in-hand with, and sometimes subservient to, the needs of other departments and their available resources. Pointing this out is not meant as arrogance, and I'd go so far as to suggest the only reason to suggest it's such is out of resentment... whether it's against me personally, the company or our decisions. Which is too bad.

At any rate, we're fully aware of the negative reactions, as I've already said. That does not disqualify the positive ones, nor the fact that we will move forward. If I'm going to occasionally pop in and mention when there's something that we will specifically do or not do in the future, you can either take that for what it is or ignore it. It's not meant as a personal attack, and having it responded to as such is a little disconcerting.

Take care.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 avril 2011 - 05:39 .

[David Gaider]

Miashi wrote...
I just have 1 question for David Gaider (if he still reads this topic): Will you be releasing a book between DA:2 and DA:3?

Possibly.

[David Gaider]

DanteCousland wrote...
David could I ask you a question?. Are you happy with how Dragon Age 2 turned out and the reaction it's getting. Also are you allowed to say things off the books or not?.

It's a mixed bag. Obviously I don't like some of the negative reaction-- who would? It's clear the fanbase is very polarized, and while that's not good it's also not altogether unexpected. Beyond that, I'm not really comfortable talking about it at length. There's some fans who seem particularly vengeful, and appear to look on anything that isn't a mea culpa of some kind as us completely ignoring what they see as overwhelmingly negative response (overwhelming in this case, I suppose, meaning any positive response is clearly invalid), which isn't the case either.

I can talk about my opinion, but insofar as a response goes or talking about our future plans, there's a very limited amount that I could say even if I wished to. Our plans will ultimately be up to us to decide, and we'll look to the forums as a source (if not the only source) of feedback for where to go.

Maria Caliban wrote...
I am serious.

Please tell me how Jurassic Park was not a great story.

It's probably because it's popular, and thus cooler to hate.

Not unlike Twilight, and the guy who keeps running around outraged at the very idea that I suggested the romance in Twilight was an interesting point of examination, considering how it clearly touched such a nerve. Since Twilight is considered terrible even by people who've only heard of it, this equates to it having nothing of interest for anyone or any positive qualities... ever... and any suggestion to the contrary is me endorsing it as both a story and a source of good romance.

Only extremes exist in the Internet. There is no middle ground, and nothing to learn even from failure. Perhaps, to these people, there is simply nothing to learn period. Which is probably the saddest commentary I can imagine.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 avril 2011 - 07:49 .