665 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

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.

Agreed.  This is pretty much my whole objection to this decision...  What is the point of a continuing storyline if our choices can and will be overturned at any time at the writers' whims?  But of course, that's just a matter of seeing this series as something it is not.  Now that I realize what's going on, I don't expect my choices to matter.  And the ones that do will be interesting to see... it's fine.  Not perfect, and not what I thought I was getting, but it's fine.

[Alamar2078]

Morroian wrote...

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.

Because Bioware chose not to it doesn't mean that they couldn't do it.  In addition because they failed to do it in other games doesn't really relate [other than setting a precident] to what happens in the DA series.

[Any0day]

Morroian wrote...

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

I suppose my only answer here for you is the BG2 plot holes did not impact the story overall to the point it required a massive explaination. It's one thing for a possibly dead comrade to show up in BG2 (EG : "Didn't I kill you Edwin?", "That was merely an inconvience.") and quite another to not address the issue entirely. It would be as if BG2 had Sarevok as the Villian with no explanation as to how or why he got there, even though we obviously killed him a few months (game time) before. Secondly, as far as I know - ressurection isn't possible in the da2 universe whereas in the forgotten realms it's quite common for the powerful. (remember, companions get 'knocked out,' they don't die in battle). Thirdly, it's easier to let things go because on older games at the time it was actually uncommon to import saves; they probably had no variables set to track character deaths. Is it totally irrational of me to expect things to be more sophisticated as time goes on?

 I'm actually not asking for Gaider to come in here and say "I made a mistake guy, sorry - my bad." All I'm asking for is a plausible explaination (hell, I'll even take a cheesy one) and I'm just recommending against doing it in the future because choices and death should matter.

[Khaldara]

But it doesn't. Really, it doesn't matter. I'm not even certain the manner in which your warden took on the Archdemon was referenced in the gameplay? If it was it was so fleeting I neglected to notice it and it didn't bother me a bit. You'd think that would have more far reaching implications in the mindset of the general populace than the death of a minor supporting character would. Not to mention it's laughable for people to attempt to quantify what is and isn't possible in a world in which the premise for all healing is "magic".

In DA:O your health ticks up from 2 hitpoints from death to full in about a minute or so. Last time I checked entrails don't pop back into place and have you up on your feet wearing platemail and swinging an axe sixty seconds after you're ready to bite it. For that matter, virtually any battle on nightmare ought to put your characters through years of physical therapy afterwards

Point being you're criticizing the possible reasons an event transpired as being "magic" as being laughably incredible in a game in which the primary reason every variety of healing transpires is because of "magic". In fact come to think of it, the recurrence of the Blight is the primary purpose of the original and followup narratives, where that very same thing happens! Do you see the hypocrisy here? Ahmgaz, I killed some of my supporting characters, they didn't die for some reason. BTW, I killed the Archdemon, we're already cool with the idea he'll come back with another massive army of minons in a little while, that's canon.

It's not a matter of caring whether or not Liliana survives, in fact Bioware could decimate the entire roster and line me up with new ones every time for all I care. The point is that you're arguing with an author about what did or did not transpire within his own work!

In fact... why don't I just leave this here: http://gawker.com/#!...ings-by-monkeys

Ignoring a minor plotpoint in favor of progression has been a timeless device for storytelling, and it's largely irrelevant whether or not you feel that's the case here (despite the lead writer blatantly telling you it's not.) How many sitcoms end unresolved, with everything at the beginning of the next episode exactly as it's always been, with no acknowledgement of prior events?

BG 2 was already cited as an example, the litany of other games to use the same device goes on and on. Chrono Trigger -> Chrono Cross (Oh noes, Chrono was dead in ma game!), every Super Mario game, practically every Sonic game, every Zelda game, it matters not whether you're talking about Bioware or the industry at large.

Sometimes things you "killed" don't die. I killed Ganon in the first Zelda game, then I had to kill him again in A Link to the Past! This invalidated my entire gaming experience! WTF! I shouldn't have even bothered to kill him if he was just going to come back again! Contrast this with the Archdemon example. Then, consider or not whether people are justifiably considering you to be nitpicking for the sake of being anal-retentive about nothing.

When you play a videogame, it's the journey that matters, not necessarily whether what you do NOW will be cited by someone later. You're gaming for the experience offered, do you expect writers to draft every story with the definite understanding that a sequel will be financed, and plan accordingly? That worked out well for the last televised episode of Alf (God I hope some of you are as old as I am and will get that reference).

Modifié par Khaldara, 05 avril 2011 - 02:40 .

[TJPags]

But where is the meaning in the journey if past events are changed?

Look, I get what people are saying about it being a minor plot point, one not a lot of people took, her limited role in DA2, etc. But is continuity important to a continuing story? I think it is.

Look at the complaints about bugs - I killed Zev, but he shows up in my game, or I saved Nathaniel, but can't get his quest, or I killed the Architect, but Nathaniel says he's alive. Are those just as silly? I mean, people aren't in those threads saying, "eh, so what, it's Bioware's game, if they want Zev alive/Nathaniel dead/Architect alive, deal with it". Why not?

What exactly is the difference between those issues, and this one?

[Xanfaus]

Alamar2078 wrote...

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]

I agree completely with this point here. Considering what little impact our choices seem to have in the Dragon Age games (at least as far as importing outcomes from Origins into DA2 or making new decisions in DA2 proper), it is a bit more disheartening to know that any and all choices or any outcomes of those choices can and will be changed. These alterations invalidate any last feelings of actually having any meaningful degree of impact on the whatever world our characters inhabit. Honestly, if the player has a choice that is not one that Bioware approves, why make the choice availible at all?

That being said I do appreciate Mr. Gaider for explaing his and presumably Bioware's position.

Modifié par Xanfaus, 05 avril 2011 - 02:52 .

[Icy Magebane]

@Khaldara: There is more than one Archdemon and Zelda is not the same game or world... it uses the same characters but the story and events are different in each game, except maybe 2-3 of the newer ones.

Beyond that... I don't even want to have this argument anymore, but what the hell. A lot of people are missing the point... there is no reason to care what choices you make if those choices do not matter. That's all. It would be fine in a game like Jade Empire... there is no sequel, and no continuation... DA is a series based on Thedas... if things randomly happen regardless of player input, then the series itself is no longer a single story. It's a series of games that are loosely based off one another.

And yes, it was always meant to be a series, so I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect to see the choices they made represented throughout the series... You think it would be okay if in ME, the Virmire survivor was a canon choice, or that Wrex just somehow shows up even if you killed him?

For the record, I prefer the way choice is handled in DA2. You see the results of many decisions carrying over between Acts, and that's the end of it... You know why almost everything you do results a nearly identical conclusion? Bioware realizes that there were too many variables in DA:O and has limited the amount of player input... nothing wrong with that, if that's even what they are doing. That's just how I see it...

[Any0day]

Xanfaus wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

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]

I agree completely with this point here. Considering what little impact our choices seem to have in the Dragon Age games (at least as far as importing outcomes from Origins into DA2 or making new decisions in DA2 proper), it is a bit more disheartening to know that any and all choices or any outcomes of those choices can and will be changed. These alterations invalidate any last feelings of actually having any meaningful degree of impact on the whatever world our characters inhabit. Honestly, if the player has a choice that is not one that Bioware approves, why make the choice availible at all?

That being said I do appreciate Mr. Gaider for explaing his and presumably Bioware's position.

Basically what I said and I agree 100%

[Suron]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

cheap copout and you know it.

if you're going to pull these stupid stunts and render the fabled "choices" your company uses as a SELLING POINT..then just REMOVE THEM ENTIRELY

set the damn canon and be done with it.  At least then you can stay consistant.  And not go completely against your own damn selling points.

sorry it's crappy writing, and your reasoning is cheap.  Just stop already.  Stop using "choice" as a selling point.  And forget it.  DA2 offers so little of it anyway that all you guys gotta do is just go ahead and take it that final step.

though I'm sure you'll call it "streamlining"

[Aliciatron]

Psycoman2 wrote...

They cant possibly account for all the things you could have done in origins. Get over it.
While they say there is no cannon, we all know thats not true.

This is the general cannon for origins, like it or not.
The warden was generally good (which means he did not kill any companions)
He did the dark ritual with morrigan and disappeared looking for her.

If this does not match your version of the lore, well tough luck.

i was going to say something like this, except since my warden is Queen Cousland and there were at least two conversations in the game stating so, i would be mortified if all of the sudden they gave her a sex change

when i played witch hunt i dont think i even had the option of going through the mirror, but maybe there was, and since there was no official save for the ending im sure they can do whatever they want


however YES there are too many options for every possibility to be included, and if some were retconned (like when i killed the Archdemon but Nathaniel told us he wasnt killed), then so be it. but maybe i played a standard enough game to not be disturbed by some of the retcons

[ransompendragon]

Let those wish to flame me as a troll enjoy themselves...as I just finished the game and have to say that any discussion about the meaninglessness of importing a save and having so many (pointless and unneccesary) DAO cameos pales in comparison to the god-awful climax of this game.

From the point where Anders does what he does to the end was a massive downhill slide out of the dragon age world into some B movie crap that can't possibly be salvaged. The sad part is there was the potential for a good story...and if they hadn't gone so far over the top maybe good background for DA3.

Sorry, but I don't see how anyone can defend this.

[Icy Magebane]

Nathaniel saying the Architect is alive is some kind of bug. Thankfully, they didn't canonize that decision... um... yet. Not getting my hopes up, but that's what the devs have said about that.

[Conduit0]

So I'm guessing no one plays the DA games just to have fun? Its just an exercise devoid of entertainment for the sole purpose of seeing how your choices effect the game world from one game to the next? If you had fun playing the game and making different choices over multiple playthroughs, than a few of your choices not carrying over, in no way ruins the experience you had making those choices to begin with.

Honestly, after all this, all I can say is, if you're really so bloody hung up over the fact that one minor possible choice didn't get counted, than maybe the DA series just isn't right for you. Bioware has made it pretty clear that they have a story to tell and they are going to tell it their way, even if it means they occasionally have to take an official canon stance on some issues to do it.

[TJPags]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Nathaniel saying the Architect is alive is some kind of bug. Thankfully, they didn't canonize that decision... um... yet. Not getting my hopes up, but that's what the devs have said about that.

Yes, it is.

But as I asked in my previous post, how come people complaining about that aren't being told "eh, it's Bioware's game, they wanted the Architect alive . . .deal with it."?

It's odd, I think, that bugs like that "must be fixed for the integrity of the game", but the exact issue, when intentional, is, according to many, perfectly alright.

[Merced652]

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.

Yea slipery slopes, they might ****ing kill you, but the ride is fun. 

[Conduit0]

TJPags wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Nathaniel saying the Architect is alive is some kind of bug. Thankfully, they didn't canonize that decision... um... yet. Not getting my hopes up, but that's what the devs have said about that.

Yes, it is.

But as I asked in my previous post, how come people complaining about that aren't being told "eh, it's Bioware's game, they wanted the Architect alive . . .deal with it."?

It's odd, I think, that bugs like that "must be fixed for the integrity of the game", but the exact issue, when intentional, is, according to many, perfectly alright.

Because if it wasn't a bug, people like me would have the same response to that as we do to Leliana. A bugged game flag and a concious plot decision are two different animals.
I can't speak for everyone, but atleast for me, they could bring back everyone I killed or revoke any other choice I made, as long as it serves to tell a good story, but thats just me.

[Brockololly]

With respect to Leliana (and I'm sure this has likely been brought up already), does she still show up and act like she traveled with the Warden and knew the Warden even if you never even picked her up in Lothering? Cause I don't quite get how you'd be able to explain away that.

Unless stalker Leliana was secretly trailing after the Warden across Ferelden like some Gollum like figure slinking in the shadows, only to convince herself that she was actually best buddies with the Warden in that case even though he/she likely told Leliana to scram back in Lothering.

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 avril 2011 - 04:25 .

[Ymladdych]

Modifié par Ymladdych, 28 septembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Xanfaus]

Conduit0 wrote...

So I'm guessing no one plays the DA games just to have fun? Its just an exercise devoid of entertainment for the sole purpose of seeing how your choices effect the game world from one game to the next?

Part of the fun is seeing how your actions might affect the game world in the future. If the choices do not matter in the end or the middle (whatever DA2 is), then are the choices really worth having as part of the game? That time and effort on the developer's part might as well be spent on some other aspect of the game instead of providing choices that might be overwritten in the future.

Honestly, after all this, all I can say is, if you're really so bloody hung up over the fact that one minor possible choice didn't get counted, than maybe the DA series just isn't right for you. Bioware has made it pretty clear that they have a story to tell and they are going to tell it their way, even if it means they occasionally have to take an official canon stance on some issues to do it.

Killing a companion because you made a decision is not what I would call a "minor" choice. You have quite possibly fought and bled with that person, traded stories, or became friends or more by that point in the game. Choosing to do something that they disagree with enough to fight you to the death, having the game (and the developer) suggest that the outcome might affect further games set in the same world, and then deciding without bothering to inform the player until pretty much the end of this game that some or all of those events "did not really happen" makes all of the talk about save game importing seem rather disingenuous.

Again, Bioware, and any other developers for that matter, are more than welcome to write and sculpt their worlds as they see fit, but do not pretend or give the impression that the choices that the player may make are actually important.

[Merced652]

Ymladdych wrote...

Merced652 wrote...
Yea slipery slopes, they might ****ing kill you, but the ride is fun.

I'm not really too worried about death by video game...slippery slope or otherwise.  So the fun is all that matters.

The point obviously doesn't scale down to your level. 

[Ymladdych]

Modifié par Ymladdych, 28 septembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Merced652]

Ymladdych wrote...

Merced652 wrote...
The point obviously doesn't scale down to your level. 

Any level I'm on that's not *your* level makes me a happy human being.

Blog about it.  

[SexBomb]

Suron wrote...

if you're going to pull these stupid stunts and render the fabled "choices" your company uses as a SELLING POINT..then just REMOVE THEM ENTIRELY

When I bought DAII, I was under the impression it was a non-linear RPG, because of the way it was marketed...  What happened...?

[Any0day]

Thats-Your-Funeral wrote...

Suron wrote...

if you're going to pull these stupid stunts and render the fabled "choices" your company uses as a SELLING POINT..then just REMOVE THEM ENTIRELY

When I bought DAII, I was under the impression it was a non-linear RPG, because of the way it was marketed...  What happened...?

It's almost as linear as FF13, only thing is it doesn't play the game for you.

[SexBomb]

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.

Isn't that statement a little...  Extreme?