665 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

let's see,

• DA:O - roughly a year is what we fans believe, if not longer.
• Hawke's journey to Gwaren - Shouldn't have taken too long with Flemeth alongside them.
• 3 days waiting for Gamlen, Aveline says this.
• a year of servitude
• Meet Anders who knows when, because game time and real time are not equivalent. For all we know, Hawke is doing all these quests over a course of months and then Anders comes in, despite these quests only being maybe a few hours for us to complete.

You're right, it shouldn't be a problem really.

Yeah, the only thing is that I was under the impression that Flemeth just took off after saving them and did not actually accompany them to Gwaren, so I'm still iffy on how long it took to get there. *shrug*

EDIT: Just replayed the beginning, and Flemeth does say that she'll get them past the darkspawn, so yeah - I think you're right.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 05 avril 2011 - 10:32 .

[didymos1120]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Urgh. Again the excuse of "The decapitation is only for show".

It's not an "excuse".  It's a plain fact: your save file does not include plot flags for any decapitation, shattering, immolation, or whatever, be they perpetrated against former friendlies or not.  To the game, things are either "dead" or "not dead", and that is it. The only beheading I know of, in the entire game, that "truly" happened was Loghain's, and that's not due to there actually being a "Loghain was beheaded" plot flag, but because it was in the script (though not actually shown, amusingly enough.  Just heavily implied by the cutscene).

I am pleased to see, however, that my "amazing" prediction that people would not stop bringing this up was fulfilled. Fear me!  I has powers!

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 avril 2011 - 08:16 .

[Ostagar2011]

Conduit0 wrote...

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,

I think you're being a little hard on the many people (certainly my friends who played DAO) who replayed Origins for the n-th time just to get their 'perfect world state' going into DA2. You can see countless threads about this here, on the steam forums and lots of other sites. What fools they all were!

Basically these people replayed a whole 80 hour game, just because they thought (eg) that on reflection some of the Mages' Collective quests were ominous and might lead to very bad things in DA2 or 3. Or they wanted to end with +100 Morrigan (romance flag) instead of +100 Morrigan (friendship flag). This is now sadly laughable.

The game was called 'Origins' presumably for a reason, and was massively deep, leaving ME in the dust. So I can accept that Shepard only gets some little telepathic 'kthxbai' message from the Rachni Queen (which, if you didn't play, was an fantastic moral dilema in ME1, with potentially massive intergalactic 'Rachni Wars' being the consequence of getting it wrong). But I have a problem with trivializing/handwaiving/retconing DAO decisions.

The issue boils down to expectations. IMO, the PR vibes were definitely that BioWare is about choices and consequences, diverging story arcs, and so you should not take decisions lightly.

Is it the dealbreaker that 'stops me having fun'? On its own no. But with the rest of the game so broken on a lot of levels, I was hoping that story would at least save it.

Modifié par Ostagar2011, 05 avril 2011 - 08:19 .

[ForeignPatriot]

What I think is silly is the way this all comes across.

I doubt many people would have an issue with it if the devs said something like "We totally forgot/overlooked the fact that Leliana could be dead. However, we have come up with a cool solution which will be revealed in DA: 3 (or in the "future") and we think you will like it"

Instead they come off as making a mistake and then trying to cover it/justify it by implying there IS a reason they're not going to reveal.

If you ask me, its a little far fetched to think they "meant" for this to happen. And if they did, it was done in a terrible way as I don't think anyone got the sense that there was more to Leliana's death than met the eye (unlike Morrigan's).

I think BW could learn a little from Chris Metzen over at Blizzard who admits when something is a mistake or retcon but continues to move the story forward.

There is no arguing that keeping track of ALL the choices a player makes is HARD. Some choices will be overlooked or ignored, it happens. However, I think a lot of these concerns would be put to rest with some reassurance that the series continues to be about choices.

Either way, Leliana is here to stay so, lets just have faith in the writers, they usually come through. I am sure they will come up with a better explanation since they are, after all, BioWare.

If not, we'll have to chalk her reappearance as an oversight. But we can at least move on


Just my 2 cents.

[Any0day]

Honestly, I doubt any of us would be here rattling the cage if the story was as in-depth as the previous game. Issues like this one are exacerbated by the shallow overall plot.

[didymos1120]

TJPags wrote...
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.

And you're assuming that everyone who thinks the bugs should be fixed is declaiming "It must be. For the integrity of the game!", rather than just wanting known bugs fixed because they're, well, bugs (which is the far more common reason in my experience). 

If you want to know why the intentionality of the Leliana thing changes things for some, you'll just have to poll everyone individually, because there is no one simple reason that explains all the reactions to that authorial choice, even if you can classify those most of those reactions as "OK with it" and "Not OK with it".

Some are OK with it because they just plain don't care enough. Or because they accept Gaider's statement that an explanation will be forthcoming and trust that it'll be decent enough when it finally arrives.  Or it's the mere fact that it's not a bug.

Others are not OK with it because they hate that kind of thing in fiction in general, explained or not. Or because they hate having any choice they made in a video game overruled, also explained or not.

Etc., so on, so forth, ad nauseum.

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 avril 2011 - 09:07 .

[didymos1120]

ForeignPatriot wrote...
Instead they come off as making a mistake and then trying to cover it/justify it by implying there IS a reason they're not going to reveal.

If you ask me, its a little far fetched to think they "meant" for this to happen.

They pretty clearly did mean for it to happen, because that final cutscene of the game with Leliana is not in fact an in-engine one, but pre-rendered.  They gave themselves no option for her to not be in it, unlike all the other DA:O character cameos where they are handled in-engine (including the other Leliana appearance) and therefore could vary based on player choices. Whether or not those other cameos actually do so properly, thanks to bugs, the two very different intents at work are quite obvious.

Everyone is of course free to hate that decision, but it definitely was deliberate.

Also, it has never been said it's for "a reason [we]'re not going to reveal."  Gaider simply said it has not yet been revealed and he isn't about to do so on some forum thread.

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 avril 2011 - 09:14 .

[ForeignPatriot]

didymos1120 wrote...

ForeignPatriot wrote...
Instead they come off as making a mistake and then trying to cover it/justify it by implying there IS a reason they're not going to reveal.

If you ask me, its a little far fetched to think they "meant" for this to happen.

They pretty clearly did mean for it to happen, because that final cutscene of the game with Leliana is not in fact an in-engine one, but pre-rendered.  They gave themselves no option for her to not be in it, unlike all the other DA:O character cameos where they are handled in-engine and therefore could vary based on player choices. Whether or not those other cameos actually do so properly, thanks to bugs, the two very different intents at work are quite obvious.

Everyone is of course free to hate that decision, but it definitely was deliberate.

Also, it has never been said it's for "a reason [we]'re not going to reveal."  Gaider simply said it has not yet been revealed and he isn't about to do so on some forum thread.

That's exactly what I mean. They put Leliana in the end cinematic because either they forgot she could be killed or they decided they wanted her back no matter what choices the player made in the first game.

Like I said, its either an oversight or a retcon. If they had this in mind when they made the Sacred Ashes quest then, it was very poorly executed.

[ForeignPatriot]

Also, just adding:

I'm nor arguing that they should reveal ANY plot through forums. I was simply pointing out that it seemed... odd.

Like when someone tells you they found something amazing but, when you ask them to show you, they claim they left it somewhere conveniently out of the way.

Anyway, like I said before, I have faith the devs will come up with a cool reason. If they don't, no biggie I will probably still enjoy their products

[EmperorSahlertz]

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 05 avril 2011 - 09:29 .

[Aradace]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

First of all, saying that you're bringing a character back to life just to fill a larger role in the world you created, if it's NOT a ret-con, then it's still lame and lazy ass story telling.  Regardless of how they "explain" the character(s) miraculous return.  It just screams soap opera IMO.

[ForeignPatriot]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a literary work. Retcons may be carried out for a variety of reasons, such as to accommodate sequels or further derivative works in the same series, to reintroduce popular characters, to resolve chronological issues, to reboot a familiar series for modern audiences, or to simplify an excessively complex continuity structure.

It doesn't necessarily need to be "you didn't kill her" it is "your choice that lead to her death is disregarded". Like I said, there is little to no evidence to suggest this is something they had planned when they made Origins. they retroactively altered the story.

No suggestion is made at that point of the story in Origins to imply that characters you killed in combat "may be alive". This is why I made the distinction between Leliana's potential death and say, Morrigan falling through the portal after you stab her. 

This suggests that they didn't plan on Leliana coming back for a DA: 2 and thus, had to come up with a reason (outside of the original material) to justify her existence. this is why I refer to it as a retcon. If you don't like the term, fine we don't have to use it  I just hope you understand what I mean.


Furthermore, the fact that this "reason" wasn't revealed or even hinted at during the events of DA: 2 implies that it might have been an oversight. 

I'm not saying its a bad thing or that I won't buy into the reason they decide to give us (I mean, there's magic in this world) I was just stating why it seemed odd and like I said, I was only commenting in how "it came across". 

After all, I am not in the loop with the development team, for all I know Leliana is supposed to be the second coming of Andraste since the first game and we just don't know 

Regards.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Aradace wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

First of all, saying that you're bringing a character back to life just to fill a larger role in the world you created, if it's NOT a ret-con, then it's still lame and lazy ass story telling.  Regardless of how they "explain" the character(s) miraculous return.  It just screams soap opera IMO.

It is not a retcon. A retcon would be if they said: "This incident simply didn't happen. This happened instead". They aren't doing that. Instead they say they've got a reason to bring her back to life, that they won't tell us. Wether or not that is poor storytelling is subject to personal opinion.

[Aradace]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Aradace wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

First of all, saying that you're bringing a character back to life just to fill a larger role in the world you created, if it's NOT a ret-con, then it's still lame and lazy ass story telling.  Regardless of how they "explain" the character(s) miraculous return.  It just screams soap opera IMO.

It is not a retcon. A retcon would be if they said: "This incident simply didn't happen. This happened instead". They aren't doing that. Instead they say they've got a reason to bring her back to life, that they won't tell us. Wether or not that is poor storytelling is subject to personal opinion.

You're right, it is subject to personal opinion.  And in MY opinion, it's ****** poor, lazy, and lame ass story telling regardless of their excuse.

[Talogrungi]

ForeignPatriot wrote...

Like I said, its either an oversight or a retcon. If they had this in mind when they made the Sacred Ashes quest then, it was very poorly executed.

It's really neither.

DA2's ending sets Leliana up to be a major player in DA3's war between the Mages and the Chantry. I think we can all agree that this is so. It's no oversight for her to be in the ending; it's absolutely intentional and (imo) a fairly significant foreshadowing of DA3.

Despite the protestations to the contrary, it is not a retcon. A retcon would be "You didn't kill her in Origins, even if you did." .. Gaider has already stated that this is not the case. If you killed her, she died .. but she's now alive again.

How and why have not yet been revealed; there are many things that we simply do not know at this point .. which makes sense as we're still in the middle of the story. It'll be a measure of the writers prowess as to how well all these questions are answered once the story has drawn to a close.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Aradace wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Aradace wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except it is not a retcon. Gaider has clearly stated, that even if we did "kill" her, there is a reason she is back. A retcon would just be Gaider saying: "Yeah, you didn't kill her. Period."

First of all, saying that you're bringing a character back to life just to fill a larger role in the world you created, if it's NOT a ret-con, then it's still lame and lazy ass story telling.  Regardless of how they "explain" the character(s) miraculous return.  It just screams soap opera IMO.

It is not a retcon. A retcon would be if they said: "This incident simply didn't happen. This happened instead". They aren't doing that. Instead they say they've got a reason to bring her back to life, that they won't tell us. Wether or not that is poor storytelling is subject to personal opinion.

You're right, it is subject to personal opinion.  And in MY opinion, it's ****** poor, lazy, and lame ass story telling regardless of their excuse.

But we can't really use your , or mine, or anyone else's opinion on the matter for anything now, can we? What we are discussing is wether or not it is a retcon, which it isn't. I understand a lot of the concerns about this particular subject, but it just isn't a retcon.

[ForeignPatriot]

Talogrungi wrote...

ForeignPatriot wrote...

Like I said, its either an oversight or a retcon. If they had this in mind when they made the Sacred Ashes quest then, it was very poorly executed.

It's really neither.

DA2's ending sets Leliana up to be a major player in DA3's war between the Mages and the Chantry. I think we can all agree that this is so. It's no oversight for her to be in the ending; it's absolutely intentional and (imo) a fairly significant foreshadowing of DA3.

Despite the protestations to the contrary, it is not a retcon. A retcon would be "You didn't kill her in Origins, even if you did." .. Gaider has already stated that this is not the case. If you killed her, she died .. but she's now alive again.

How and why have not yet been revealed; there are many things that we simply do not know at this point .. which makes sense as we're still in the middle of the story. It'll be a measure of the writers prowess as to how well all these questions are answered once the story has drawn to a close.

I'll refer you to my post above 

However, I would just like to add that, creative writers don't simply go "nah, we changed it".  A retcon that has a creative solution is still a retcon, just a well executed one! But like I said above, we don't have to use that term. We could agree to call it "a surprising outcome" considering what we thought to be the truth (Dragon Age: Origins).


Oh and please read this part, Talo...

I never said that Leliana appearing at the end of DA: 2 wasn't intentional, what I am referring to as unintended is the fact that you can kill her in DA: O and she still shows up in DA: 2 for the reasons I stated above.

Sorry if the way I phrased that before was confusing, a bit tired 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm.. But it is NOT a retcon. It would be a retcon if they said she never died. But they say she DID die, she just got better. That is not an alteration of previously established lore, it is an expansion on it. Somehow (if killed) Lelianna came back to life. That's the long and short. No retcon, no misinterpretation, just plain old simple mystery.

[AngryFrozenWater]

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.

I agree with both posts. It looks to me it has to do with damage control in the aftermath of the critique DA2 got. Trivializing decisions should make them feel less important. And people like me find that odd, especially after the whole decisions "shape the world" campaign. It was important enough to dedicate a large part of a BW podcast to it. If the company backs out from that point of view then they shouldn't be surprised that gamers feel cheated about it. If anything BW says can only be seen as hollow marketing talk then BW shouldn't be surprised that they lose well earned respect.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[ForeignPatriot]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.. But it is NOT a retcon. It would be a retcon if they said she never died. But they say she DID die, she just got better. That is not an alteration of previously established lore, it is an expansion on it. Somehow (if killed) Lelianna came back to life. That's the long and short. No retcon, no misinterpretation, just plain old simple mystery.

I would redirect you to the wikipedia link I posted on retroactive continuity. You don't have to call it a retcon if you don't want to but, tell me you understand what I'm trying to say above.

To the average observer, using contemporary community standards and  logical deduction, this was not the outcome that was intended when they created Origins. They retroactively altered the perception of the story by bringing her back (if you killed her) and thus altered the potential continuity of the story. This IS retroactive continuity in the sense that it simplifies the story because Leiliana lives to be part of what's to come, regardless of what the player chose during the events of Origins. 

Just because a writer says after the fact that he has a reason yet to be revealed as to why this happened, doesn't mean that this reason existed at the time the story was created and thus, they are altering the continuity of the story retroactively. 

But, like I also stated above, we have no way of knowing for certain wether this was an afterthought, a retcon, an oversight or intended all along. We can only discuss this point using what we have in front of us.

I think I already explained why then, this SEEMS odd. but, alas we can't and won't find out until the next portion of source material is presented to us. 

Sorry for the rant but, stating over and over again that this is not a "retcon" when all indicated that this is definitely a case of retroactively altering the continuity of the story by adding outside elements not previously present, seems like a silly argument that undermines the true nature of the discussion we were having a page ago 

[hanoobken]

Today I on my 5th playthrough I decided to completely be a jerk to Merill at every turn. Funny thing is, after I denied giving her the item that Marethari entrusted to me, Merill still slept with me and moved into my mansion even though rivalry was maxed.

She then went back to her hut and smashed the mirror saying that she should have done it years ago sometime in Act 2. That excited me a bit, a different outcome in the story which i did not expect.

But then in Act 3, with the mirror smashed and all... she starts the same story over, The mirror doesn't work and she needs my help to fix it by going to the demon in Sundermount.

I mean... WTF Bioware? I understand that importing saves can be hard but Merill is a product of DA 2. Couldn't you at least have changed that outcome? How the heck is my absolute rival my lover? How does she fix the mirror when she herself smashed it to pieces? Come on.... you can do better than that can't you? Why give us a choice on how to do things when the outcome doesn't change at all? I feel kinda cheated...

[Aradace]

hanoobken wrote...

Today I on my 5th playthrough I decided to completely be a jerk to Merill at every turn. Funny thing is, after I denied giving her the item that Marethari entrusted to me, Merill still slept with me and moved into my mansion even though rivalry was maxed.

She then went back to her hut and smashed the mirror saying that she should have done it years ago sometime in Act 2. That excited me a bit, a different outcome in the story which i did not expect.

But then in Act 3, with the mirror smashed and all... she starts the same story over, The mirror doesn't work and she needs my help to fix it by going to the demon in Sundermount.

I mean... WTF Bioware? I understand that importing saves can be hard but Merill is a product of DA 2. Couldn't you at least have changed that outcome? How the heck is my absolute rival my lover? How does she fix the mirror when she herself smashed it to pieces? Come on.... you can do better than that can't you? Why give us a choice on how to do things when the outcome doesn't change at all? I feel kinda cheated...

This is likely one of the bugs being fixed with the upcoming patch.  Im hoping anyway seeing as how over 100 "fixes" are being implemented lol.

[hanoobken]

Aradace wrote...

hanoobken wrote...

Today I on my 5th playthrough I decided to completely be a jerk to Merill at every turn. Funny thing is, after I denied giving her the item that Marethari entrusted to me, Merill still slept with me and moved into my mansion even though rivalry was maxed.

She then went back to her hut and smashed the mirror saying that she should have done it years ago sometime in Act 2. That excited me a bit, a different outcome in the story which i did not expect.

But then in Act 3, with the mirror smashed and all... she starts the same story over, The mirror doesn't work and she needs my help to fix it by going to the demon in Sundermount.

I mean... WTF Bioware? I understand that importing saves can be hard but Merill is a product of DA 2. Couldn't you at least have changed that outcome? How the heck is my absolute rival my lover? How does she fix the mirror when she herself smashed it to pieces? Come on.... you can do better than that can't you? Why give us a choice on how to do things when the outcome doesn't change at all? I feel kinda cheated...

This is likely one of the bugs being fixed with the upcoming patch.  Im hoping anyway seeing as how over 100 "fixes" are being implemented lol.

Yeah let's hope so, I actually thought after Merill smashed the mirror that I wouldn't have to kill the keeper anymore just to fulfill Merill's wishes.  And then there's another issue.  At Sundermount after I defeat the Demon inside the keeper, Marethari says it's over and that we defeated the demon.  You then have a choice of either saying something like "It's over let's go home" and "Didn't you say we had to kill you?"

So I chose the "let's go home" option this time, Merill hugs the keeper and the keeper stabs Merill in the gut!  Then you have to fight the demon once more at 1/4 health.

So I kind of expected Merill to die after getting stabbed.  Surprisingly... nothing changed!!!

Again WTF Bioware???

[Talogrungi]

ForeignPatriot wrote...
I'll refer you to my post above 

However, I would just like to add that, creative writers don't simply go "nah, we changed it".  A retcon that has a creative solution is still a retcon, just a well executed one! But like I said above, we don't have to use that term. We could agree to call it "a surprising outcome" considering what we thought to be the truth (Dragon Age: Origins).

Oh and please read this part, Talo...

I never said that Leliana appearing at the end of DA: 2 wasn't intentional, what I am referring to as unintended is the fact that you can kill her in DA: O and she still shows up in DA: 2 for the reasons I stated above.

Sorry if the way I phrased that before was confusing, a bit tired 

Pfft, Wikipedia.

Let's just break this down into what actually happened regarding the continuity of events:

Leliana (who has visions given from the Maker) dies. In the presence of a sacred healing artifact. In the holiest place in the world.

You even state it yourself in the post following the above; you don't know what the writers were thinking yet you persist in labelling it a retcon when there is absolutely zero indication that it was not simply an intentional plot twist made plausible by the particulars of her death!

[KLUME777]

Yeah i hated it when i was thinking Awakening hadn't happened yet and then i meet Anders and he sounds like Awakening had happened months ago.

I mean, wtf Bioware? Is it not that hard to have jumped 2 years ahead instead of 1 or to have modified your disjointed story so that you meet Anders a bit later. This made me really annoyed when i first met Anders, and it didn't help that he had a different VA with completely different face. The face can be blamed on the engine, but that doesn't explain why hes missing his earring on his right ear. Did they forget that?