83 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

We don't even know what's special about the OGB in the first place though. We know he has the soul of a OG but we have no clue what Morrigan wants it for. 

Then let them cry and ******. At least they'll have their choice recongnized in future installements. Better than not having a choice at all.

Considering the sheer amount of ****** that came from the small subset of people that killed Leliana during Sacred Ashes, I can't imagine they're going to be eager to handwave something as large as the OGB/US.

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
Considering the sheer amount of ****** that came from the small subset of people that killed Leliana during Sacred Ashes, I can't imagine they're going to be eager to handwave something as large as the OGB/US.

 

They wouldn't have to handwave it. 

People wanked because Leliana was brought back from the dead. Their choice was flat out ignored. As long as that doesn't happen with the Warden I doubt there will be as much complaining. Even if the acknowledgement isn't as major as people would like the game would still be acknowledging their choice. Not retconing it. 

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Considering the sheer amount of ****** that came from the small subset of people that killed Leliana during Sacred Ashes, I can't imagine they're going to be eager to handwave something as large as the OGB/US.

 

They wouldn't have to handwave it. 

People wanked because Leliana was brought back from the dead. Their choice was flat out ignored. As long as that doesn't happen with the Warden I doubt there will be as much complaining. Even if the acknowledgement isn't as major as people would like the game would still be acknowledging their choice. Not retconing it. 

Leliana does acknowledge having "died". It's not explicitly explained as of yet, but the choice isn't ignored. People still complained, because it wasn't the outcome they expected.

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
Leliana does acknowledge having "died". It's not explicitly explained as of yet, but the choice isn't ignored. People still complained, because it wasn't the outcome they expected.

Isn't that bugged? I don't recall getting it when I killed her.  Edit :Retcon is wrong word. Her ressurection being unexplained (not to mention didn't even have a lampshade in origins where you could behead her) caused a lot of the ******. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Leliana does acknowledge having "died". It's not explicitly explained as of yet, but the choice isn't ignored. People still complained, because it wasn't the outcome they expected.

Isn't that bugged? I don't recall getting it when I killed her.  

And again it's retconned. While not being ignored it's not much better. 

So why would the OGB/US being retconned be any different? Do you really underestimate people's capacity for ******?

[Giggles_Manically]

All she says is:
"The Maker knew it was not my time"

Since I have read comics for like 15 years now I dont even really blink at anything people can remotely call a "retcon".

Minus the Marvel Civil War.

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...

So why would the OGB/US being retconned be any different? Do you really underestimate people's capacity for ******?

 

Because mentioning the OGB in a non huge capacity isn't a retcon. 

It not existing (if you did the DR) or existing if your Warden is dead would be a retcon. 

And if someone really wants to ****** about their choice being respected then...I don't know what to say. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juin 2011 - 08:58 .

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

The scenario in the original post makes the chantry even more the villain and the mages more the innocent victims. I don't think this is a good thing, and it certainly doesn't seem to fit the writers intention for the game.

I wrote further down that the Divine was operating off of information from a mage-hater. little addendum to that is that the mage-hater was at Kirkwall.

So the Chantry isn't made out to be the villain. Just incompetent, like it's been shown to be.

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...

So why would the OGB/US being retconned be any different? Do you really underestimate people's capacity for ******?

 

Because mentioning the OGB in a non huge capacity isn't a retcon. 

It not existing (if you did the DR) or existing if your Warden is dead would be a retcon. 

And if someone really wants to ****** about their choice being respected then...I don't know what to say. 

That is my point. It's something that should be huge, but it can't be, because making it huge would necessitate retcons and handwaving that would make people ****** out of their minds. They should have either canonized it or come up with a different option that could have been safely ignored or relegated to the sidelines without being so eeeeeeehhhhhhwhy.

Modifié par ipgd, 01 juin 2011 - 09:11 .

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
That is my point. It's something that should be huge, but it can't be, because making it huge would necessitate retcons and handwaving that would make people ****** out of their minds. They should have either canonized it or come up with a different option that could have been safely ignored or relegated to the sidelines without being so eeeeeeehhhhhhwhy.

 

/shrugs

I prefer it being a choice and not forced and I feel fin with it being acknowledged while not being forced on people who didn't want it. But we're not gonna agree on that.  

[TEWR]

So..... when did we deviate away from the topic of friendship and rivalry affecting the story?

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So..... when did we deviate away from the topic of friendship and rivalry affecting the story?

 

My bad. I agree with you actually. I wish friendship/rivalry had stronger effect on the story. 

Though for the rivalry ending I'd want more bloodmages/abominations and the likes. Maybe a few kids turning into abominations and you having to take them down with a squad of templars helping you. 

And the templars would actually *help* with the rite and not turn invisible the second you go into the gates. 

[TEWR]

I wonder, would a kid abomination grow a few feet if he went all meatball flesh sack? Or would he just be a mini meatball flesh sack?

[mesmerizedish]

Filament wrote...

It could be that Morrigan's kid is a future companion and the outcome of a big plot point depends specifically on whether he is an OGB or not.

Wouldn't it be cool if we got totally f*cked over in a future a game for not doing the dark ritual? (Or doing it; either way)

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 01 juin 2011 - 09:51 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wonder, would a kid abomination grow a few feet if he went all meatball flesh sack? Or would he just be a mini meatball flesh sack?

Nah they should totally be mini abominations so the templars can play soccer with them or something. And be ridculously hard to land a hit on. 

[TEWR]

mini it is!

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

mini it is!

 

They could've used Orsino as the championship ball.  

Gallows humor at it's finest. 

[SkittlesKat96]

ipgd wrote...

The destruction of the Chantry is such a gigantic plot element that allowing any variation would basically mean that it could never be addressed again in any future sequels. Do you really want to see the mage/templar conflict get the OGB treatment?

Some things have to be static.

I think now Bioware has the choice of:
1. Making more static events and choices
2. Wasting too much money on trying to make everyones choices fit and make it so everybody gets high quality cutscenes for whatever they choose (say they pay all of their workers to do one big cutscene and heaps of voice acting and audio capturing for a small choice that 15% of their players would go down)
3. Completely dismissing the players choices

The first one is the best option to me and I think they are doing that a bit at the moment and it's making the fans annoyed...

Problem is with games these days if they make them too texty and simple and make Dragon Age II exactly like DAO or Baldurs Gate II then they won't get much money or profits...cause the truth is these days audiences are changing and there is a bigger marketing gap...or something.

TL;DR: Peoples interests in games are changing, industry is changing, Bioware is trying to compete with all of that, but have to do tough but necessary things to keep up. I think they can still somehow find a balance between the Baldurs Gate II and NWN sort of games and games like DA II and the Witcher 2 and Mass Effect (new Rpgs that are simplified different versions of older Rpgs, that focus more on cinematics and graphics and etc.)

EDIT: Personally I wouldn't mind the Chantry not blowing up as long as they have the money to ensure that there is good enough/equal quality for all groups of people and they know that they can make the choice last in future games

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 02 juin 2011 - 09:46 .

[Icinix]

As a friend, you should have been able to talk him out of it.

As a rivalry, you couldn't.

Thats my two pennies.

[TEWR]

ipgd wrote...

The destruction of the Chantry is such a gigantic plot element that allowing any variation would basically mean that it could never be addressed again in any future sequels. Do you really want to see the mage/templar conflict get the OGB treatment?

Some things have to be static.

Except the Mage/Templar/Chantry conflict would still exist. It wouldn't be a "Well some people may have made the choice for it to happen and others didn't" like the OGB. It would still exist, but the reasons for the war would be different. And it would be referenced in the next game.

[Foolsfolly]

ipgd wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

The destruction of the Chantry is such a gigantic plot element that allowing any variation would basically mean that it could never be addressed again in any future sequels. Do you really want to see the mage/templar conflict get the OGB treatment?

Some things have to be static.

Bolded: Yes

Underlined: I respectfully disagree.

Sigh. If they did ignore the mage/templar conflict, people would complain that it doesn't make sense something so important apparently had no affect on the world whatsoever.

Some things do have to be static if they're going to be dealt with in a sequel. When a choice would effectively create two entirely different games, you either cannot address that choice or you have to retcon it/bottleneck it which makes no one happy.

How could it be a big world changing thing? We don't know the world enough to see the change and there's simply no way they'll do a DA4 were it's designed for one to have Circles and Templars and the other to not have Templars or Circles. Either they compromise in DA3 (status quo!) or there's only one ending in DA3 and players complain about railroading.

[Satyricon331]

I think this idea would be a bit tricky to pull off, since it would run the risk of making the player character too reactionary/marginal in the overall plot, while making the companion character the more important one.

It obviously could work though. If the companion does something small differently, small things could have an unexpectedly large impact. Or for DAO, they might have rewritten Morrigan not to offer the ritual depending on the friendship scale for some reason, and the Warden would still have been more central.

[TEWR]

@Foolsfolly: That's something that bugs me about people on here. They'll complain about railroading but they'll also complain about being given choices to the story in certain scenarios when the only alternative woud've been railroading.

And considering my idea doesn't ignore the Mage/Templar/Chantry conflict but rather gives a different reason for it escalating to a full blown war, I don't see ipgd's point. It's like with Orzammar, the outcome is still the same (a king is put on the throne), but how you got to that outcome is different.


@Satyricon: I think there could be a way to make the PC more important than the companion too. how though I don't know. I just think up rough ideas. I'm not good at fixing up all the kinks in them lol.

[Big I]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...
I think now Bioware has the choice of:
1. Making more static events and choices
2. Wasting too much money on trying to make everyones choices fit and make it so everybody gets high quality cutscenes for whatever they choose (say they pay all of their workers to do one big cutscene and heaps of voice acting and audio capturing for a small choice that 15% of their players would go down)
3. Completely dismissing the players choices

I disagree. Most events are already static (Landsmeet, dealing with the Arishok, etc). My problem is that in DA2 they didn't let you determine how those events played out (e.g. no determining who rules Fereldan) while letting you think you'd be able to do so. You can warn Cullen ahead of time and rivalry confront Anders about it to no effect. It's as though you spent your time before the Landsmeet planning to make Alistair king, only to have it always be Anora.