147 réponses à ce sujet

[Pygmali0n]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beyond that, it's unreasonable to expect the next game in a series to accomodate all possible choices made in previous series, partly because doing so would be prohibitively expensive, but also because the developers cannot know what further developments would be consistent with the PC's motives in making those choices in the first place.

Thanks for taking the time to reply seriously to my slightly tongue-in-cheek post. All would be too much to contemplate in future games, but some is a reasonable expectation I think.

As regards to the PC's motives, surely these only have any bearing at the point of action. Further consequences in the outside world are usually independent of the PC. If further developments ought to consider the motive behind the original action, then like any of us the third party would have to guess the true motive. Possibly only something requiring constant decision and action by the PC (between games) and having a constant and wide-reaching affect in the outside world would be too troublesome to implement.

Xewaka wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 has been referred as the pinnacle of Bioware RPG by a sizable amount of this community. Baldur's Gate 2 ignored completely the choices you made in Baldur's Gate: the only thing effectively imported was your character's sheet. Fallout 2 and Fallout New Vegas build up on a very specific set of conditions stablishes in Fallout, never considering alternating routes.
Intergame continuity didn't bother us then, why should it bother us now?

Because it is a new development that was implicitly promised in DA:O and Awakenings (it was probably annouced and hailed by BW too, I can't remember). Expectations matter a lot. 

It also improves the game for many people. It makes choices feel to have more import, it enhances world depth, immersion, replayability and it's simply good fun. Even when it is done in an easily implemented superficial manner.

It may have been made less relevant by the decision to concentrate on a different main character in each game, but I'm sure that decision was a part of the new streamlining. In my opinion different main characters is a great idea, but so is a continuation of one character's story and the former needn't exclude the latter.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 13 novembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[Xewaka]

Pygmali0n wrote...
It may have been made less relevant by the decision to concentrate on a different main character in each game, but I'm sure that decision was a part of the new streamlining. In my opinion different main characters is a great idea, but so is a continuation of one character's story and the former needn't exclude the latter.

Oh, but you're getting that.
That character is Sandal.

[eaglerole]

So far the series has been fun and yea I love the overall plot of the series. (finished DA:O but not DA2 yet) As far as what is canon and what is not, I really can't say much about Bioware breaking your own in game canon, but I do agree that they should try to keep it at a minimum.

One thing for sure, the storytelling of both games are vastly differant and it would be understandable if there are some discrepancies from one to the other.

[Pygmali0n]

Xewaka wrote...

Pygmali0n wrote...
It may have been made less relevant by the decision to concentrate on a different main character in each game, but I'm sure that decision was a part of the new streamlining. In my opinion different main characters is a great idea, but so is a continuation of one character's story and the former needn't exclude the latter.

Oh, but you're getting that.
That character is Sandal.

Yippee, the Wedge Antilles of Dragon Age.

[Savber100]

In the end, just make choices matter in-game if my choices are not really going to carry over in another game.

[jds1bio]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Pygmali0n wrote...
It may have been made less relevant by the decision to concentrate on a different main character in each game, but I'm sure that decision was a part of the new streamlining. In my opinion different main characters is a great idea, but so is a continuation of one character's story and the former needn't exclude the latter.

Oh, but you're getting that.
That character is Sandal.

Yippee, the Wedge Antilles of Dragon Age.

I always thought of Sandal as the R2-D2 of Dragon Age, with Bodhan being a C3PO-like counterpart.  These are the guys that stay constant despite the changes and choices swirling around them.

[jds1bio]

Savber100 wrote...

In the end, just make choices matter in-game if my choices are not really going to carry over in another game.

So is it ok to have two achievable endings for a game, where only one is used as the starting point for the game's sequel?

[Sylvius the Mad]

jds1bio wrote...

So is it ok to have two achievable endings for a game, where only one is used as the starting point for the game's sequel?

I think that's acceptable, yes.

Unless the PC carries over, as well.  You can't have us play the same character, but at the same time tell us that the choices that character made didn't count.

As long as BioWare sticks to having a different PC for each game in the series, then there's no need to have choices from one carry over into the next.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

It seems like it defeats the purpose of having choices though, doesn't it?

Not at all.  The purpose of having choices is to allow you the freedom to play your character.  Within each game, your PC can express his personality through his choices and actions, and you can see those choices have an effect within the game.

The next game stands alone.  Your previous character has no relevance there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That matters is that you got to make the choice, thus materially implementing your character's personality. It's not just important to your character whether he saved Redcliffe, but it's important why he saved Redcliffe.

The point of the game is to roleplay your character. If you don't get to make any choices, then you aren't being allowed to roleplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

That's true, I guess.

On a slightly different shoot of the same tree, is it true that DAIII will also have Hawke? That's what a "friend" of mine on here said. If it's true, then choices from DAII would need to carry over, by your definition.

Yes they would.

However, I fully expect DA3 will not feature Hawke.  That would run contrary to BioWare's stated design intention.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 novembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[jds1bio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

That's true, I guess.

On a slightly different shoot of the same tree, is it true that DAIII will also have Hawke? That's what a "friend" of mine on here said. If it's true, then choices from DAII would need to carry over, by your definition.

Yes they would.

However, I fully expect DA3 will not feature Hawke.  That would run contrary to BioWare's stated design intention.

Yeah, if Hawke was the PC in DA3 then things should carry over, and they should be canon-enough to plug into the events and story of the next game. 

But I would be surprised if we got to play as Hawke in a DA game again.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

It seems like it defeats the purpose of having choices though, doesn't it?

Not at all.  The purpose of having choices is to allow you the freedom to play your character.  Within each game, your PC can express his personality through his choices and actions, and you can see those choices have an effect within the game.

The next game stands alone.  Your previous character has no relevance there.

I agree with this basically.  I mean, sure it's a nice feature for a game to honor your previous choices but if it comes to a  choice between

1) having my choices honored in the sequel but having little or no ability to shape the story in the first game OR
2) Being able to shape the story in the first game substantially but having some disconnects with the storyline in the second,

I'll definitely take #2.  Unfortunately, judging by the way we were railroaded in DA2, I'm guessing Bioware's taking approach #1 for the DA2/DA3 transition. 

[Spell Singer]

I don't see why there is a problem with honoring save games and the choices inside that save file. It was very disconcerting to have a quest with Zev in it when for that particular saved game I had infact killed him. I don't see why that just didn't cause a flag in DA2 that prevented the quest from ever showinig up.

Basically I have 3 very different Thedas's where 3 very different wardens and an associated Hawke have existed and I would like to see how they play out. A good question is how big is the interaction matrix getting and is it such that it seriously impacts on the next game in terms of quests and most importantly lines of dialogue. But without knowing anything about the next game plot and character wise it is impossible to say how complicated the situation is getting for Bioware's writers.

But whether a companion lived or died should not be something set into cannon but should be only dependent on what the player did. If you killed Zevran he should not show up in DA2 for example. For me, it is the little things that either stand out in a positive sense and really make you appreciate a game more or else hit you like a brick in the face and make you go what is going on here??

[Lord_Valandil]

Stanley Woo wrote...
such as DAO choices making a difference in some things in DA2.

What difference?

[Phaedros]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
such as DAO choices making a difference in some things in DA2.

What difference?

I spent a lot of time getting the 'perfect' endgame save in DA:O ...  for two lines of dialogue in DA2, a dismissive put-down,  about 'her indoors'  ...  disappointed doesn't cover it.   

[Realmzmaster]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
such as DAO choices making a difference in some things in DA2.

What difference?

Certain quests and dialogue are available or not available depending on what you did it Origins and Awakening. Example if you pick Bhelan as King the quest Last of His Line appears. If you did not recruit N. Howe into the Wardens in Awakenings the quest to find him from his sister does not appear. If you save Vigil Keep and burned  Amaranthine the quest The Conspirators is available. The King Alistair quest only appears if you made Alistair king and there are others..

[maxernst]

Spell Singer wrote...

I don't see why there is a problem with honoring save games and the choices inside that save file. It was very disconcerting to have a quest with Zev in it when for that particular saved game I had infact killed him. I don't see why that just didn't cause a flag in DA2 that prevented the quest from ever showinig up.

Basically I have 3 very different Thedas's where 3 very different wardens and an associated Hawke have existed and I would like to see how they play out. A good question is how big is the interaction matrix getting and is it such that it seriously impacts on the next game in terms of quests and most importantly lines of dialogue. But without knowing anything about the next game plot and character wise it is impossible to say how complicated the situation is getting for Bioware's writers.

But whether a companion lived or died should not be something set into cannon but should be only dependent on what the player did. If you killed Zevran he should not show up in DA2 for example. For me, it is the little things that either stand out in a positive sense and really make you appreciate a game more or else hit you like a brick in the face and make you go what is going on here??

Umm...if you have three very different Thedas and they have to respect your choices, either:

a)  The story will be such that your choices will be trivial (as they were in DA2, for the most part) or
  They have to release three very different games, just for you.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Being able to adjust the world state adds to the experience in the manner similar to being able to adjust the PC's state, imo.

Of course, it should probably be noted that the latter is also on decline in the recent titles.

But trying to fix one tends to prevent the fixing of the other.

I only think one of them is important.

Considering DA2 provides largely fixed both the world state and the protagonist, i don't think there any real evidence for that tendency you speak of. If anything, the opposite? The limitations appear to come hand in hand.

(that's interpreting "fix" as "fasten". If you meant "fix" in the sense of "repair" then i wouldn't consider DA2 to do anything of that sort, so similarly there's no evidence here to speak of)

[Sylvius the Mad]

I meant repair.

I'm saying that allowing freedom within one game creates too many variables to transfer to a new game, while transfering variables to a new game requires that you not allow much freedom in the first.

You can only solve one of those problems at a time, and I think allowing freedom within one game is more important than transfering variables across titles.

[macrocarl]

I'm not sure you can't have both freedom to make different choices and have those plot points carry over to the next game. Could people define 'freedom' in a way that would like to be seen in a DA game and why it wouldn't/ shouldn't carry over to the next game?
If the DA-vers is about Thedas and the decisions made to shape it, then I'd hope that down the line my Thedas could look different from someone else's Thedas by the accumulated choices made by each DA hero.

[FaeQueenCory]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm saying that allowing freedom within one game creates too many variables to transfer to a new game, while transfering variables to a new game requires that you not allow much freedom in the first.

I disagree, Sylvius. I just think that this was handled EXTREMELY poorly in DA2.

For instance: Sophia Dryden.
Should you let "her" live in Origins, she will show up on the Wounded Coast upon import....
However, unlike in Origins, the player is given NO choice upon meeting Sophia.
Hawke's options are "kill her" "smartypants kill her" and "angry kill her"... There was no negotiation, no freedom... No choice.

And this does not have anything to do with the choice of letting "Sophia" live being imported... this is entirely the lack of choice in DA2.

What should have been done was have the encounter similar to Origins.... or, at the very least, have all three choices lead to combat... and then have the real choice (let "her" go or kill "her") be handled upon her defeat.

So it's not that there are too many variables to be transfered, its just that the imported flags should lead to dead ends like SO many of the import stuff did...