9 réponses à ce sujet

[DA_GamerGal]

If Bioware only planned to do a trilogy of DA games, how do you suppose they will be able to finish all the storylines started in DA:O , Awakenings and DA2 , and tie up all loose ends in just one game?  I don't think it is possible.

In DA:O the Grey Wardens and the Darkspawn were a big storyline that continued into Awakenings, but only left more questions as to what really happened or what will happen. The Darkspawn were not eradicated after the death of the Archdemon, but rather, they divided into two distinct factions of Darkspawn. The new group can now talk and have a higher level of intelligence, and no longer need to be led by a Archdemon in order to war upon those that live above-ground. The Darkspawn were not even a big concern in DA2, yet they are still a big threat to Thedas. Also, the Wardens seem to be evolving into something more than mere soldiers and protectors from blights. In Awakenings the Warden-Commander becomes more like a Viscount as The Warden rules over the nobility and common people from Vigils Keep. In DA2 the wardens show up in both Kirkwall and in the deeproads traveled by Hawk, and each time they allude to something very big that is brewing somewhere in Thedas, but we don't know what... more loose ends.

In DA:O  ( at least almost all of my versions) Morrigan sleeps with Alistair and conceives a child with the spirit/soul of an Old God. In Witch Hunt she then dissapears through an Eluvian Mirror. That seems like a big storyline that should have far reaching effects. Morrigan is spoken about almost in passing by Flemeth in DA2, but no new information is given. And what about Flemeth? No questions have ever been aswered about her. What or who is she really? Why does her path always intersect with the various Champions and wardens? What is her ultimate goal? How does she effect the future of Thedas? Too many loose ends with Flemeth and Morrigan.
 
Does Alistair find out who is mother really was and the true story behind his birth? And that he is actually part Elf?
What happened to Sten? Will he return with the Qunari when they invade Thedas and try to convert everyone ('cause you just know that's the real reason behind the Qunari ending up in Kirkwall- spies!)?  The mages versus the Chantry versus the Templars versus the circles storyline has to be resolved... and now you have the Seekers involved in everything.  The Warden is missing as well as the Champion of Kirwall?  More unaswered questions... more loose ends... How will it all end? 

What storylines and loose ends do you need to see finished and tied together?  What questions must be answered?  Should the players decide the endings based upon the choices that have been made or will be made? Or will the writers decide all the final endings and just give the illusion that our Wardens and our Champions really make a difference in the outcomes....?

Modifié par krissyjf, 10 avril 2011 - 12:11 .

[David Gaider]

krissyjf wrote...
If Bioware only planned to do a trilogy of DA games

Is there any particular reason you think this is our plan?

[David Gaider]

Amagoi wrote...
Also about Fiona and Alistair, I don't think David ever confirmed or denied. The most he said was that the timeline for the books and the game were slightly off due to an editing mistake.

That would be correct.

[David Gaider]

hrotsurz wrote...
Well it more than obvious whith that lackluster ending of Dragon Age 2 , that you put so many things that need to be answered but not even give a single hint IN THE GAME for a possible answer , I mean im still angered that all that time I put to the game ( a 137 hours) to have a cliffhanger ending , sheesh , also you keep adding stuff to the stories only to force us buy more things , I love the setting you didnt need to rely on such low level tactics to make me buy more things Dragon Age , Im sorry for this rant but arggghhhh it makes me mad

a) Wanting to know what happens next is not a "cliffhanger".

I recognize that you mean you wanted more closure. Personally I don't think that's what endings are all about, but I get that you wanted it.

c) Thank you for being so personally involved so as to rant. I'll take flaily rants over apathy any day.

[David Gaider]

Serpieri Nei wrote...
Well, its clear that choices made in the first game simply don't mater.

Because if not every choice matters, that means none of them do. Clearly.

Modifié par David Gaider, 08 avril 2011 - 08:43 .

[David Gaider]

krissyjf wrote...
I certainly was really hoping it wasn't the plan, but I kept reading in the various forums and boards that this might be( or might have been) the original plan to do just 3 games ( thus I started with "if") . Are you saying that this never was the plan? Because you would make me extremely happy if this isn't the case!

We've never said DA was intended as a trilogy, nor that DA was ever intended to follow a single character. In fact, I do believe we've said the opposite. I'm pretty certain that some people are referencing discussions about Mass Effect and assuming they also apply to DA.

As for what someone said about having so many unanswered questions-- yes, I definitely agree that you wouldn't want to keep posing questions without ever answering them. That would eventually get tiresome. I suppose it would be incumbent upon us, then, to start answering a few. Not on forums, of course, but in an actual game. That would be ideal.

[David Gaider]

VeoLu wrote...
I am in favour of Hawke having a voice, however, just in the future hope it' fits better to the emotional pretense.

Personally, I wouldn't mind adding some different icons. I think, for instance, that we became a bit fixated on the icons presenting "tone" and thus missed an opportunity to have them express emotion: a happy or sad icon, for instance, that would be permission of a sort from the player for us to have the PC react to something in a more emotional way (whereas normally we avoid going too far in that direction out of a sense of not wanting to impede on the player's territory).

As far as the paraphrases themselves go, I don't think we'll be getting rid of them anytime soon. I do think, however, that we can and should work on refining our rules for their use (coupled with the use of better icons). I wouldn't mind seeing an option for a player to hover over a response and get some pop-up text of the resulting wording-- but that might be something that only works for the PC, and not really my forte anyhow since it involves GUI magic. But I'd be in favor of it, even if it's just for those people who will never get past their mental block regarding the paraphrases.

[David Gaider]

Torax wrote...
After thinking about it though. The allowing to highlight and see more of what is said could be a slippery slope if it's a long conversation with more than one talking. Would some then dislike not knowing the response they were given that is not shown? I'm guessing some that would already not like knowing now may also hate not being able to see the response from the companion to.

More than that. It takes out the fun of playing again to see what else is said. Like a surprise. You'd know in your first game everything you'd say. You'd just not be able to hear it.

Possibly, but if it's, say, something that only pops up after hovering over the option for a certain length of time it'd be the player's own doing if they "ruined the surprise", so to speak. I do agree that it might be a slippery slope in terms of expectations-- but if it wasn't that difficult to implement, I wouldn't see the harm. Those people who can't get past the paraphrases/voiced PC on a philisophical level will probably never be entirely happy, but if we can put in something to make it easier for them without impeding our intent it might still be okay.

It's a suggestion I saw on these forums, anyhow, that I've brought up with the team. We'll see if it's something we can actually do. In the meantime, refining the paraphrases and the icons would be more my department.

[David Gaider]

forcythera wrote...
I think the only time the paraphrases made me want to run into a brick wall was responding to Viscount Dumar after his son's death. The good/diplomatic top option involved saying something negative about the Qunari, although my Hawke was well on the way to earning their respect and starting to support them. The middle option? At least it can't get any worse. Tonight, anyway. It's pretty late. Aaaaugh. No political-bias-free 'I'm sorry about your son's death' option.

Occasionally we run into a bit of a conundrum when it comes to the split between a "choice wheel" and a "personality wheel". The latter just has flavor options-- the three tones plus the possibility of up to two extras (ignoring investigates). The former, meanwhile, is intended for use when actual choices are needed... but we do occasionally use it as a sort of personality wheel when the intent is to express opinions sans tone. That, however, seems to muddy the waters a bit... not just for the player but for the writer-- as a choice line would automatically change depending on the dominant tone.

Thus we're often forced to include opinions on the personality wheel, essentially picking which choices to present and matching them as closely to a tone as we can (not unlike Origins, incidentally, as there you would also simply have whichever opinions we chose to include). I can't help but feel there's a better way to do this, however, without it becoming incredibly cumbersome to write.

At any rate, it's something the writing team has been smacking our heads against lately with the post-mortems. In case you're interested in hearing about the sorts of things we discuss.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
I think the (potential) issue with that sort of thing is how far out the "emotion" would play out. As it would happen in DA2 where you select one paraphrase or icon, Hawke says his/her bit  but then Hawke comes back and does something else unprompted that went beyond a simple follow up- or was colored in such a way that left you facepalming.

The end game in particular, I think when you're trying to settle matters after Anders goes all Terrorist, I recall Hawke rattled off a bit on something like justifying why they should side with either faction- and he just kept talking, while I'm like "Ummm shut up now Hawke." Maybe that was tied to the dominant personality, I'm not sure. Or Hawke's speech at the end- I hated how he just launched into that all by himself. If the voiced PC is going to give speeches, I'd much rather they be ME style where they're broken up in chunks to allow for player input.

To be honest, I don't think there's much middle ground to be had with this. One of the advantages of a voiced PC is having them participate in the scene, after all, and attempts to try and appease people who are fundamentally opposed to the idea tend to weaken that advantage. I'm not suggesting it's always a good idea-- you don't want to take away player agency either-- but in some respects it's better to just own the style you've chosen rather than trying to have it both ways and ending up with the disadvantages of both as well.

So that's not ever something I'm going to opt to do-- which isn't to say that how we do it couldn't use some refining, definitely. Using a voiced PC properly isn't easy, and while it offers strengths the unvoiced PC doesn't have, it also has its own inherent weaknesses. Our efforts will be to mitigate those as much as we can without simultaneously surrendering the advantages for the sake of players who would really just rather have it be the other way anyhow.

David Gaider wrote...
Eh... I really thought there were too many icons as is in DA2. I mean, really, how is a diamond indicitive of cunning? Not to mention some were defined rather broadly. Or something like the "lie" icon- without any non combat skills or stats tied to that sort of skill, how are you supposed to know if it's chance of success?

There was no "chance of success". The tones were there to indicate your intent, not indicate the use of an ability or a skill. If the Lie icon appeared, it meant the PC would attempt to deceive, nothing more.

As for too many icons, I agree-- at least on the front of our attempt to try and further split the main triad of tones up further into "sub-tones". I don't think that was really intuitive for either the player or the writer. If there are icons, they should be pretty clear-- which a sad or happy icon would be, I think. I certainly don't think we need more nuance.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 avril 2011 - 06:11 .