147 réponses à ce sujet

[slyborg]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Surely the easiest way to "dispense with canon-busting choices" would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.



Edit: I accidentally typed "proncess" above. That is a compltely different and far more adult entertainment type of royalty than I intended.

LOL @ proncess. :innocent:

I've said it once and I'll say it again, if you don't like canon, just ignore it.

[esper]

FieryDove wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

Umm...

Dear Chris,

Isn't that what DA2 did in a nutshell already? (For the most part, male/female aside as class did not matter either storywise -mage in templar town *cough*) And it only had one *origin*. I am confused...as usual.

No it isn't. What  Chris is threatning with is basically that your warden didn't exist. The hero of fereldan would in all likelyhood be reffered to as the default and that would mean the default male Cousland who by all likelyhood romanced Leliana or Morrigan.

My Surana definitly existed in da2 and so did the Fereldan she had created with the minor fail or a bug (all right that was actually major) ignoring the romance. (Please find a way for us to fix this, by the way) I like the one country per game in this regard, I also expect my Hawke to exits as the background in da3 and I expect the Kirkwall she left behind to exist. I think da2 did this all right with making small nods to it with small side quest in da2 coming from da1. They were not so big that new players would be cheated out or confused, but they were there. 

[philippe willaume]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Surely the easiest way to "dispense with canon-busting choices" would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.



Edit: I accidentally typed "proncess" above. That is a compltely different and far more adult entertainment type of royalty than I intended.

May be you give us choice to lure us in false sense of security... and crush our little fabricated virtual reality in a godlike manner unless we pay the ransom.

More seriously, it is kind of your world, So provided that there is an explanation for the resurrection and that it is relevant to the plot.  
It is more than fine with the caveat of not having a “aha you though you killed me but  was only severly wounded and not really dead” NPC/companion showing up in every DLC.
 (Or if that the case, at least let the main char meet Miracle Max.)
 
phil
 
PS
Just to make sure you do not have a secret lair and a white cat, do you?

[FieryDove]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Really? The only choice you got to make in DAII was male/female? Really?

Well I didn't like the champion armor so didn't wear it. No one noticed that either...odd.

Sorry...snark is at an all time high today.

You guys are still  in my book.

[Furtled]

@Chris Priestly - I think Square Enix tried an extreme version of that plan with Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. It didn't do well but I'm sure their creative team were much more relaxed...

On-topic and less flippant: To my mind some canon is required as a frame to hang the game world on and Bioware set that, like it or not. I get why some people were miffed by the sudden resurrection of Leliana, Justice or Anders (or even the latter pair joining the Wardens) but ultimately it's done, personally I don't see the point of winding yourself up about something you can't change and as decisions go they're changes that make the over-arching Dragon Age story (imo) better.

With the other media, I tend to treat them as AU (and from everything I've seen Bioware are looking at them the same way), same characters, slightly different universe; granted I would love to see the game world I've created reflected in the comics or books but it's just not feasible, happy enough to see it reflected in game in more minor ways.

Modifié par Furtled, 28 novembre 2011 - 11:42 .

[philippe willaume]

esper wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

Umm...

Dear Chris,

Isn't that what DA2 did in a nutshell already? (For the most part, male/female aside as class did not matter either storywise -mage in templar town *cough*) And it only had one *origin*. I am confused...as usual.

No it isn't. What  Chris is threatning with is basically that your warden didn't exist. The hero of fereldan would in all likelyhood be reffered to as the default and that would mean the default male Cousland who by all likelyhood romanced Leliana or Morrigan.

My Surana definitly existed in da2 and so did the Fereldan she had created with the minor fail or a bug (all right that was actually major) ignoring the romance. (Please find a way for us to fix this, by the way) I like the one country per game in this regard, I also expect my Hawke to exits as the background in da3 and I expect the Kirkwall she left behind to exist. I think da2 did this all right with making small nods to it with small side quest in da2 coming from da1. They were not so big that new players would be cheated out or confused, but they were there. 

Hello esper
The point that FieryDove is very subtly hinting at is that we all left the same Kirkwall behind.
It could be argued that the route that lead there was different for each player.
Not to speak for him but i think the point is not so much that we did not influence what happened in act III. it is that we could not try to do something about it.
Take the arishok, there are different way to arrive to the same result and even if there was not the possibility to make them leave more or less peacefully. There are several options that lead to defeat him.
Those options are function of your choices in act II.

[esper]

philippe willaume wrote...

esper wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

Umm...

Dear Chris,

Isn't that what DA2 did in a nutshell already? (For the most part, male/female aside as class did not matter either storywise -mage in templar town *cough*) And it only had one *origin*. I am confused...as usual.

No it isn't. What  Chris is threatning with is basically that your warden didn't exist. The hero of fereldan would in all likelyhood be reffered to as the default and that would mean the default male Cousland who by all likelyhood romanced Leliana or Morrigan.

My Surana definitly existed in da2 and so did the Fereldan she had created with the minor fail or a bug (all right that was actually major) ignoring the romance. (Please find a way for us to fix this, by the way) I like the one country per game in this regard, I also expect my Hawke to exits as the background in da3 and I expect the Kirkwall she left behind to exist. I think da2 did this all right with making small nods to it with small side quest in da2 coming from da1. They were not so big that new players would be cheated out or confused, but they were there. 

Hello esper
The point that FieryDove is very subtly hinting at is that we all left the same Kirkwall behind.
It could be argued that the route that lead there was different for each player.
Not to speak for him but i think the point is not so much that we did not influence what happened in act III. it is that we could not try to do something about it.
Take the arishok, there are different way to arrive to the same result and even if there was not the possibility to make them leave more or less peacefully. There are several options that lead to defeat him.
Those options are function of your choices in act II.

Oh... I know what FieryDove was hinting at as it was not-very subtle at all ( I don't agree with her/him, but that is another thing). I was just fusing the title of the tread with the subject of what would be the ulitmate consequence of Chris' words... That da2 had an established da:o canon and so forth, which is my personal fear. It is after all not realistic that they don't give us small in game choices and different path to the same consequences as for example the Arishok, but they could just say 'sod it' to the import feature. Oh well, back to lurking.

[Zanallen]

Furtled wrote...

@Chris Priestly - I think Square Enix tried an extreme version of that plan with Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. It didn't do well but I'm sure their creative team were much more relaxed...

Technically, every Final Fantasy game follows that plan. For the most part, FF is a very successful series of games. Spirits Within didn't do terribly well, true. However, that might be because it is a FF movie that has absolutely nothing to do with anything established in the FF games. Plus, the story was freakin' weird.

[esper]

Zanallen wrote...

Furtled wrote...

@Chris Priestly - I think Square Enix tried an extreme version of that plan with Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. It didn't do well but I'm sure their creative team were much more relaxed...

Technically, every Final Fantasy game follows that plan. For the most part, FF is a very successful series of games. Spirits Within didn't do terribly well, true. However, that might be because it is a FF movie that has absolutely nothing to do with anything established in the FF games. Plus, the story was freakin' weird.

Final Fantasy takes places in completely different world that has zero to do with each other. Unless they are purposely sequal or pre-quals that isn't a new in the number series.

[Zanallen]

esper wrote...

Final Fantasy takes places in completely different world that has zero to do with each other. Unless they are purposely sequal or pre-quals that isn't a new in the number series.

But they usually have certain features that are universal to the series. That's why so many of the games revolve around magical crystals, evil empires, Cid, chocobos and moogles. They each feature different worlds and characters and the plots are largely different, but there is always something that pulls you in and says "This is a Final Fantasy game".

From what I remember, the only FF reference in Spirits Within was Dr. Sid (And they didn't even spell the name the same). Hell, the movie was even set on our Earth, though in the future and after an apocalyptic event.

But that isn't the point. The point is that FF games and most JRPGs are designed with player choice in mind. However, JRPGs are still largely successful. So the comment of the poster I was responding to made little sense.

[tmp7704]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Surely the easiest way to "dispense with canon-busting choices" would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

Yes, and instead you'd be getting threads with questions why your games are so drastically railroaded and limited in customization, even more threads wondering about what happened to the BioWare of old, and how funny it is for your company to increasingly copycat the very same Japanese RPGs your bosses publically mocked just few years prior.

Hardly a net change.

edit: it's probably also worth noting that the generally well crafted illusion of choice is one of your games' few strong points. Do away with that, and suddenly the question what exactly sets your offerings apart from the competition who also tries to get the player's money... becomes quite harder.

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 novembre 2011 - 01:02 .

[Tuleron]

TreneteSiyaraya wrote...

Leliana appeared even no DLC installed.

Sorry for its spoiler but necessary.

True, now i remember

FieryDove wrote...

Tuleron wrote...

Ah?
Okey, lets throw down the cutscenes with all the lore included, put a
big giant map with 5616165103506 darkspawns, and let the killing
begin...HELL YEAH!
Now i understand why Bioware do DA2 a more casual
player game instead of a hardcore player game, ppl who don't wnt
cutscenes on a rpg game...ftw.

I think cutscenes are
fine. But too many and they are no longer *special*. Not to mention
there is a tradeoff. The more *movie* you get, the less *game* you get.
Something to ponder...

That is true, but i believe that the
shortness on DA2 is not because of the cutscenes, it's because the game
is short, in DAO you got plenty of cutscenes and the game was long
enought, if you see the size of the two games DA2 7 1/2 bg and DAO 20
gb.

PD: SOrry by the two post.

Modifié par Tuleron, 29 novembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[Tuleron]

Sorry double post

Modifié par Tuleron, 29 novembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[Furtled]

Zanallen wrote...
But that isn't the point. The point is that FF games and most JRPGs are designed with player choice in mind. However, JRPGs are still largely successful. So the comment of the poster I was responding to made little sense.

I was being flippant/sarcastic, apologies if that wasn't clear enough, in my head a CG film, (which I liked - it was wandering but oh so very pretty) based on a game franchise, is the ultimate 'game makers set the canon, players sit back and watch without getting to make choices' example. I should probably have more tea in me before posting this late in the evening, especially when attempting to be funny.

EDIT: I should probably add I've only ever played FF8 so my knowledge of that whole universe is hazy at best. Anywho, back to Dragon Age!

Modifié par Furtled, 29 novembre 2011 - 02:26 .

[FaeQueenCory]

Furtled wrote...

I was being flippant, apologies if that wasn't clear enough, in my head a CG film, (which I liked - it was wandering but oh so very pretty) based on a game franchise, is the ultimate 'game makers set the canon, players sit back and watch without getting to make choices' example. I should probably have more tea in me before posting this late in the evening, especially when attempting to be funny.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.....

That makes more sense. Though a better example would be Persona 4 the Animation. It canonizes various choices and even canonized the name of the silent protagonist.

(I say that because FF:tSW isn't based on any FF game... nor is it even a sequel.. and since FF games usually have very little plot-choice, Persona 4 the Animation would hold your intended analogy better. ... And before anyone mentions the Persona 4 manga adaptation, Yu Narukami is the protagonists name in the sequel to Persona 4.)

[jds1bio]

tmp7704 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Surely the easiest way to "dispense with canon-busting choices" would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

Yes, and instead you'd be getting threads with questions why your games are so drastically railroaded and limited in customization, even more threads wondering about what happened to the BioWare of old, and how funny it is for your company to increasingly copycat the very same Japanese RPGs your bosses publically mocked just few years prior.

Hardly a net change.

edit: it's probably also worth noting that the generally well crafted illusion of choice is one of your games' few strong points. Do away with that, and suddenly the question what exactly sets your offerings apart from the competition who also tries to get the player's money... becomes quite harder.

To echo tmp7704, removing ALL choices wouldn't prevent "threads like this", but you might not see this particular thread crop up.  But with the feedback from DA2, a game that does have quite a few choices available, Bioware got all those threads tmp7704 mentioned anyway.  So I get that there is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't aspect when it comes to changing features and getting community feedback.

But now the Dragon Age lore is expanding - web series, books, comics, etc..  From a Dragon Age universe persepective, choice will already be removed for the player, in that stories will be told that we will never get to play through.  Since video-gaming is a less mature platform for storytelling than other media, and still has room to grow, I think it is only natural to be considering such things.

Modifié par jds1bio, 29 novembre 2011 - 06:53 .

[Zanallen]

Furtled wrote...

I was being flippant/sarcastic, apologies if that wasn't clear enough, in my head a CG film, (which I liked - it was wandering but oh so very pretty) based on a game franchise, is the ultimate 'game makers set the canon, players sit back and watch without getting to make choices' example. I should probably have more tea in me before posting this late in the evening, especially when attempting to be funny.

EDIT: I should probably add I've only ever played FF8 so my knowledge of that whole universe is hazy at best. Anywho, back to Dragon Age!

Yeah, I get what you are saying. Its just that the FF series is a bad choice to use for the analogy since those games aren't known for their choices. Hell, a few of those games don't even allow you to customize the characters beyond equipping them with weapons and armor and those were simply upgrades with little in the way of options.

[Kajan451]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Really? The only choice you got to make in DAII was male/female? Really?

In the end it felt like it, yes. Wholeheartedly unsatisfying experiance, in my opinion.


Edit:
Offtopic:

Zanallen wrote...

From what I remember, the only FF reference in Spirits Within was Dr. Sid (And they didn't even spell the name the same). Hell, the movie was even set on our Earth, though in the future and after an apocalyptic event.

 

It had a lot of references. Including the whole Mana/Gaia thing. The exact same force does rescue the whole planet in FF7. When that meteor is coming down the spiritual energy of the planet is being bundled and reprells the meteor.

Yes, there were no summons and no magic, but the whole Gaia and Earth is a living thing with its own spirit isn't new to the FF series and in the case of the first movie it had a lot to do with Final Fantasy. Which by the way, wasn't such a bad movie, but then again.. i probably went into that movie with a whole heartedly different expecation.

Besides... on a Technology Level the Movie set new marks in terms of CGI. Before that movie noone would have thought to animate a single strand of hair to make a CGI persona look more real. Today many good CGI movies and games do combine that very same idea to make their models look more real too.

It might not have been a blockbuster, but it was hardly to be expected to become a blockbuster with a story which you actually need to pay attention to and requires the viewer to have an open mind. Because the whole movie stops working if you're lacking the one or the other. Concepts like spiritual energy and the sorts are, unfortunately, among the westerner nations, rather rare to be accepted and considered bogus and the people believing in it are usually either loonys or outright crazy. This alone makes the movie having a rather bad footing in the western world.

Modifié par Kajan451, 29 novembre 2011 - 08:22 .

[asindre]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Surely the easiest way to "dispense with canon-busting choices" would be for us to actually set the canon in game by removing the choice from the player. Whether done in cutscene, dialog, pre-render, etc, if we set the choices (the king dies, the elf is the bad guy, you play a male, you romance the princess, etc) that is easiest on the Dev team (less time to create all the myriad of possibilities and allows a more focused story) and prevents threads like this in the future.

And an almost as easy way would be to set the canon but still have the choices, like Kotor did. 

[Tuleron]

Like DAO

[Get Magna Carter]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Really? The only choice you got to make in DAII was male/female? Really?

I think people say that because the bulk of story based decisions come in 3 categories
1) companion based choices - where you can change the life of a companion, maybe romancing them, maybe killing them.  These tend to be ignored because they only affect 1 person and Bioware have been known to bring back dead characters.
2) Short term choices - these cause changes during the course of the game but the possible branches converge to the same point by the end so they get ignored.
3) Open ended choices - these are made but have no obvious in game effect -so are ignored because we have not (yet) seen any consequences (Origins had an epilogue saying what happened afterwards [at least according to rumours] but 2 is much more limited in that regard)

[Get Magna Carter]

Of course, the big problem is that it is highly impractical to have a game vary dramatically depending upon choices in the previous game(s) so the developers are pretty much left with 4 options.
1) canonisation - disregard what the player did and declare what really happened
2) trivialisation - the player makes the choice but things end up the same way regardless
3) irrelevance - the scope of the effects of the player's decision are too small to have any effect on the follow-up
4) minimalisation - the effects of the choices from the previous game have a small effect but does not significantly change things

of those options 4) is the best (we can hope for large changes but, in general, that would be asking too much)

[Mark of the Dragon]

One of my favorite things about Dragon Age is that your choices are suppose to effect the universe. You play as these characters who have a huge impact on the world. Thats what makes each game different and yours. I want to see a lot of impact from the choices you make in each game right away. However I also want those choices to be reflected in future games as well. When we return to Fereldan in DA3 I want to see my choices reflected otherwise the experience would really be impacted for me. I think of it like we are shaping Thedas history so are choices need to be shown in Future games. Maybe not every little choice but the world impacting ones and at least the romances and companion fates.
As for the non gameplay media I can live with some canon choices if I learn more about the world of Thedas.

Modifié par Mark of the Dragon, 04 décembre 2011 - 08:42 .