665 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

I'm not sure if this piece of dialogue with Leliana is properly implemented in the game already, as I've never killed her myself, but if it is I'd be content with it:

[foam]

RosaAquafire wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

Except for the fact that he did murder your mother. Orsino is a smooth operator and a good liar. And a murderer. Who murdered your mother. There's no reason for him to not want to dispose of Hawke. Hawke is shaping up to be the most important person in the world, if you actually defeat the templars. I can't imagine why it's illogical for Orsino, who is crazy, immoral, and has reason to think Hawke is gonna come after him eventually, wouldn't take that moment to make himself the hero for all mages by putting Hawke out of the picture.

He didn't directly murder anyone, nor did he do it for the sake of murder.
He's guilty of being an accomplice certainly but that's not the same thing. It would be more logical for a crazy immoral Orsino to use Hawke, because Hawke doesn't want to be First Enchanter or anything or hell, using a non-mage Hawke would be even better. "Look! Even the mundanes support mages!".

If your Hawke wouldn't have killed Orsino for what he did, that's cool and valid, but mine sure would have, "only" an accomplice or not. Also, Quentin didn't do it for the sake of murder, either!

I think that's reasonable, but, again: not a plot hole. Mildly clumsy storytelling. It makes sense the way it happened, it just could have made more sense in a different way, or with more build up.

I like you.

I may not agree with everything you write but I do think you're being quite fair. I especially like the fact that you point out that it's a a case of clumsy storytelling rather than a plot hole.

[NedPepper]

nicethugbert wrote...

The DA story is written before the game and published as a novel correct? In other words, the game is based on DA cannon lore, correct? So, how can people take their play through as the definitive DA story?

By killing major plot characters you are asking major events to not happen or for a stand in to automagically appear to hold the plot together. Either way, people are going to complain that their choices do not matter or that the character's personalities don't matter.

By busting The Dev's balls about this sort of thing you're practically begging them to take choice out of the game series.

^ This. 

There has to be canon to keep a series going.  So, say you killed Zevran and Leliana in ONE of your playthroughs... I'd  wager they would have never given you the option if they knew the game was going to be a hit and that Zev and Leliana were going to be extremely popular.  I think the whole "why are they alive?" thing is kind of silly thing to get mad about.   And if you killed them on every one of your playthroughs....why?  Isn't part of the joy of Bioware games getting to know your companions? 

I did kill Wynne and Shale on one playthrough, but they didn't give me much choice.  Yet, I don't think I'd have a problem if they showed up in the next game.  This is now a popular universe and franchise. You want it filled with characters.  Not corpses.

[TJPags]

nedpepper wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

The DA story is written before the game and published as a novel correct? In other words, the game is based on DA cannon lore, correct? So, how can people take their play through as the definitive DA story?

By killing major plot characters you are asking major events to not happen or for a stand in to automagically appear to hold the plot together. Either way, people are going to complain that their choices do not matter or that the character's personalities don't matter.

By busting The Dev's balls about this sort of thing you're practically begging them to take choice out of the game series.

^ This. 

There has to be canon to keep a series going.  So, say you killed Zevran and Leliana in ONE of your playthroughs... I'd  wager they would have never given you the option if they knew the game was going to be a hit and that Zev and Leliana were going to be extremely popular.  I think the whole "why are they alive?" thing is kind of silly thing to get mad about.   And if you killed them on every one of your playthroughs....why?  Isn't part of the joy of Bioware games getting to know your companions? 

I did kill Wynne and Shale on one playthrough, but they didn't give me much choice.  Yet, I don't think I'd have a problem if they showed up in the next game.  This is now a popular universe and franchise. You want it filled with characters.  Not corpses.

Bold #1 - I'm aware of 2 DA novels, both set before DAO.  So, either I missed one, or simply no.

Bold #2 - That pretty much defines "they changed their mind".  Which is not a very good thing for a creator to do mid-stream, IMO.

[DanteCousland]

Saibh wrote...

Currently what's bugging me, since someone else brought it up, is why Sebastian would ask a mage to join the Chantry.

Why?

this plus my previous points

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

Currently what's bugging me, since someone else brought it up, is why Sebastian would ask a mage to join the Chantry.

Why?

A mage can't be an Andrastian?

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Currently what's bugging me, since someone else brought it up, is why Sebastian would ask a mage to join the Chantry.

Why?

A mage can't be an Andrastian?

I think he means because some characters view the Chantry as enslaving the mages.

[Rifneno]

ahuevocabron wrote...

Hopefully we'll get to know what the pressing matters the Orlesian grey warden was reffering to towards the end of act 2.

He's French, and there's a battle going on.  What's not to understand?

....

Sorry, I had to say it.

nedpepper wrote...

 So, say you killed Zevran and Leliana in ONE of your playthroughs... I'd  wager they would have never given you the option if they knew the game was going to be a hit and that Zev and Leliana were going to be extremely popular.

I think they knew how popular DAO was going to be and they certainly planned on making a sequel.  There was a lot of money put into advertising and hype (with good reason I might add), its success wasn't a surprise.  But I don't think they knew they were going to write this sequel.  The mage-templar thing wasn't a thought when DAO was written.  If it was, we'd have gotten a lot more foreshadowing about it in DAO.  Anders, new to the Free Marches and having only seen the Ferelden Circle, isn't so hateful about the Kirkwall Circle.  He doesn't know it yet.  When he says how in the Circle they tell you every day that magic is a sin and a curse from the Maker, how beatings and rapings are fairly commonplace, how suicide claims more mages than anything else (demons specifically included), he's not just talking about the Kirkwall Circle.  He's in large part talking about Ferelden.  But we saw no hint of these atrocities in DAO.  Now I'm sure someone will go "that satan-worshipping terrorist is a liar omgz!" but I ask you this: if he was lying, then why did all the Circles rebel when given the opportunity?  Why not just Kirkwall?  He's telling the truth, but the Circle we saw in DAO wasn't written with the knowledge that DA2 would revolve around the subject it did.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up Anora.  The majority of the playerbase wanted her to die fast and bloody.  But there was no way to kill her.  We accepted it because we assumed they had future plans for her character and didn't want to have to retcon her back.  I still believe this is the likely scenario.

TJPags wrote...

Bold #1 - I'm aware of 2 DA novels, both set before DAO.  So, either I missed one, or simply no.

I'm amazed it took this long for someone to point that out.  The games define the books, the books do not define the games.  They go out of their way to make sure books don't contradict in-game choices.  Look at the Mass Effect books, even the ones written after ME1 takes place go to extreme efforts to make sure they don't give the outcome of any decision Shepard can make.  They make sure Shepard's gender isn't even mentioned at any point.  One single line, ONE SINGLE LINE they mentioned the outcome of one decision you can make it and it caused a ****storm among the playerbase.

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Currently what's bugging me, since someone else brought it up, is why Sebastian would ask a mage to join the Chantry.

Why?

A mage can't be an Andrastian?

I've read about the KKK having a few black members.  Some people are nuts.  It would, however, be magnificently stupid.  But then, so is Sebastian.  Par for the course.

[Deztyn]

There are mages who support the Chantry. They're called Loyalists. And like Aequitarians, Lucrosians and Isolationists they are no where to be found in Kirkwall.

[DanteCousland]

Aren't there also the Resolutionists I recall they were in Sebastians companion mission in act 3?

[Saibh]

Addai67 wrote...

A mage can't be an Andrastian?

He wants you to join as a Sister.

Chantry law says mages go to the Circle, not stay in the Chantry.

Either he's asking you to commit yourself to the Circle, or he's hemorrhaging.

[NedPepper]

TJPags wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

The DA story is written before the game and published as a novel correct? In other words, the game is based on DA cannon lore, correct? So, how can people take their play through as the definitive DA story?

By killing major plot characters you are asking major events to not happen or for a stand in to automagically appear to hold the plot together. Either way, people are going to complain that their choices do not matter or that the character's personalities don't matter.

By busting The Dev's balls about this sort of thing you're practically begging them to take choice out of the game series.

^ This. 

There has to be canon to keep a series going.  So, say you killed Zevran and Leliana in ONE of your playthroughs... I'd  wager they would have never given you the option if they knew the game was going to be a hit and that Zev and Leliana were going to be extremely popular.  I think the whole "why are they alive?" thing is kind of silly thing to get mad about.   And if you killed them on every one of your playthroughs....why?  Isn't part of the joy of Bioware games getting to know your companions? 

I did kill Wynne and Shale on one playthrough, but they didn't give me much choice.  Yet, I don't think I'd have a problem if they showed up in the next game.  This is now a popular universe and franchise. You want it filled with characters.  Not corpses.

Bold #1 - I'm aware of 2 DA novels, both set before DAO.  So, either I missed one, or simply no.

Bold #2 - That pretty much defines "they changed their mind".  Which is not a very good thing for a creator to do mid-stream, IMO.

No, it means that the game was successful enough for a sequel and they saw firsthand which characters were popular.  Why would  you not WANT popular characters in your franchise?  They changed their minds when the reaized they had more story to tell and a very wiling audience. And everyone's choices were different.  Maybe YOU killed Zevran and Leliana.  I didn't.  Not once, on multiple playthroughs.  Why?  Why kill main characters because you can?  I think it's stupid, actually. And again, who knew if there was even going to be a franchise?  They realized they had a fanbase and acted accordingly. 

More people would be angry if Zevran, Allistar, and Leliana DIDN'T show up. This is the one thing that people are just being anal about.  It's like comic books fans getting angry when a character comes back to life.  Yeah, because Captain America, Superman, and more villians than I can count, being dead helps a company how?  If Batman kills the Joker...and he stays dead, a company is limiting themselves by killing off a popular character.  It would be different if Batman was a one off story and Joker dies, the end.  But Batman is a franchise, same as Dragon Age is now.

And I'm just fine with Bioware killing off characters as a part of the emotional impact of a story, but not because you wanted to play an evil Warden who kills every companion.  This is another argument I just don't understand....

I'll tell you one thing: I'm stoked about finding out what Leliana is doing in Orlais.  I can't wait to see Zevran as the Prince of the Antivan Crows.  It's as if everyone who stood by the Warden has been thrust into greatness, as if destined (by Flemeth.)  That is so much cooler than having the characters dead because you chose to kill them on ONE playthrough.  Their presence alone makes me excited about Dragon Age 3.

[LobselVith8]

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.

[zyxe]

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.

agreed. besides, i really would rather not have had a choice if it was just to be undone or completely ignored later, what's the point? they could EASILY have had any of the characters that "turn" on you fight, get beat up to the brink of dying, then leave, especially since they were already planning sequels. they didn't have to kill them. having dead characters rezzed later only shows that they did change their mind. 

i don't care THAT much, except that it shouldn't be rationalized as anything other than what it is.

[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.

[JediHealerCosmin]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no.
Let's please not bring the C word in here. Ever.

Thank you.

[Blacklash93]

Leliana became a fan-favorite and we're going to see more of her in the future because of it (regardless of the few who actually killed her).

[Lord_Valandil]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

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? It's not the same as choosing Harrowmont and then you discover in the next game that he was killed or poisoned and someone else took the throne.
The solution? Don't let us kill him or her.

Thanks for your attention Mr. Gaider.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 03 avril 2011 - 07:49 .

[varcety]

David Gaider wrote...
 Perhaps it would have been simpler to simply establish a canon and move forward from there. Certainly nobody could have complained about that.

This. Or it would be cool if you shaped the canon by the overall choices made by the players(kinda like democracy).

[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.

[Persephone]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

You, sir, are a sadistic (loveable) tease. Now I'm all the more curious about Leliana and her involvement. I would have liked to see more of her in DAO. But knowing that her tale is obviously far from finished is wonderful indeed! Thank you for hinting at that. (Dare I call it a confirmation?)

[JediHealerCosmin]

To be honest, I'm not about sure how one would actually go explaining that. But I see several points. For instance, maybe she was faking when the Warden "killed" her. He/she didn't push the blade far enough and she was dying but recovered. 

Just... don't make a twist where she's actually a zombie or something   

In any event, it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned because I didn't kill any of my companions or protagonist. I would have preffered that she remained with my Warden, but I'm very happy to see that she may and probably will have an important part in the story and that there is a chance we'll be seeing more of her 

Modifié par JediHealerCosmin, 03 avril 2011 - 08:31 .

[JakePT]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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?

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. I'm not talking about some alternate-dimension time-travelling meta nonsense story where there's some odd explanation I'm just talking about a direct sequel that has retconned something so major.

Sure, being a video game, there are different possibilities and you don't have infinite resources blah blah blah, but as the player, in the moment, I don't give a damn about that, the simple fact is over the course of multiple games I have experienced a story that doesn't make sense! It's that simple.

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!

Look, all I'm saying is that I want continuity in the stories I experience. If you can't deliver that, it's your fault, not my fault for expecting something so vital as continuity.

/rant