66 réponses à ce sujet

[Avissel]

sten_super wrote...

I don't mind the ret-conning/cannonising/whatever you want to call it, but what I find strange is the way in which they use it. Why re-use things that have a major impact and could easily be avoided? I wasn't particularly bothered about the Lelliana cameo and Anders attitude has changed so much that he may as well be a new character. Why (potentially) bring people back from the dead when it would be easy to use new characters?

Mostly because from a literairy persepctive it's easier to use and established character for these things. The read (player, whichever you want to say) knows this character and is comfortable with them. It feels very out of place when some random new character is dropped in mid story and is suddenly very important to the story line, in the cases of Leliana and Anders.

it would be like if some new guy showed up in Lord of the Rings after Gandalf died. He might be able to serve the same purpose but he would still seem out of place.

[sten_super]

Avissel wrote...

Mostly because from a literairy persepctive it's easier to use and established character for these things. The read (player, whichever you want to say) knows this character and is comfortable with them. It feels very out of place when some random new character is dropped in mid story and is suddenly very important to the story line, in the cases of Leliana and Anders.

it would be like if some new guy showed up in Lord of the Rings after Gandalf died. He might be able to serve the same purpose but he would still seem out of place.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy that. We aren't mid-story, these (DA:O vs DA2) are different stories. There's ample opportunity during the course of DA2 to build up Anders v2 character (who is completely removed from the Awakenings character anyway), so I don't believe that his role couldn't be performed by someone else. Lelliana has a smaller role (assuming you don't play through the Exiled Price DLC) so it's a bit more understandable perhaps that they want a 'known' character. I'm just not sure that it justifies the retcon that it requires.

It seems to me that the story integration from DA:O to DA2 is a step back from the excellent transition between ME and ME2. In ME2 dead characters stay dead and the vast majority your decisions from ME are recognised in various small ways. In DA2 up to two characters have been mysteriously resurrected and while some small decisions are recognised a lot go completely unrecognised.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Maria Caliban wrote...

As of DA II:
Zevran does not live if you kill him. That's bug.

Leliana and Anders always lives.

The Warden does not have to be a human noble or male. The US is recognized (in fact, it's one of the presets) and the OGB is not canon.


There is always *a* Warden-Commander at Ameranthine.

If Nate is recruited, the Architect lives. I'm not sure if that's a bug or not.

If Anders can die in Awakening... why the hell is he still in DA 2??

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 07 avril 2011 - 04:19 .

[Avissel]

It doesn't require a retcon. Any person, anywhere at any time, that says anything to do with Leliana is a retcon does not understand what the word retcon means. The same with Anders.

You do realize that at the start of ME2, Shepard dies and is resurrected right?

[JabbaDaHutt30]

sten_super wrote...

Avissel wrote...

Mostly because from a literairy persepctive it's easier to use and established character for these things. The read (player, whichever you want to say) knows this character and is comfortable with them. It feels very out of place when some random new character is dropped in mid story and is suddenly very important to the story line, in the cases of Leliana and Anders.

it would be like if some new guy showed up in Lord of the Rings after Gandalf died. He might be able to serve the same purpose but he would still seem out of place.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy that. We aren't mid-story, these (DA:O vs DA2) are different stories. There's ample opportunity during the course of DA2 to build up Anders v2 character (who is completely removed from the Awakenings character anyway), so I don't believe that his role couldn't be performed by someone else. Lelliana has a smaller role (assuming you don't play through the Exiled Price DLC) so it's a bit more understandable perhaps that they want a 'known' character. I'm just not sure that it justifies the retcon that it requires.

It seems to me that the story integration from DA:O to DA2 is a step back from the excellent transition between ME and ME2. In ME2 dead characters stay dead and the vast majority your decisions from ME are recognised in various small ways. In DA2 up to two characters have been mysteriously resurrected and while some small decisions are recognised a lot go completely unrecognised.

That's frustrating, if true. I'd just wish they'd get their act together then.

[Avissel]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

If Anders can die in Awakening... why the hell is he still in DA 2??

The dialouge between him and Nat implies that his death at the Keep was faked.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Avissel wrote...

It doesn't require a retcon. Any person, anywhere at any time, that says anything to do with Leliana is a retcon does not understand what the word retcon means. The same with Anders.

You do realize that at the start of ME2, Shepard dies and is resurrected right?

Considering the fact that it is perfectly revealed how that occured and is explained within a 10 minutes time frame, that's a non-issue to compare Leliana being alive to.

[Avissel]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Considering the fact that it is perfectly revealed how that occured and is explained within a 10 minutes time frame, that's a non-issue to compare Leliana being alive to.

Not really. One used science, the other used magic. The reason Shepard's was explained is becaue the player is Shepard.

Leliana's doesn't get explained because Hawke was never aware that she died and it's somewhat silly to expect her to bring that up on her own, if that is what happened in your story line.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Avissel wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

If Anders can die in Awakening... why the hell is he still in DA 2??

The dialouge between him and Nat implies that his death at the Keep was faked.

So Leliana's death was faked... Anders' death was faked; might as well bring them all back, BioWare! 

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Avissel wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Considering the fact that it is perfectly revealed how that occured and is explained within a 10 minutes time frame, that's a non-issue to compare Leliana being alive to.

Not really. One used science, the other used magic. The reason Shepard's was explained is becaue the player is Shepard.

Leliana's doesn't get explained because Hawke was never aware that she died and it's somewhat silly to expect her to bring that up on her own, if that is what happened in your story line.

What do you mean 'not really'? Do you want specific details of the scientific procedures Shepard's body underwent? Shepard's death occurs not 5 minutes into the game, as a prologue. Leliana's death happens well within the game's story. I wouldn't call it a 'retcon' though, but the two events can hardly be compared.

Do we really even know if Leliana used 'magic'? That's like adding salt to the wounds 

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 07 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[sten_super]

Avissel wrote...

It doesn't require a retcon. Any person, anywhere at any time, that says anything to do with Leliana is a retcon does not understand what the word retcon means. The same with Anders.

You do realize that at the start of ME2, Shepard dies and is resurrected right?

Uh, are you sure?

Avissel wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

If Anders can die in Awakening... why the hell is he still in DA 2??

The dialouge between him and Nat implies that his death at the Keep was faked.

This is a prime example of a retcon. 

Dictionary.com says;
The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things 
about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same
(thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation.
For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream
was a retcon. 

Saying that Anders died at the end of Awakening, and then that he faked it in DA2, is a retcon. Killing Lelliana in DA:O and then her appearing regardless in DA2 is a retcon. It's the retrospective addition of 'facts' that were unknown (and not even hinted at) at the time.

[Avissel]

No, Leliana's death was counter acted by some means we do not know.

Ander's death is implied to be fake by Ander's, no way of knowing if that is the truth.

[Bmeszaros]

Its clear that the races of Thedas have mastered "The Lazarus Project" a few technological centuries before and vast distances of space removed from the High Technology of the late 22nd Century.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

sten_super wrote...

Avissel wrote...

It doesn't require a retcon. Any person, anywhere at any time, that says anything to do with Leliana is a retcon does not understand what the word retcon means. The same with Anders.

You do realize that at the start of ME2, Shepard dies and is resurrected right?

Uh, are you sure?

Avissel wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

If Anders can die in Awakening... why the hell is he still in DA 2??

The dialouge between him and Nat implies that his death at the Keep was faked.

This is a prime example of a retcon. 

Dictionary.com says;
The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things 
about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same
(thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation.
For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream
was a retcon. 

Saying that Anders died at the end of Awakening, and then that he faked it in DA2, is a retcon. Killing Lelliana in DA:O and then her appearing regardless in DA2 is a retcon. It's the retrospective addition of 'facts' that were unknown (and not even hinted at) at the time.

you will always have some facts that will expand on previous iterations though or show them in a different light. it's a case of expanding the setting vs. just changing the meanings of previous events. 

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 07 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[Bullets McDeath]

The Leliana thing kind of pisses me off, I'll admit it. Anders too, to a lesser degree. When it comes to the finished product, it just looks like a lack of good planning. Especially in a game where our choices are supposed to "really matter" and part of the appeal is seeing how things can play out differently depending on what you choose.

I understand some characters need to be around to advance the plot, but... don't let us kill them, then, how hard is that? In the case of Leliana, either they knew she was going to play a part in DA2 and let us kill her anyway to have her resurrected off-screen with no explanation (or anyone even going "how was being dead that one time?")... or they had no idea she would be in DA2 and when they did decide to put her in, they completely handwave the possibility of her death.

Seems to me I remember the writers saying there is no resurrection in Thedas (hello teleportation!)... hell, even Andraste didn't get resurrected, but Leliana does? What the effwerd? Sorry, I'm not buying that was the plan from the start. It reeks of handwavium.

Also having her appear alive with no explanation is not "supenseful", it is just poor execution. I was not left with the feeling of "Oh ho! She's alive! I cannot wait until the writers reveal why!". I'm sure many analogies have been made already, but here's one more: it would be like Qui-Gonn showing up at the end of Episode II to hang out with his Jedi buddies and they all grab a drink together without a single mention of him getting lightsabered to ****ing death the other day. That's not slowly building tension... it's just dumb. Sorry, David.

As for the possiblity of Anders dying... when you get right down to it, Anders is the catalyst for the most important events in Thedas' history and if they had any idea what his role was going to be in DA2 it seems downright odd they would provide the option to kill him. But his possession by Justice makes for a good excuse in that instance, at least.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 07 avril 2011 - 04:42 .

[Alamar2078]

Avissel wrote...

It doesn't require a retcon. Any person, anywhere at any time, that says anything to do with Leliana is a retcon does not understand what the word retcon means. The same with Anders.

You do realize that at the start of ME2, Shepard dies and is resurrected right?

People aren't going to start argueing about what's a retcon or not again are they???  In simple terms a "retcon" is where a future story seemingly changes events that transpired in another story later for various purposes.

Now there may be a perfectly valid story reason for this ... it can be a preplanned plot-twist.  Even if the change is preplanned it is still technically a retcon.

****************************************

Edit:  Even if Ander's death is faked in that type of playthrough what about the ending that I made sure that Anders stayed in the Gray Wardens for years and was basically happy.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 07 avril 2011 - 05:09 .

[Iosev]

Well, one important thing as a gamer is to have realistic expectations for what a sequel can offer. While we would all love to play a sequel that varies dramatically depending on our actions in a previous game, it is important to understand the difficulty in creating a coherent story without having commonalities. Certain characters need to be alive, certain events need to take place, and so on if Bioware wants to build a central story that spans between sequels.

[Cutlass Jack]

Anders escaped the circle like a dozen times. You think faking his death...especially when you weren't even there to witness it...is really that unbelievable?

As for Leliana, I found the fact she was working as a Seeker for the chantry (instead of travelling the world with my Warden) more jarring than her being alive or not. But it wasn't completely outside the realm of possibility either. I'll wait until I get the whole story before passing judgment on it.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 07 avril 2011 - 04:50 .

[Avissel]

Alamar2078 wrote...
Edit:  Even if Ander's death is faked in that type of playthrough what about the ending that I made sure that Anders stayed in the Gray Wardens for years and was basically happy.

Yes, that one would count as a retcon, as it describes events that DA2 completely invalidates.

But bear in mind that Bioware has said a few times that all the epilouge slides should be considered "rumours and hear say" So none of them should be considered the end all be all facts of what happened.

Modifié par Avissel, 07 avril 2011 - 04:54 .

[Bullets McDeath]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Anders escaped the circle like a dozen times. You think faking his death...especially when you weren't even there to witness it...is really that unbelievable?

As for Leliana, I found the fact she was working as a Seeker for the chantry (instead of travelling the world with my Warden) more jarring than her being alive or not. But it wasn't completely outside the realm of possibility either.

True. In the case of Leliana, they have cleary chosen to override player choice for the direction of the story. Which is not a deadly or even unforgiveable sin. But it does mean that they either A) provided us with alternate choices knowing that future games would override them or they pulled it out of their... hat ... at the 11th hour and said player choices be damned... neither of which makes me feel particularly confident about our choices really making a difference in Dragon Age games. I don't mean to just baww baww bawww, but it's not setting a good precedent in my book.

I prefer DA to the ME games in general, but ME has a much better record with keeping your decisions consistent and impactful (so far). As long as the DA team is looking at their example, that's one thing I hope they pick up.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 07 avril 2011 - 04:56 .

[Avissel]

outlaworacle wrote...

True. In the case of Leliana, they have cleary chosen to override player choice for the direction of the story. Which is not a deadly or even unforgiveable sin. But it does mean that they either A) provided us with alternate choices knowing that future games would override them or they pulled it out of their... hat ... at the 11th hour and said player choices be damned... neither of which makes me feel particularly confident about our choices really making a difference in Dragon Age games. I don't mean to just baww baww bawww, but it's not setting a good precedent in my book.

I prefer DA to the ME games in general, but ME has a much better record with keeping your decisions consistent and impactful (so far). As long as the DA team is looking at their example, that's one thing I hope they pick up.

I think alot of the issues come from people that think that the player's choices should be the God of the storyline, all characters should only move and act as the player wishes.

Leliana and the Warden are all romanceiefed. She is going to Orlai. Suddenly the Warden must got to Amaranthin. They are now seperated. While in Orlai Leliana gets involved with the Seeker, the Warden is stuck doing....Warden stuff. (Whatever Stroud or Alistar are doing in Act 2 probably). So circumstance has seperated them.

Player choice can have an influnce on the story certainly, but every action of the story can't be beholden to the player.

[Alamar2078]

Avissel wrote...
But bear in mind that Bioware has said a few times that all the epilouge slides should be considered "rumours and hear say" So none of them should be considered the end all be all facts of what happened.

In that case I may need to stand corrected ... I thought those were "fact" instead of just rumor..

[Bullets McDeath]

Avissel wrote...

I think alot of the issues come from people that think that the player's
choices should be the God of the storyline, all characters should only
move and act as the player wishes.

Leliana and the Warden are all
romanceiefed. She is going to Orlai. Suddenly the Warden must got to
Amaranthin. They are now seperated. While in Orlai Leliana gets involved
with the Seeker, the Warden is stuck doing....Warden stuff. (Whatever
Stroud or Alistar are doing in Act 2 probably). So circumstance has
seperated them.

Player choice can have an influnce on the story certainly, but every action of the story can't be beholden to the player.

Fair enough, but it could still be handled better. I agree that not every choice can be beholden to the player, but the smart way to handle that scenario is to not blatantly contradict previous choices without any explanation and/or do not give us choices/epilogue notes that you have no intention of recognizing as canon in the future. In short, plan ahead!

One of the major selling points of the franchise is that "your choices make a difference". So I don't think it's weird to be a little ruffled when that is not the case.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 07 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Avissel]

outlaworacle wrote...

Fair enough, but it could still be handled better. I agree that not every choice can be beholden to the player, but the smart way to handle that scenario is to not blatantly contradict previous choices without any explanation and/or do not give us choices/epilogue notes that you have no intention of recognizing as canon in the future. In short, plan ahead!

One of the major selling points of the franchise is that "your choices make a difference". So I don't think it's weird to be a little ruffled when that is not the case.

You can also look at it from a "what you know" point of view.

Leliana's ressurection (if thats what happens in your game) is never explained because she is the only one there that would even know it happened.

As far as planning ahead goes, it's easy to say that but you have to remember how much plans can change even while in the process. Just look at movies, there are several instances of movies being totally re-written while they are being made, in atleast once case after most of the movie was finished. Hell just look at Fallout 3, they had to totally re-do the ending.

It's certainly not weird or wrong to be ruffled or upset with how it got handled. I just think most of the loudest and mean spirited complainers about it need to take a second ,relax, and stop claming it's somehow the "Death of the series."

[Alamar2078]

@arcelonious: I believe you are right. I expected player choices & expectations to be the End-all-be-all of the game. This is a wakeup call and I doubt that I'll have the same compalints about the next game because I will know that in this series my choices only matter in the game that I play and may not have one ounce of effect on future games.

Note: This isn't what I wanted but is obviously what I got.