665 réponses à ce sujet

[Paeyne]

AlexXIV wrote...

Siradix wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Why does this remind me of Anders at the end of the game?

Well because of the fact that people like extremes, because they probably possess more conflict potential and thus are more interesting. So middle ground choices are usually the boring ones.

Middle ground is often looked at as banal and compromise is often seen as mediocrity. 

I believe the opposite is true.  Any writer can tell you that without conflict there is no story.


To me, the intricacy and dynamics of comprimise is far more interesting than the static and unbending polar opposites.  Seeing both sides struggle to obtain some equilibrium is more entertaining than seeing them take their toys and go home.  That's probably the reason I read these boards at all.

The problem with comprimise is that, in an attempt to make everyone happy you succeed in making no-one happy.  Content is usually the best you get with comprimise.

The problem with the polar opposites is that neither side ever considers for a moment that they may be wrong.  That's not only unreasonable, it can be very dangerous.  The reality is that often both sides are wrong, at least to some degree.

Modifié par Paeyne, 04 avril 2011 - 09:36 .

[Miashi]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

You know what though, a lot of movies don't render a fair justice to their book counterparts. And I believe that applies to games as well. I think that your story could've been portrayed better in Dragon Age 2. But in the end, I guess you're the best judge of it.

[Any0day]

David Gaider wrote...

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".

While I understand the general statement you're making Mr. Gaider, I think this is a bit of a let down for me. Nothing erks me more than reading a book, watching a tv show, etc - and having someone who blew up in nuclear explosion mysteriously returns to the forefront of a story because their return is justified by the fact we didn't actually see them die. I won't lie, this is definitely 'my opinion' on what I consider good writing practices, but when people come back to life for completely outlandish reasoning - it comes off as sloppy. A writer (or indeed your writing team) has to take these things into consideration before-hand and realize that there are some corners you can be backed into if you aren't careful with your canon.  If you (as a person or a company) are unable to deal with the harsh reality of giving the player life-ending choices - simply do not include them. You can take offense to that statement, or just accept it for what it is. I agree that if you give us the choice to kill someone in your world they need to stay dead. While you are free to disagree; it's a bit of an immersion breaker to see people who have more lives than a cat. You can look at it this way too: if all deaths are final, then death itself will have a much bigger impact. You can't possibly expect your gamers/readers/viewers to take it seriously if your writing team and you do not take it seriously yourself - and once death looses it's impact, the story does aswell. 

I won't sit here and pretend I'm on some pedestal of writing genius claiming that I know all the answers, because you and I both know that good writing is a very fluid and ambivalent practice. I will say that it's a general consensus that continually recycling characters, especially ones who are supposed to be dead, eventually comes off as uninspired and uncreative.

Edit: I will say this much: I think the way Sarevok was brought back in ToB was very believable and well writen. I will, for now, accept the fact that you may have something up your sleeve for Leliana. A simple cutscene in Da3 detailing this if she was killed in the save would be enough to satiate my curiosity.

Link: 

Modifié par Any0day, 04 avril 2011 - 11:12 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

If Leliana dies and BW forgot she could be killed then just tell that. That's a better explanation then some rationalization later in the game. Anything BW comes up with now will be viewed by people like me as nonsense. That has to do with the fact that even though I love the game there was so much wrong with it that this is just one more of the many bugs and flaws. It's about credibility and getting it back.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 avril 2011 - 10:53 .

[Conduit0]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If Leliana dies and BW forgot she could be killed then just tell that. That's a better explanation then some rationalization later in the game. Anything BW comes up with now will be viewed by people like me as nonsense. That has to do with the fact that even though I love the game there was so much wrong with it that this is just one more of the many bugs and flaws. It's about credibility and getting it back.

Or they could just simply disregard a handful of overly determined haters and move on with their story for the rest of us who simply accept that things don't always go the way we want it to, and continue to enjoy the story inspite of it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Conduit0 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If Leliana dies and BW forgot she could be killed then just tell that. That's a better explanation then some rationalization later in the game. Anything BW comes up with now will be viewed by people like me as nonsense. That has to do with the fact that even though I love the game there was so much wrong with it that this is just one more of the many bugs and flaws. It's about credibility and getting it back.

Or they could just simply disregard a handful of overly determined haters and move on with their story for the rest of us who simply accept that things don't always go the way we want it to, and continue to enjoy the story inspite of it.

I don't care that a handful of over zealous BW defenders with the intelligence of a peanut call me a hater.

[Torax]

I'm leaning to Condiut0's line of thinking. It's not as important to me to point a flaw just because for some reason pointing it out drastically changes anything? She was standing there. Point was made on the first page was it not? Gaider obviously read it. Move on. Odds are it's what the Writers will be doing.

Modifié par Torax, 04 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[Morroian]

Conduit0 wrote...

Or they could just simply disregard a handful of overly determined haters and move on with their story for the rest of us who simply accept that things don't always go the way we want it to, and continue to enjoy the story inspite of it.

This.

The writer Neil Gaiman once said something like if continuity is getting in the way of a good story then continuity should be ignored, or words to that effect.

[dantares83]

I think Mr. Gaider explained it all.... some of us are just very disappointed with the game and when that happens, even a tiny mistake is magnified a 100 times...

if DA2 was as great as DAO, I think a lot of people would be ok even with cliche explanation that Leliana is the chosen one...

[AngryFrozenWater]

dantares83 wrote...

I think Mr. Gaider explained it all.... some of us are just very disappointed with the game and when that happens, even a tiny mistake is magnified a 100 times...

if DA2 was as great as DAO, I think a lot of people would be ok even with cliche explanation that Leliana is the chosen one...

Exactly. That's how it goes. Hiding the booboo works against BW. If you've lost credibility then that's not the way to go.

[Torax]

dantares83 wrote...

I think Mr. Gaider explained it all.... some of us are just very disappointed with the game and when that happens, even a tiny mistake is magnified a 100 times...

if DA2 was as great as DAO, I think a lot of people would be ok even with cliche explanation that Leliana is the chosen one...

I also think some are looking with Rose Colored Glasses at Origins. It alone had flaws. Neither game is perfect. Just like Mass Effect 1 & 2 have their great points and their weak ones. I hated the Elevators but maybe others loved them. I may look back on games like Grim Fandango and ESCAPE FROM MONEKY ISLAND! fondly but that doesn't mean they were perfect in any way shape and form. There is no such thing as a perfect game besides maybe Tetris.

[TJPags]

You know, it amazes me - although maybe it shouldn't - that the person taking this discussion with the highest degree of calm seems to be David Gaider himself.  So many people seem upset by the very thought that people don't like the Leliana alive thing.  Yet who's not upset by it?  David Gaider.  Or at least, his posts don't seem horrified and upset - I'm sure to some degree, he would prefer that everyone be happier with it.

I've read this whole thread - yes, even the posts I didn't make.    And I read all of David's responses.  I chose this one to quote:

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I highlighted his response to a hypothetical very much like the situation we have with Leliana.  Character is killed, character is back, with no ill effects apparent.  How does Mr. Gaider respond?  He wants to see the explanation.  Seems perfectly reasonable, to me.  Seems like what a lot of people, myself included, are wondering - what is the explanation?

Now, I have said that this appears to be a retcon.  That was before David Gaider ever posted in this thread, or any other that I saw, stating that there was an explanation.  Okay, I have since changed my attitude - I now say it seems like a retcon to me, but I'm willing to see the explanation, and then decide if I like it.

And what did Mr. Gaider say he would do in this situation?  Look for the explanation, decide if he liked it, and respond accordingly - continue reading (in the example given) or give it up.  He also allowed for the possibility of ranting.

Why are we, fans of the DA series, not allowed the same?  Why must we simply swallow this turn of events with no complaint?  Why can't we ask if there is an explanation, and ask to see it?

Now, I understand Leliana is important to the series, in the view of the devs.  That's fine - its their story, they SHOULD decide who's important.  I understand they decided she was important enough to bring back, even though they gave the player the option to kill her.  And yes, she was killed - her body fell, her body was looted, her body vanished, just like anyone else you kill.  At least, it seemed we killed her.  It seems there is an explanation.

All we're saying is, we want to hear it.  I know that David Gaider is not going to post it here on this forum, nor is any other member of the DA team.  I fully understand that.  I hope to see it in some future installment of this series - DA3, some form of DLC, etc.  Not seeing it will bother me.  Not liking it will bother me.  But you know what - David Gaider accepts that I - or others - may not like it.  Why don't the rest of you?

[Alamar2078]

While I don't agree with the position of Mr. Gaider I do complement him on standing up for what he believes in as an artist. He gets points for that.

As a player of the games though I will just have to accept that what I see or choose or do simply may not matter and the makers of the game don't care about what I want or the actions I acutally take in the game ... IIRC Mr. Gaider said that he / Bioware will pretty much do what they want and they basically don't care about anything else. [A strong paraphrase but it gets the jist across]

As consumers we basically vote with our purses. If this issue means enough to you that you can't trust Bioware then don't buy anything else. If you still like Bioware then buy their stuff. Personally I don't have any saves where L is dead. On the other hand I would have rather have seen her galavanting around with the Hero of Fereldon instead of being a VIP with the Chantry.

[Alamar2078]

As for the explanation you can get it with either DLC or DA3 ... there comes the rub though. Do you want to pay if this is something that would just "ruin the game for you" if you don't like the explanation.

It's either that or you get spoiled on the story of the game / explanation and lose enjoyment that way.

This is looking more like a No-Win situation for the folks that are up-in-arms about things.

[Volourn]

Leliana possibly coming back fromt he dead for 'story reasons' sure beats lamebutt Minsc and co coming in BG2 after we slaughter them all in BG1 *just because*.

Again, Gaider and co did a great job with the writing in DA2. It also sure beats having to slaughter a mindless and boring big bad in the Archdemon.

I'll take the over the top Meredith and the surprise blood magic useage from orsino any day of the week over the Archdemon as far as villains go. Thank you very much.

I'll take the funny, heroic, and suave Varric over the pathetic, disgusting Oghren any day of the week.

LONG LIVE DA2 DEATH TO DA1!!!

[Any0day]

Volourn wrote...

LONG LIVE DA2 DEATH TO DA1!!!

I honestly don't think you're going to win any argument by jumping the fence to the other extreme.

The impact of Minsc or Jaheira being alive in BG2 was very little compared to that of DA2

Modifié par Any0day, 05 avril 2011 - 12:13 .

[SexBomb]

Alamar2078 wrote...

While I don't agree with the position of Mr. Gaider I do complement him on standing up for what he believes in as an artist. He gets points for that.

I've come to wonder, though, if he's really defending what he believes, or if he's simply trying to justify it?

[Any0day]

laecraft wrote...

Generations could change between one game and the next. Mortals either forget or never knew what was before. There are those like me who never played Awakening and know nothing about Anders' past. Why should the games be connected by characters, anyway? Is it to maintain an emotional bond? Does it work or does it only frustrate the players? Really, no one is relieved by having a self-contained experience in a new game from the clean start? But it's so refreshing. Like dying and be born anew, without the burden of all the previous victories and mistakes. It should be fine as long as each game is a complete, satisfying story in itself, without too frustrating cliffhangers. Isn't being connected by the world enough? I find it more exciting to meet strangers and learn their backgrounds from scratch.

Putting aside the fact that all dragon age 2 is to me is a huge interlude with about the same mystery as an episode of Lost and around same layering of story as a Goosebumps book with a mini subplot at every chapter, let me try to evaluate what it is you're suggesting...

'A good self contained story...' My god - what a grand idea, too bad that isn't what dragon age 2 was even remotely meant to be. Look - it's not the Warden's story, but to even suggest dragon age 2 wasn't a sequel to dragon age is a silly notion. Next I'll be hearing the reason Leliana is alive is because she's really a different Leliana from the future of an alternate timeline sent back in time to protect the main character of da3...

Look, I'm totally fine with plot holes and inconsistencies - crap happens and writers make mistakes. However when you're writing a story in the same universe that you previously created, any huge gaping plot holes you make better be explained well if you intend to keep your audience. 

Considering that in the save I imported, I was an evil bastard who killed Leliana and now she's not only alive but some head general (maybe even the leader) of some private chantry army is a freakin huge plot hole left unexplained. Next thing you'll tell me is I played the first game wrong.

[Lord_Valandil]

Volourn wrote...
LONG LIVE DA2 DEATH TO DA1!!!

DA2's kingdom wouldn't last. The rebels will bring it down and return the crown to the true king.

[Morroian]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Aint that the truth, a case in point being this forum. I guess the more moderate views tend to get drowned out and those with moderate views don't stick around for the discussion.

[Morroian]

Thats-Your-Funeral wrote...

I've come to wonder, though, if he's really defending what he believes, or if he's simply trying to justify it?

Why is it so hard to believe that a writer would regard story as king, trumping even continuity if it gets in the way.

Any0day wrote...

Look, I'm totally fine with plot holes and inconsistencies - crap happens and writers make mistakes. However when you're writing a story in the same universe that you previously created, any huge gaping plot holes you make better be explained well if you intend to keep your audience. 

They didn't in BG2, supposedly the greatest rpg ever.

Modifié par Morroian, 05 avril 2011 - 01:47 .

[Alamar2078]

laecraft wrote...
How odd. A lot of people seem to take issue with their imported choices. Particularly...Leliana? From DAO, isn't she? Why does she matter in this game, anyway? She doesn't take any part in the story, except for the brief cameo at the end, right? Why cling to the past so fiercely? The whole issue reeks of necromancy. Wouldn't it be easier to just let go of the past and enjoy the current story, the new characters? The new characters were not engaging enough to make everyone to forget about her?

One of the main points of a Bioware game [or any RPG] where decisions and actions theoretically matter is that it gives the player the illusion of at least some level of control.  When that illusion is stripped away from the player one of the most important points of playing an RPG is lost.

That's why I imagine the issue is so large.   This plus a lack of a clear in game explanation [both "how" and "why"] hasn't helped much.  Lastly I'm not convinced that some of the posts made by Bioware reps. have been word crafted in such a way as to diffuse the situation.

[Lord_Valandil]

Alamar2078 wrote...

laecraft wrote...
How odd. A lot of people seem to take issue with their imported choices. Particularly...Leliana? From DAO, isn't she? Why does she matter in this game, anyway? She doesn't take any part in the story, except for the brief cameo at the end, right? Why cling to the past so fiercely? The whole issue reeks of necromancy. Wouldn't it be easier to just let go of the past and enjoy the current story, the new characters? The new characters were not engaging enough to make everyone to forget about her?

One of the main points of a Bioware game [or any RPG] where decisions and actions theoretically matter is that it gives the player the illusion of at least some level of control.  When that illusion is stripped away from the player one of the most important points of playing an RPG is lost.

That's why I imagine the issue is so large.   This plus a lack of a clear in game explanation [both "how" and "why"] hasn't helped much.  Lastly I'm not convinced that some of the posts made by Bioware reps. have been word crafted in such a way as to diffuse the situation.

Pretty much this.

[Morroian]

Alamar2078 wrote...

One of the main points of a Bioware game [or any RPG] where decisions and actions theoretically matter is that it gives the player the illusion of at least some level of control.  When that illusion is stripped away from the player one of the most important points of playing an RPG is lost.

Thats fair enough within a game but across games set in the same world? They couldn't even do it in BG2.