169 réponses à ce sujet

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

scyphozoa wrote...

I disagree. The reason Bioware made such a big deal about continuity in importing is because it hadn't been done before for many years, and certainly not in a AAA franchise. I don't know where or why you would think importing inaccurate data would be an acceptable form of importing data. If you say you will import data, it is expected that data is accurate, otherwise, why advertise importing it at all? 

Simply put, there is no such thing as half-way consistent. Its either consistent or its inconsistent. And if you really think that DA isn't obligated to import consistent data when they specifically advertise doing so, then they should have said "We give you the option to import your save files but that data won't be accurately reflected in DA2." ...Lol, that would be a funny advertising campaign. 

Still doesn't sound right to me. There's no real reason to advertise it as full continuity importing if there's no other kind but it's not important. What's important is that there's nothing definitive stopping Bioware from pursuing the partial continuity route. So my original statement still stands. Also, inconsistent and partially consistent are pretty much the same thing. Inconsistent doesn't imply that everything isn't consistent, only that there exists at least one thing that isn't consistent. The true opposite of consistency is simply not having any consistency at all, which in this case, would be having DA 2 have nothing to do with your player choices at all, which would mean no person or thing you could have affected in DA:O should appear or be mentioned in any shape or form in DA 2. 

DaiyoukaiGeisha wrote...


Yep. Having said that, from a purely business standpoint, it is worth doing the planning or (like you would do for a TV show screenplay for example) leave in a few "outs" for each character. If your main star in a TV show gets pregnant you better have a good explanation for that in the show. Star Trek writers seem to be the masters of that scenario, heh. So I disagree that your choices would be "limited" just because there is full continuity, it depends on how you write it.

I don't really think this one is up for debate. Let me try to explain. TV shows aren't an accurate comparison. TV shows only have to worry about a linear development of the story. Even if at some point something happens that causes you to change the story, that's fine because the original story is gone forever and you can keep going under the new circumstances. This isn't true with player choices. Full Continuity insists that you write the story to satisfy all branches and the import reactivity you write for those branches could potentially also have branches. With each passing game, the permutations and combinations the game has to support risks increasing at an exponential rate unless limitations are purposely set in place. So at the very least, writers would have to limit the number of distinct choices a player can make for a situation as well as the frequency of these noteworthy choices. Scope/consequences of choices would be up to how much devs are willing to support large variations in the game flow. 

[TEWR]

seraphymon wrote...

people keep saying the ashes for leliana but arent they corrupted by pouring the blood on them already?

There's no way to know if blood actually corrupted and robbed the ashes of their healing powers, because all we have to go on are theories and the word of a raving lunatic who claims to know things about anything magical, but I would hardly take Kolgrim seriously.


Defiling something doesn't mean it's now deprived of anything. Taking a **** on the Bible doesn't mean it's no longer the Bible, it's just a very stinky Bible.


Not the best thing to compare it to I admit, but as far as I know there aren't any objects in this world that have been claimed to hold magical healing properties and have been defiled.

[berelinde]

DrunkDeadman wrote...

DreamerM wrote...

This whole debate reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon I saw where Calvin has a watering can and tells a potted flower, "Ahahaha, you want water? Of course you want water! You need water to live! Well I got a whole can of it right here. I decide if you get water or not! You are completely dependent on me! Without ME you----"

And then he's cut off by a thunder-crack and a torrential downpour.

Moral of the story? It's Bioware's world. We just get to play in it.

I like this poster.

I don't really care if Bioware resurrects some characters. Sure, ones such as Loghain and Alistair should be respected in this regard, but those you can kill "just because" can be brought back. I'll gladly sacrifice some choice for the betterment of the story. Now, excuse me while I go strap on the chainmai. I can already see the daggers glaring at me.

No daggers from me. In a world with magical healing, death should not be regarded as permanent. Sure, a certain character had very permanent views in mortality and debts owed to justice in Act 3, so I don't expect any retconning there, but otherwise, unless you observe their rotting corpse some weeks later, the character might still be alive.

Which is a shame, because I really liked said character with strong views on mortality and debts owed to justice. (sigh) Well, I'll never kill him, that's all I'm saying.

[kglaser]

Huntress wrote...

kglaser wrote...

Are you guys saying that if in my son's game Zevran died, and then he imports it into DA2...and you run into Zevran?
If that's what you are saying, then...wow. I just...wow. <_<
Does that really happen?  Please tell me that wouldn't happen.

I can't answer that.. I haven't killed him, he is too.. yum!! tell you what, why don't you try playing you're son game and check it out for us?

I wouldn't mind, except he's screwed up the ending of DA:O with his choices and made the boss fight hard...I'll give it a try

[FieryDove]

scyphozoa wrote...

All i can say is I hope it doesn't happen again in the future. I'm not interested in seeing any of the choices I have made in DAO or DA2 contradicted in DA3, for any reason.

I can see it now. DA3: Meredith Returns

Some deaths can be explained by strange means. (Anders) Perhaps Leliana. Rest I don't know.

[astreqwerty]

im of the opinion that they should canonize characters and story elements that the player cannot control nor alter ( though im aware that this limits the choice factor,the gamig industry hasnt reached a point were the gamers choice can greatly alter the experiance) ..for example liara from mass effect..you couldnt decide her fate so therefore they could use her character however they want...but the fiasco with leleiana is just unacceptable

[Nightdragon8]

talk about misunderstandings....

I agree, having only partial imports of key charcters without clear cut answers as to why they lived is the major issue here.... where in alot of peoples minds that DA:O choices where fake. And not important.

Also yes Zev is dead if you killed him, you wont get the quest to hunt him down. (there is an issue where a DLC set the setting to where he is alive.but "I think" they fixed it with the lastest version)

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

All this talk about acceptablility...Can't be helped. Guess I'll take my leave of this conversation. 

[DadeLeviathan]

I completely agree. While I respect the developer's choice to bring back whichever character they want, it creates a major break with players when they played a Warden that Killed Leliana and had Anders die during the siege of Vigil's Keep. And while I do respect the developers' decision, it is certainly not the decision I would have made were I in their shoes.

[schalafi]

Once again I have to say that you are talking about a *fantasy*. That gives the devs all kinds of leeway, including finding explanations for bringing characters back to life if they want. I can think of several ways to explain bringing any of them back... magic, you know, and somehow I can't understand the reason why everyone gets so bent when a fantasy isn't realistic.

I remember reading fairy tales when I was a kid; I didn't have problems identifying with them because I took them as a possibility that we adults don't seem to have the ability to do.

Imo, I think it takes a great amount of arrogance to criticize Bioware's rendering of fantasy games, unless you have made some yourselves, that sold millions of copies. Obviously they did something right!

I have decided to stop reading these hate topics from players who apparently feel they could have done a better job with DA2 than the developers did.

[Droma]

again this stupid discussion? seriously? there were actually only 2 people which are "resurrected" and both are "kind of" explained, so where is the import bugged? if they "die" in da:o, they will mention this fact in da2, if you didn't notice then you simply missed it (anders mentioning his death can be missed). so ok you can discuss about the explenations which were given within the game, but you can't say the import is bugged or doesn't recognize death. in fact it does.

[Hatchetman77]

DreamerM wrote...

This whole debate reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon I saw where Calvin has a watering can and tells a potted flower, "Ahahaha, you want water? Of course you want water! You need water to live! Well I got a whole can of it right here. I decide if you get water or not! You are completely dependent on me! Without ME you----"

And then he's cut off by a thunder-crack and a torrential downpour.

Moral of the story? It's Bioware's world. We just get to play in it.

I would LOVE to see someone try to use this logic at an EA board meeting. 

EA: "Mr. BioWare exec, can you explain why you took our investors money and made a game that has no appeal to the target audience?  You do understand that we are not here to fund personal pet projects, but to make products that produce a profit which means they need to appeal to the buyers."

BioWare:  "It's MY game and I'll do whatever the hell I want.  They should feel LUCKY to be able to play my game!"

EA: "Uhhhh, security....."

[Siven80]

The only problem i see with resurrecting characters is that DAO allowed so many options in that regard.  If there was even a small chance that the killable character would be coming back in a future game, the devs hould have had the foresight to make that character non-killable. Also i think the epilogue slides are supposed to be rumours.

The Anders thing i thought was explained by justice merging with him sometime. Kinda like Wynne in DAO..she should have died but the spirit saved her.

Personally though, i never kill off companions unless i have no choice. So all my saves have every companion alive. I saw no reason to kill them off, so it supposed resurrections didnt bother me.

On a sidenote,having a lot of import decisions can be be more trouble than its worth, especially for the devs. Having some is nice sure, but once they start adding up they can really start to get in the way of building a continuous and fluid story.

Less is more as they say.

Modifié par Siven80, 25 juin 2011 - 06:55 .

[Sylvianus]

It's simple. If you are not sure you want to allow a character to die, do not allow to kill him.

If you do, then you're aware that it couldn't be present in a sequel. So think of an alternative.

The illusion of choice, enough.

[RangerSG]

Sylvianus wrote...

It's simple. If you are not sure you want to allow a character to die, do not allow to kill him.

If you do, then you're aware that it couldn't be present in a sequel. So think of an alternative.

The illusion of choice, enough.

Then players scream that they can't dispose of the party members they don't like. That's a no-win scenario. The simple fact is, there are in-game explanations, at least in part, why those instances happened. Neither character was cut-screen killed, so there's no reason to believe the PC couldn't have *thought* the NPC killed, but failed to finish the job. Not like there aren't enough stories where that happens.

Anders is a bit more annoying because it comes up in an epilogue slide. But the developers had already said the DA:A slides were relegated to rumor. The bigger problem is Anders' timeline.

[Sylvianus]

RangerSG wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

It's simple. If you are not sure you want to allow a character to die, do not allow to kill him.

If you do, then you're aware that it couldn't be present in a sequel. So think of an alternative.

The illusion of choice, enough.

Then players scream that they can't dispose of the party members they don't like. That's a no-win scenario. The simple fact is, there are in-game explanations, at least in part, why those instances happened. Neither character was cut-screen killed, so there's no reason to believe the PC couldn't have *thought* the NPC killed, but failed to finish the job. Not like there aren't enough stories where that happens.

Anders is a bit more annoying because it comes up in an epilogue slide. But the developers had already said the DA:A slides were relegated to rumor. The bigger problem is Anders' timeline.

I kinda agree with you actually;
The simple sentence  hides the ambiguity.

We are ready to accept a return if there is a real explanation, which is implemented in the story and follow a logic compared to the presumed character's death. If this was thought for the story. It's like the novels, where we believe that a character is dead but in reality we don't have all the informations to know that actually he survived.

If you read David Gaider a long time ago before the release of the game,, you saw that he said we can ignore the player's decision if necessary. In a sense, because we want that way ( reason out of the game, like that ), not because the person was not really dead. We decided to change things, because it  doesn't worked. For me the difference is subtle, but it is fundamentally wrong as a justification.

For example Leliana. No explanation, she is there, alive. We don't know why and how. She 's alive, talk about the warden as her friend, although he tried to kill her.

For Anders it is very complicated. He can die a ton of time in awakening. He  can even be given to the Templars from the start, without becoming a warden ( and in dA2, he is a warden .) There are too many things inconsistent about him.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 25 juin 2011 - 07:47 .

[RangerSG]

Sylvianus wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

It's simple. If you are not sure you want to allow a character to die, do not allow to kill him.

If you do, then you're aware that it couldn't be present in a sequel. So think of an alternative.

The illusion of choice, enough.

Then players scream that they can't dispose of the party members they don't like. That's a no-win scenario. The simple fact is, there are in-game explanations, at least in part, why those instances happened. Neither character was cut-screen killed, so there's no reason to believe the PC couldn't have *thought* the NPC killed, but failed to finish the job. Not like there aren't enough stories where that happens.

Anders is a bit more annoying because it comes up in an epilogue slide. But the developers had already said the DA:A slides were relegated to rumor. The bigger problem is Anders' timeline.

I kinda agree with you actually;
The simple sentence  hides the ambiguity.

We are ready to accept a return if there is a real explanation, which is implemented in the story and follow a logic compared to the presumed character's death. If this was thought for the story. It's like the novels, where we believe that a character is dead but in reality we don't have all the informations to know that actually he survived.

If you read David Gaider a long time ago before the release of the game,, you saw that he said we can ignore the player's decision if necessary. In a sense, because we want that way ( reason out of the game, like that ), not because the person was not really dead. We decided to change things, because it  doesn't worked. For me the difference is subtle, but it is fundamentally wrong as a justification.

For example Leliana. No explanation, she is there, alive. We don't know why and how. She 's alive, talk about the warden as her friend, although he tried to kill her.

For Anders it is very complicated. He can die a ton of time in awakening. He  can even be given to the Templars from the start, without becoming a warden ( and in dA2, he is a warden .) There are too many things inconsistent about him.

Lel's a forgiving person. And people use "friend" in very odd ways sometimes So what *she* thinks of the Warden may not be the same as how the Warden views her...or she might have a gap in her memory there, and only remembers something went terribly wrong. She's not there long enough to answer all those questions. And the Codex would have no reason to explain everything to someone who didn't know the Warden.

Anders I concede is a mess on many levels. As others have said, I've all but admitted that the character in DA2 is not the Anders from Awakening. From personality, to timeline, to being a Warden even if the player turned him over, yeah. Anders is a mess. The epilogue slide is the LEAST of those concerns, is all I mean.

[Sylvianus]

RangerSG wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

It's simple. If you are not sure you want to allow a character to die, do not allow to kill him.

If you do, then you're aware that it couldn't be present in a sequel. So think of an alternative.

The illusion of choice, enough.

Then players scream that they can't dispose of the party members they don't like. That's a no-win scenario. The simple fact is, there are in-game explanations, at least in part, why those instances happened. Neither character was cut-screen killed, so there's no reason to believe the PC couldn't have *thought* the NPC killed, but failed to finish the job. Not like there aren't enough stories where that happens.

Anders is a bit more annoying because it comes up in an epilogue slide. But the developers had already said the DA:A slides were relegated to rumor. The bigger problem is Anders' timeline.

I kinda agree with you actually;
The simple sentence  hides the ambiguity.

We are ready to accept a return if there is a real explanation, which is implemented in the story and follow a logic compared to the presumed character's death. If this was thought for the story. It's like the novels, where we believe that a character is dead but in reality we don't have all the informations to know that actually he survived.

If you read David Gaider a long time ago before the release of the game,, you saw that he said we can ignore the player's decision if necessary. In a sense, because we want that way ( reason out of the game, like that ), not because the person was not really dead. We decided to change things, because it  doesn't worked. For me the difference is subtle, but it is fundamentally wrong as a justification.

For example Leliana. No explanation, she is there, alive. We don't know why and how. She 's alive, talk about the warden as her friend, although he tried to kill her.

For Anders it is very complicated. He can die a ton of time in awakening. He  can even be given to the Templars from the start, without becoming a warden ( and in dA2, he is a warden .) There are too many things inconsistent about him.

Lel's a forgiving person. And people use "friend" in very odd ways sometimes So what *she* thinks of the Warden may not be the same as how the Warden views her...or she might have a gap in her memory there, and only remembers something went terribly wrong. She's not there long enough to answer all those questions. And the Codex would have no reason to explain everything to someone who didn't know the Warden.

Anders I concede is a mess on many levels. As others have said, I've all but admitted that the character in DA2 is not the Anders from Awakening. From personality, to timeline, to being a Warden even if the player turned him over, yeah. Anders is a mess. The epilogue slide is the LEAST of those concerns, is all I mean.

Lol true enough for Leliana. I still wait for explanations in the next game.

But given the mess in DA2, I hope Bioware will not start again with this kind of things. It's difficult to do^( because we must think of everything, take into account all the details and decisions,  for a perfect implementation in the sequel, ) and it's difficult to believe for us, not all the time but often..

Seriously,it is only desirable if it done perfectly.

Firstly because it is important  to not launch to the player as message:  your decision who cares ?

And " we can bring back a character because only a small per centage of people killed this one. " This isn't a justification, and it is a loss of credit. That means that the choices are countless in its diversity. So, insignificant.

And for the DA2's epilogue, I wait to see to what it will lead.

[PsychoBlonde]

Mykel54 wrote...

In DA2 we had several  plot resurrections (like Anders and Leliana). Here
is hoping that bioware don´t ignore player choices next time, and if there are returning characters in any future game or DLC content, make the death of characters meaningful. Do you
think it is too much to hope?

I don't think it's too much to hope at all, although I'd kind of like to see Sten again and I realize this would probably involve a resurrection for many people who played Origins differently than I did.  I can live without seeing Sten if they decide to stop with the revolving-door afterlife.

If you're going to bring back characters, why not be a little more prudent about letting people kill them off in the first place, sheesh.

[Drasanil]

Honestly, the whole resurrection thing is one big ****-up on Bioware’s part that could have been easily avoided with even the tiniest amount of forethought. It’s quite simple, if you would like to possibly include a character in later stories with major roles, don’t make them killable. If you would like them to be a minor recurring feature, then just design their role in subsequent games so that they are not crucially necessary or it can be filled by another character that already exists in the instalment.

There’s even a way you can avoid gripes about being ‘stuck’ with party members, just get rid of them in non immediately fatal ways. Anders getting dragged off by the templars being a good example, as a mechanic though rather than as a specific case vis-a-vis DA2, in such circumstances you never actually see the character die and there is always a loophole in which they could survive.

One of the larger problems with DA2 resurrections was that they weren’t even necessary in the first place. In essence Bioware invalidated player choices for no particular reasons. In the case of Anders they trampled all over both the Justice and Anders outcomes from DAA to create what is really a new character that doesn’t even remotely resemble either or the previous two. They could have just introduced a new chantry hating templar bothering mage and it wouldn’t have made a lick of difference.

Similarly with Leliana, there was no point in bringing her back for a two second clip. For new players who didn’t play DAO she means nothing to them as a character given she doesn’t feature enough to even allow more development, where as for players who did play DAO it just carries the risk of upsetting your fan base as much as pleasing them for ignoring your own continuity.

[Foolsfolly]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yeah I take issue with Dragon Age for this reason. Mass Effect advertised from day one, anyone who dies will stay dead.

But Dragon Age doesn't seem interested in this kind of consistency. Breaking player choices makes me feel like DA writers are not creating a story for players, they are creating a story for themselves.

To be fair, DA was never advertised as importing your choices like ME was, but if DA is going to offer the feature to import choices, then they should Accurately import those choices. By contradicting choices the player has made, you undermine the entire choice and consequence mechanic of your games. Players don't want to hear that their choices are irrelevant and reversed, regardless of if its just 1 choice out of 100 made.

This is partly due to loss aversion. Players feel loss more than they feel gain, so it is important not to make the player feel like they have lost something, in this case, the sense of consequence to making major choices in DAO.

Well the ME games were always all about the "your choices here will matter in future games" bit. That was one of its biggest selling points to me (the others being it's sci-fi and BioWare).

The Dragon Age series never said that. It was never advertized and frankly, I honestly thought it would go back to the old RPG days where there was one canon story. (Like the Elder Scrolls games, Fallout 1 & 2, Baulder's Gate and all.)

I was really surprised when they announced it would have an import function.

...

...and then the game came out and, personally, it feels like at one point in development they'd decided to have a fixed canon storyline for the games. And then they changed their mind to have the import. But they also kept parts of their canon storyline.

As is it's a weird in-between. Where there's an import, but no garentee that anything from the import matters while some things are fixed. Largely this has been with companions. Currently, no matter what you import Anders, Justice, Leliana, Wynne, and Shale are alive and well.

I'm not a fan of the in-between. I think there was two ways to play this series, either have the imports matter or set canon after the fact. And I think it should have stuck to one of those, either one is fine with me.

I know people would complain and **** if there was a set canon. I know that for a fact. But this in-between doesn't quiet those people, it just frustrates them more to see only some of their choices matter.

(Wynne and Shale are alive because of the up-coming novel which I guess will state that they can't die in the Circle Tower/Haven or Deep Roads respectively.)

[Foolsfolly]

Drasanil wrote...

Honestly, the whole resurrection thing is one big ****-up on Bioware’s part that could have been easily avoided with even the tiniest amount of forethought. It’s quite simple, if you would like to possibly include a character in later stories with major roles, don’t make them killable. If you would like them to be a minor recurring feature, then just design their role in subsequent games so that they are not crucially necessary or it can be filled by another character that already exists in the instalment.

There’s even a way you can avoid gripes about being ‘stuck’ with party members, just get rid of them in non immediately fatal ways. Anders getting dragged off by the templars being a good example, as a mechanic though rather than as a specific case vis-a-vis DA2, in such circumstances you never actually see the character die and there is always a loophole in which they could survive.

One of the larger problems with DA2 resurrections was that they weren’t even necessary in the first place. In essence Bioware invalidated player choices for no particular reasons. In the case of Anders they trampled all over both the Justice and Anders outcomes from DAA to create what is really a new character that doesn’t even remotely resemble either or the previous two. They could have just introduced a new chantry hating templar bothering mage and it wouldn’t have made a lick of difference.

Similarly with Leliana, there was no point in bringing her back for a two second clip. For new players who didn’t play DAO she means nothing to them as a character given she doesn’t feature enough to even allow more development, where as for players who did play DAO it just carries the risk of upsetting your fan base as much as pleasing them for ignoring your own continuity.

Hilariously, Morrigan was unkillable until Witch Hunt came out. So when she makes her reappearance we're either going to have to assume she just survived the murder knife or that Witch Hunt never happened.

...it's actually likely that Witch Hunt never happened. It always had a 50/50 chance of not happening anyway since it only makes sense with Wardens who do the Dark Ritual ending. The absolute lack of any impact from the import or even mention of anything from that DLC makes me think it simply didn't happen. Much like Leliana's Song and Darkspawn Chronicles.

(There's no way Leliana's Song is canon. Maybe parts of it but that is such an unreliable narrator mixed with "We can't spend money to make this DLC so have the setting change from Orlais to Denerim's Marketplace map")

[Foolsfolly]

I agree 110%, scyphozoa.