51 réponses à ce sujet

[Avissel]

It was stated by a dev at one point, possible David I can't remember.

That if you decided not to recruit Ander's or justice, that they simply met some other way. He gave an example of Ander's escaping from the Templar's after you don't recruit him and being recruited by a different set of Grey Wardens.

But this is what I am talking about, there seems to be some difference in what people think "player choice" should be. Some think it means " you make choices for your character" some think it means "I make choices for the game world". The people who think the latter find it offensive should the game ever challenge those choices.

[Alamar2078]

@Avissel: I never meant to imply that you are anti-choice. I just went on a rant aimed at the universe in general.

As for choices you have very few ways to go:

-- You have to preplan out your trilogy or however many games you are making. You know what characters show up, where, and why. You then give the player seemingly big choices that give them the illusion of control BUT the choices you give in no way box you into a corner because you have the choices laid out and plan for that within your overall story and are able to deal with the repurcussions in game. This is tricky to pull off properly but the rewards [for players] are big if this is done right.

-- You do not give the player choices big choices that effect the world. The scope of change based on a choice should be limited in impact to just that one game or DLC itself without any external changes. IMHO this is why we're railroaded to kill both Meredith and Orisino instead of being able to side with one [allowing them to live or whatever].

-- You very carefully mix & match the above [best option]


EDIT:  It is sloppy writing, game design, etc. to present a choice that you are not willing to live with.  So if you are given a truly world-changing choice that should be respected.  The easiest thing to do is not give the choice.  I.E. instead of "killing" Leliana she could just decide to leave the party thus you never have to worry about resurrecting her.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 26 avril 2011 - 04:47 .

[Viyu]

Avissel wrote...

It was stated by a dev at one point, possible David I can't remember.

That if you decided not to recruit Ander's or justice, that they simply met some other way. He gave an example of Ander's escaping from the Templar's after you don't recruit him and being recruited by a different set of Grey Wardens.

But this is what I am talking about, there seems to be some difference in what people think "player choice" should be. Some think it means " you make choices for your character" some think it means "I make choices for the game world". The people who think the latter find it offensive should the game ever challenge those choices.

I think the problem is that the developers don't connect how your decision affects Justice and Anders should you not recruit them, making it feel like they simply didn't care about the player's choice. And that's actually more important than their intentions. Plus, the fact that Zevran and Leilianna are alive regardless of player decisions does not help alleviate those suspicions players may have towards Bioware. My problem with the developers is that they occasionally assume everyone who has a problem or confusion with this game will come here to see what they have to say about it. And I understand entirely that they're busy people, and that sometimes, this is really the best they can do with their schedules. But their response is just not how the industry works. If people get confused and unsatisfied with your work, a lot of them will just put the game away without making the effort to find you. That is why it is important to explain these things thoroughly in the game, and most importantly IN the same gaming platform.

Otherwise you're going to have a Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories crisis on your hands. What I mean by that is, that KH's developers wrongfully assumed people would have the gameboy advance on top of the PS2 for the main franchise, and THEN based the sequel to KH, KH2 on the chain of memories, leaving a lot of people confused. The point of this analogy is to say, you can't use the internet to explain plotholes because it's assuming too much about the consumer.  Honestly, I don't think a whole lot of people are going to take the effort to go fishing this forum or this website to have their questions answered. That'd understandably seem overwhelming

Modifié par Viyu, 26 avril 2011 - 04:53 .

[Avissel]

Viyu wrote...
I think the problem is that the developers don't connect how your decision affects Justice and Anders should you not recruit them

How do you mean?

[Viyu]

Avissel wrote...

Viyu wrote...
I think the problem is that the developers don't connect how your decision affects Justice and Anders should you not recruit them

How do you mean?

You stated earlier that the developers explained Justice and Anders meeting some other way.  But that's naturally not going to fly with a lot of people. You can't expect people to stretch their imaginations for you, and that is a mighty big stretch for playe to make that sort of assumption on his/her own. You need to explain how it happened because you can't expect people to come here in order to have their confusions remedied is what I'm saying.

Modifié par Viyu, 26 avril 2011 - 04:57 .

[ajm317]

To be honest, I really think Bioware mismanaged this whole thing pretty badly. It's pretty clear that at the time Origins and Awakenings finished up they had no real plan for DA2 and had to retcon some things to fit in the pieces they wanted. At this point I fully expect that in DA3 Morrigan will have somehow gotten some other archdemon baby if you chose not to do the ritual in the first game.

To me it seems the real problem here is that Bioware didn't have a plan. Generally speaking there are two ways of approaching this. The first is to just pick certain choices as canon and go from there. This is how most games do it, and I think people are fine with that. Usually sequels don't have the resources to go back and look at potential consequences of every decision that players made in the first game. Most series do not import save data from previous games at all. Picking a canon is an effective way to write yourself a coherent and enjoyable story with limited resources and I think most people realize that.

The second way, which is more ambitious, is to import the players save and build the world in the sequel based on choices made in the first game. This is what they did in Mass Effect. The sad reality of this is that because of financial constraints there's only so much you can do with this, but in general people like very much to see "their" world carried over. Every choice from Mass Effect gets carried over into ME2. The results are often not as impressive as people might like, but they are there. Whether the council lived or died in the first game doesn't really matter in the second, but no one is telling you they lived when you let them die.

The problem here is that for DA, Bioware didn't do either of these things but rather is in some kind of half way situation where most of the players choices matter but some don't. This to me says they really had no strategy of what they were doing going into it. Because the save gets imported and so many choices DO seem to matter players of course expect that all their choices will be represented. When these expectations are not met, people get angry. If Bioware had simply fixed a canon I think a lot less people would be complaining (although I'm not sure, ME did set up an expectation there) but equally importantly no one would be confused. Given that they didn't do that they should have taken more pains to not have dead people popping up in the game because they were developer favorites. There's no reason that I can see that Anders absolutely had to be in this game given that my understanding is that you can kill him off in Awakenings epilogue. Paste his plot and backstory on a new face and everything is fine, not sure why that wasn't an option.

Modifié par ajm317, 26 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[Viyu]

@ajm317

True, they weren't even going to connect the dots with all the plotholes regarding his character change. He thought the circle was necessary, and suddenly its not. Things like that. And believe me there are many more I could point out.

But I think a good way to solve the problem you've brought up is simply the following:

A) Do not base too much of the sequel's characters and events off of decisions made off the previous game. Make it enjoyable, and make the world seem part of Thedas, and give old characters cameo presence. I would've suggested the same for Anders but they REALLY screwed him up to the point they need to fix it because the SNAFU is bleeding into the mythos itself. He's too melodramatic and brooding to the point it goes beyond the bounds of believability, as if they tried to force a romantic brooding hero out of a character that didn't seem the type---especially when his defense mechanism is humor, something they never explained why he got rid of. They should've just made a new character rather than have "Schmitty" be Anders.

 You may need a necromancing villain, supporting character, etc. to explain why so many dead characters turn up alive in the next installment.

C) Retcon the plotholes by playing up on Varric's habit for making embellishments to his stories.

I think the problem is that the focus has to keep changing in DA because unlike ME the battle's been won already, so you HAVE to take the series in a new direction. And that's not bad, except it was rushed and plothole ridden, and THAT makes it come off like Bioware didn't have a plan. But I don't blame them exactly, you never know until you try after all. They did screw up but it's not too late to fix this problem.

Modifié par Viyu, 26 avril 2011 - 06:03 .

[Deztyn]

ejoslin wrote...
I actually find it more that a bit disturbing that the two male LIs can be killed, and the two female LIs cannot. So in a future game, the male LIs cannot be a part of them while the female LIs can be.

Are you talking about Origins or DA2?

You can kill Merrill. I did.

[ejoslin]

Deztyn wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
I actually find it more that a bit disturbing that the two male LIs can be killed, and the two female LIs cannot. So in a future game, the male LIs cannot be a part of them while the female LIs can be.

Are you talking about Origins or DA2?

You can kill Merrill. I did.

I was talking about DA2, though it does apply in DAO as well, doesn't it.  Merrill can be killed?  I'm assuming at the end, then.  Hmmmmm.  Ok, then I take back what I said  Still, Isabela -- they make a point of having her survive the one thing you think she shouldn't.  That probably has more to do with the relic.

BTW, what happens to the relic if you duel the Arishok I wonder.  He had given it to someone else and the rest of the qunari leave, yet if you either give Isabela up or if she doesn't return, it's missing again (and I have a feeling it's going to be a big part of the next game).

[Avissel]

It's not missing, in both those scenarios she makes off with the book and gives it to Castelion.

[ejoslin]

Avissel wrote...

It's not missing, in both those scenarios she makes off with the book and gives it to Castelion.

Right, I get that -- I should have worded it that we know the Qunari don't have it -- they're missing it.  But that is not what I said I was wondering about.  I was wondering what happened if she comes back and you duel the Arishok.  Wouldn't the qunari have it then?  Yet you know they don't -- I'm reasonably sure that the Qunari not having the relic will have some bearing in future games.

Cassandra says, "We know that's not true," if you tell her that you handed isabela over, which is why I think the relic and the qunari will be a bigger issue in the future.

Modifié par ejoslin, 26 avril 2011 - 07:02 .

[Avissel]

When does it say they don't have the book if you go the duel route? I must have missed that.

[ejoslin]

Avissel wrote...

When does it say they don't have the book if you go the duel route? I must have missed that.

*sigh* It doesn't.  But the fate of the relic seems to be known by Cassandra.  If you turn Isabela over, it goes to the cutscene and says:

Cassandra: You say the Arishok left Kirkwall with the relic, but I know for a fact that's not true.
Varric: Oh, he did, but Isabela stole it again three days later.

So apparently, the relic's fate IS known.  So what happens to it if you dual the arishok?  Nothing is said, but it doesn't make sense that if Isabela isn't stealing it that it goes missing again.

Oh, and all you actually DO know is that isabela takes off with it in those two scenarios.  You don't know what she ultimately ends up doing with it.

Modifié par ejoslin, 26 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[Deztyn]

ejoslin wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
I actually find it more that a bit disturbing that the two male LIs can be killed, and the two female LIs cannot. So in a future game, the male LIs cannot be a part of them while the female LIs can be.

Are you talking about Origins or DA2?

You can kill Merrill. I did.

I was talking about DA2, though it does apply in DAO as well, doesn't it.  Merrill can be killed?  I'm assuming at the end, then.  Hmmmmm.  Ok, then I take back what I said  

Yep. If you side with the Templars, Merrill will confront you in the Gallows. I assume this is rivalry/friendship based. I ignored her the entire game for my blood magic hating pro-templar mage run after I left her at the alienage. Didn't do a single quest, conversation or put her in my party. She still acted as though she was an important person in Hawke's life and seemed shocked she'd be willing to kill even her. Annoying.

Isabella is the only love interest with plot armour. Probably because the relic will be important in the future.

[Avissel]

ejoslin wrote...
So apparently, the relic's fate IS known.  So what happens to it if you dual the arishok?  Nothing is said, but it doesn't make sense that if Isabela isn't stealing it that it goes missing again.

Ok so, your logic train goes
1. I gave him the book.
2. I seem him give the book to that guy.
3. I kill him, that guy leaves with the book.
4. The book is not mentioned.
5. Book must be missing.

Thats....some...yeah.


As for "not knowing what she did with it." What else would she do with it? Make a hat? It's the only thing that makes any sense.

[ejoslin]

Avissel wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
So apparently, the relic's fate IS known.  So what happens to it if you dual the arishok?  Nothing is said, but it doesn't make sense that if Isabela isn't stealing it that it goes missing again.

Ok so, your logic train goes
1. I gave him the book.
2. I seem him give the book to that guy.
3. I kill him, that guy leaves with the book.
4. The book is not mentioned.
5. Book must be missing.

Thats....some...yeah.


As for "not knowing what she did with it." What else would she do with it? Make a hat? It's the only thing that makes any sense.

No, that is not my logic train.  I'm not sure what is so difficult about this...  When I read what I write it seems clear.

1. Isabela is turned over to the Arishok and you learn she resteals the relic.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.  Cassandra reinforces that the Qunari don't have it which means it's a pretty important thing.
2. Isabela doesn't return.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.
3. You fight all the qunari and presumably they all die.  Isabela doesn't have it.  Who took it?
4. You duel the Arishok and the Qunari had the relic.  Did they keep it?  Did someone else take it?

It just seems that since they go out of their way to say Isabela re-steals the relic AND Cassandra knows about it, and it woudln't be surprising if the Qunari war played a part in future games, likely about the relic as a point was made to say that they don't have it, what happened to it in the last two cases?

I believe that relic will be important in the future, so it doens't make sense that the qunari would still have it, even under a circumstance where they should.

Just idle wondering on my part.  Nothing more than that.

Modifié par ejoslin, 26 avril 2011 - 09:17 .

[ajm317]

ejoslin wrote...

Avissel wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
So apparently, the relic's fate IS known.  So what happens to it if you dual the arishok?  Nothing is said, but it doesn't make sense that if Isabela isn't stealing it that it goes missing again.

Ok so, your logic train goes
1. I gave him the book.
2. I seem him give the book to that guy.
3. I kill him, that guy leaves with the book.
4. The book is not mentioned.
5. Book must be missing.

Thats....some...yeah.


As for "not knowing what she did with it." What else would she do with it? Make a hat? It's the only thing that makes any sense.

No, that is not my logic train.  I'm not sure what is so difficult about this...  When I read what I write it seems clear.

1. Isabela is turned over to the Arishok and you learn she resteals the relic.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.  Cassandra reinforces that the Qunari don't have it which means it's a pretty important thing.
2. Isabela doesn't return.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.
3. You fight all the qunari and presumably they all die.  Isabela doesn't have it.  Who took it?
4. You duel the Arishok and the Qunari had the relic.  Did they keep it?  Did someone else take it?

It just seems that since they go out of their way to say Isabela re-steals the relic AND Cassandra knows about it, and it woudln't be surprising if the Qunari war played a part in future games, likely about the relic as a point was made to say that they don't have it, what happened to it in the last two cases?

I believe that relic will be important in the future, so it doens't make sense that the qunari would still have it, even under a circumstance where they should.

Just idle wondering on my part.  

I think you are making the relic to be more than it is.  It was just a plot device to keep the Qunari in Kirkwall for three years.

If Isabella comes back and you duel the Arishok I'm pretty sure they still have it.  There is no reason presented in game to suggest that they don't.

[ejoslin]

ajm317 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Avissel wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
So apparently, the relic's fate IS known.  So what happens to it if you dual the arishok?  Nothing is said, but it doesn't make sense that if Isabela isn't stealing it that it goes missing again.

Ok so, your logic train goes
1. I gave him the book.
2. I seem him give the book to that guy.
3. I kill him, that guy leaves with the book.
4. The book is not mentioned.
5. Book must be missing.

Thats....some...yeah.


As for "not knowing what she did with it." What else would she do with it? Make a hat? It's the only thing that makes any sense.

No, that is not my logic train.  I'm not sure what is so difficult about this...  When I read what I write it seems clear.

1. Isabela is turned over to the Arishok and you learn she resteals the relic.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.  Cassandra reinforces that the Qunari don't have it which means it's a pretty important thing.
2. Isabela doesn't return.  Qunari don't have it.  You don't know anything else about it.
3. You fight all the qunari and presumably they all die.  Isabela doesn't have it.  Who took it?
4. You duel the Arishok and the Qunari had the relic.  Did they keep it?  Did someone else take it?

It just seems that since they go out of their way to say Isabela re-steals the relic AND Cassandra knows about it, and it woudln't be surprising if the Qunari war played a part in future games, likely about the relic as a point was made to say that they don't have it, what happened to it in the last two cases?

I believe that relic will be important in the future, so it doens't make sense that the qunari would still have it, even under a circumstance where they should.

Just idle wondering on my part.  

I think you are making the relic to be more than it is.  It was just a plot device to keep the Qunari in Kirkwall for three years.

If Isabella comes back and you duel the Arishok I'm pretty sure they still have it.  There is no reason presented in game to suggest that they don't.

Except for the comment about Cassandra knowing that the qunari don't have the relic.  It could be nothing.  But the way things end in DA2, it wouldn't surprise me if the qunari take advantage of the unrest.

It just started with me idly wondering this -- I have no clue how it became a discussion on its own.

[Sabriana]

@ EJ

Oh really? I never handed her over, so I never heard this part. Interesting.

As for them having the artifact, I think it's been shown pretty distinctively that there is "always" an out.

Ambiguous story part is ambiguous.

You see the Qunari take the relic, that doesn't mean he is successfully returning it to Par Vollen. That's never been addressed, and can be shaped at the writer's whim without bending anything.

[ejoslin]

Sabriana wrote...

@ EJ

Oh really? I never handed her over, so I never heard this part. Interesting.

As for them having the artifact, I think it's been shown pretty distinctively that there is "always" an out.

Ambiguous story part is ambiguous.

You see the Qunari take the relic, that doesn't mean he is successfully returning it to Par Vollen. That's never been addressed, and can be shaped at the writer's whim without bending anything.

I think it's pretty clear it doesn't make it to Par Vollen which is why I think it will have something to do in a future game.  I mean, can you imagine the qunari NOT adding in their own brand of complication during the chaos?  

[ajm317]

ejoslin wrote...
Except for the comment about Cassandra knowing that the qunari don't have the relic.

Cassandra doesn't say this if you duel the Arishok and win though.  I'm not sure why you think it's a given that it doesn't get to Par Vollen.

Sure the writers could come back later and say it didn't, but I don't see any evidence that it didn't at this point.

[ejoslin]

ajm317 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
Except for the comment about Cassandra knowing that the qunari don't have the relic.

Cassandra doesn't say this if you duel the Arishok and win though.  I'm not sure why you think it's a given that it doesn't get to Par Vollen.

Sure the writers could come back later and say it didn't, but I don't see any evidence that it didn't at this point.

Well, if it does in some circumstances and doesn't in others, that could be problematic as well as far as the story goes.  Since a point is made in at least two instances that the qunari don't get their most holy of relics back, one that sparked a war, one that the tevinters want terribly, one that Orlais has kept a tight hold on for centuries, it seems like it could be an issue in later games.

It's all just speculation on my part, though.  it would seem sloppy if this was only a plot device for DA2 and never touched on again.   But maybe I just liked the whole qunari issue that I hope to see more of that story.

[Sabriana]

ejoslin wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

@ EJ

Oh really? I never handed her over, so I never heard this part. Interesting.

As for them having the artifact, I think it's been shown pretty distinctively that there is "always" an out.

Ambiguous story part is ambiguous.

You see the Qunari take the relic, that doesn't mean he is successfully returning it to Par Vollen. That's never been addressed, and can be shaped at the writer's whim without bending anything.

I think it's pretty clear it doesn't make it to Par Vollen which is why I think it will have something to do in a future game.  I mean, can you imagine the qunari NOT adding in their own brand of complication during the chaos?  

True enough.

Oh, I sense a story here. Cassandra not even addressing this when Isa returns leaves all kinds of doors open. I really liked Act II, imo that was the best of DA 2.

Tevinter is interested in the relic, and very much so. It has a bearing on the Tevinter vs Qunari conflict, and a huge bearing at that.

I like the way you're thinking. Now that would make a great tale. Especially pertaining the rigid structure of the Qunari society. The only time I saw the Arishok and his minions awestruck was when the relic came into place.

[ejoslin]

Exactly. You've got the world in complete chaos.

The circles and the templars have both rebelled which would have a large affect on Orlais and the rest of Thedas. 
Orlaisian nobles are divided over Ferelden.
Ferelden itself may be in chaos due to several factors.
Antiva is in big trouble as the Crows are being dismantled and they have no active military (not sure this will be explored though).
The imperial chantry must want to start moving into the rest of Thedas

And the Qunari are pissed at them all.

Plus you have Morrigan and Flemeth with their own agendas.  DA3 could be absolutely amazing.

Edit: And I left out the part that something major is going on that the Wardens are trying to deal with.  Another blight?  Maybe the OGB?

I don't know.  I was just speculating on why in two cases there is a point made that the qunari don't get the relic back.  That should be big I would think.

Modifié par ejoslin, 26 avril 2011 - 10:57 .

[LobselVith8]

ejoslin wrote...

Edit: And I left out the part that something major is going on that the Wardens are trying to deal with.  Another blight?  Maybe the OGB?

I don't know.  I was just speculating on why in two cases there is a point made that the qunari don't get the relic back.  That should be big I would think.

Maybe it has something to do with what the Nexus Golem says: "The Stone lives beneath Orlais. Mathas gar na fornen pa salroka atrast."