942 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity.

We've seen the results in many complaints about BioWare games only offering the "illusion of choice," or retconning, or acknowledging decisions in letters, emails, and brief cameos.  It's because having a big choice that result in big consequences then supporting all possibile outcomes seems impossible, short of having unlimited zots.

I think they've mismanaged expectations with regards to what they're capable of delivering on this front, which has been exacerbated by fans having determining what they're getting isn't good enough, and so now there's this negative feedback loop.  

Something in this dynamic has to change or - in my opinion - it's just going to create more disappointed fans and more frustrated writers.

And its largely only considered "unsustainable" due to the seeming requirement for more cosmetic and expensive add ons to the presentation of the games, like voice acted everything, "AAA" graphics and all that. They need a cheaper and more efficient way to make more content if they're going to make good on creating genuine consequences to player choice.

BioWare has put themselves in the situation they're in now where they keep claiming they're all about choice and consequences and branching narrative and yet they've never truly delivered on that and given how expensive modern games are, it doesn't seem like they'll be doing that anytime soon.

Its not impossible to have genuine branching choices/consequences in games, as The Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol have done, but those games deal with choice and meaningful consequences within the scope of a single game. BioWare often times hasn't even done that- they just lump any big decisions at the end of the game and leave consequences to cliffhanger endings or epilogue slides. Which makes the cliffhangers inherently unsatisfying knowing they'll likely be handwaved away in the following game.

I think the only way we'll see something like the import feature amount to anything of significance would be if BioWare started making RPGs that relied less on the cinematic visual presentation and more on the actual writing, quest design and narrative with less expensive graphics and presentation. Not unlike what Brian Fargo and Wasteland 2 are claiming they'll do.  Or any of the other Infinity engine games- you'd have a much less expensive game to make visually and could quickly iterate and create divergent, new content to react to the player and the player's choices.

It just seems that right now BioWare is prioritizing the expensive presentation of their games over creating unique content that reacts to the player's choices. Thats fine if thats the direction they want to go, but then they should stop pretending they're creating player driven narratives that have meaningful consequences to player choice.

Modifié par Brockololly, 31 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity.

Not sure I agree.

I'm guessing that there are people on the DA team who both think this is a good game idea and one they can do justice to, but it's like everything else in the development process; you start out with freshly plucked hopes and aspirations and then methodically crush them under deadlines, limited resources, and compromises.

Brockololly wrote...

And its largely only considered "unsustainable" due to the seeming requirement for more cosmetic and expensive add ons to the presentation of the games, like voice acted everything, "AAA" graphics and all that. They need a cheaper and more efficient way to make more content if they're going to make good on creating genuine consequences to player choice.

I can't think of a single game series that successfully did this, so I'm disinclined to think it's because of their cinematics and AAA graphics. After all, ME 3 has far more expensive add-ons than DA and it's done it better than any other BioWare game to date.

Its not impossible to have genuine branching choices/consequences in games, as The Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol have done, but those games deal with choice and meaningful consequences within the scope of a single game. BioWare often times hasn't even done that- they just lump any big decisions at the end of the game and leave consequences to cliffhanger endings or epilogue slides. Which makes the cliffhangers inherently unsatisfying knowing they'll likely be handwaved away in the following game.

If we ever get those answers at all. Primeveal Thaig? Interesting idea, but no follow through.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[Yrkoon]

Realmzmaster wrote...


I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the both of you.


  First off, what in the world  does running out of companion conversation choices early on  have to do  map size?  lol  What you're describing can  (and will) happen even if the entire game takes place in a small room.

Second, A  large world map with vast exploration can work  quite well in tandum with a driven story.  Again, look at the BG series.  Of course, it works best if the story itself is either very personal in scope, or if it's a world-based story  who's plot influences extend to the explorable areas.


I think DA2's story would have been much better if  DA2  was an open world with a giant map.  We'd have been able to better experience the Templar vs. Mage conflict first hand during our travels.  It would have been nice to  visit other cities and see the dynamics of the conflict brewing.  A vast long-distance search for the Book of Koslun for the Qunari would have also benefitted  DA2's second Act.  And being able to   *truly* strike out on our own to gather the 50 gold for the deep roads expedition would have made Act 1 about 50 times more interesting.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 31 mars 2012 - 06:50 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Yrkoon wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the both of you.

First off, what in the world  does running out of companion conversation choices early on  have to do  map size?  lol  What you're describing can  (and will) happen even if the entire game takes place in a small room.

Second, A  large world map with vast exploration can work  quite well in tandum with a driven story.  Again, look at the BG series.  Of course, it works best if the story itself is either very personal in scope, or if it's a world-based story  who's plot influences extend to the explorable areas.

I think DA2's story would have been much better if  DA2  was an open world with a giant map.  We'd have been able to better experience the Templar vs. Mage conflict first hand during our travels.  It would have been nice to  visit other cities and see the dynamics of the conflict brewing.  A vast long-distance search for the Book of Koslun for the Qunari would have also benefitted  DA2's second Act.  And being able to   *truly* strike out on our own to gather the 50 gold for the deep roads expedition would have made Act 1 about 50 times more interesting.

I think that in an open world game the world acts as a stage where the story plays. I think that instead of an open world, BW creates custom made stages to fit the story. Such a map becomes a series of dedicated locations with points of interest, boss fights and puzzles, woven into the story. If money gets tight, if there is not much development time or if disk space is limited then compromises need to be made. It can lead to environment reuse or cutting true story branches to ensure that all or most of these relatively expensive stages are visited. Also, a voice acted PC eats up more disk space, so cutting in dialogue seems to be an obvious choice to make ends meet. I think we have seen those comprimises in DA2. In an open world game it works the other way around. The world has to be created no matter what and generally the story has to be the victim of compromises. I think we can see that at work in TES games.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 31 mars 2012 - 07:09 .

[bEVEsthda]

Maria Caliban wrote...

@ Nighteye2

There was complaining on the old Dragon Age forums. I assume David remembers it better than you do because it was aimed at him or the developers in general.

After Neverwinter Nights and the earlier BG games, quite a few BioWare forum goers were DnD fans. When David and Georg told us there were no monks, paladins, clerics, multiclass, or half-elves, people were upset. They could only imagine 'DnD with stuff missing' and David couldn't explain what we were getting because they hadn't finished and it was still under wraps.

Same with the Origins. People have forgotten, but the first reaction to the origins was incredibly negative. Having pre-defined background with friends and a history restricted people's role-playing. There was a big push for a 'mysterious stranger' origin so people wouldn't be constrained by the various scenarios that the writers came up with.

I'll admit that I contributed to this. I kept a huge Word document with developer quotes and information. In my mind, if a developer said something would be in then they'd made a promise. When I learned that it wasn't in the final product, I'd upset.

Multiplayer, human commoner, wandering barbarian, and a necromancer that could rule the world - people complained about the lack of those years after the developers had decided that they wouldn't include them.

Yes, a great deal of complaining would have been nipped in the bud if the developers had stayed quiet about things or at least waited until they had a fancy video to show us. Though I'll point out that we would have just complained about the lack of information then.

Lol. I remember it both ways. Both Nighteye2's version and yours. So both are true. They probably take up different amounts of mind space for different people.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 31 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[bEVEsthda]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the both of you.

First off, what in the world  does running out of companion conversation choices early on  have to do  map size?  lol  What you're describing can  (and will) happen even if the entire game takes place in a small room.

Second, A  large world map with vast exploration can work  quite well in tandum with a driven story.  Again, look at the BG series.  Of course, it works best if the story itself is either very personal in scope, or if it's a world-based story  who's plot influences extend to the explorable areas.

I think DA2's story would have been much better if  DA2  was an open world with a giant map.  We'd have been able to better experience the Templar vs. Mage conflict first hand during our travels.  It would have been nice to  visit other cities and see the dynamics of the conflict brewing.  A vast long-distance search for the Book of Koslun for the Qunari would have also benefitted  DA2's second Act.  And being able to   *truly* strike out on our own to gather the 50 gold for the deep roads expedition would have made Act 1 about 50 times more interesting.

I think that in an open world game the world acts as a stage where the story plays. I think that instead of an open world, BW creates custom made stages to fit the story. Such a map becomes a series of dedicated locations with points of interest, boss fights and puzzles, woven into the story. If money gets tight, if there is not much development time or if disk space is limited then compromises need to be made. It can lead to environment reuse or cutting true story branches to ensure that all or most of these relatively expensive stages are visited. Also, a voice acted PC eats up more disk space, so cutting in dialogue seems to be an obvious choice to make ends meet. I think we have seen those comprimises in DA2. In an open world game it works the other way around. The world has to be created no matter what and generally the story has to be the victim of compromises. I think we can see that at work in TES games.

Well, I think what you also see in the TES games, is the art of sacrificing and simplifying for fitting the whole into a console. I believe, for instance, that Bethesda possess quite advanced NPC-personality engines.

[AkiKishi]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the both of you.

First off, what in the world  does running out of companion conversation choices early on  have to do  map size?  lol  What you're describing can  (and will) happen even if the entire game takes place in a small room.

Second, A  large world map with vast exploration can work  quite well in tandum with a driven story.  Again, look at the BG series.  Of course, it works best if the story itself is either very personal in scope, or if it's a world-based story  who's plot influences extend to the explorable areas.

I think DA2's story would have been much better if  DA2  was an open world with a giant map.  We'd have been able to better experience the Templar vs. Mage conflict first hand during our travels.  It would have been nice to  visit other cities and see the dynamics of the conflict brewing.  A vast long-distance search for the Book of Koslun for the Qunari would have also benefitted  DA2's second Act.  And being able to   *truly* strike out on our own to gather the 50 gold for the deep roads expedition would have made Act 1 about 50 times more interesting.

I think that in an open world game the world acts as a stage where the story plays. I think that instead of an open world, BW creates custom made stages to fit the story. Such a map becomes a series of dedicated locations with points of interest, boss fights and puzzles, woven into the story. If money gets tight, if there is not much development time or if disk space is limited then compromises need to be made. It can lead to environment reuse or cutting true story branches to ensure that all or most of these relatively expensive stages are visited. Also, a voice acted PC eats up more disk space, so cutting in dialogue seems to be an obvious choice to make ends meet. I think we have seen those comprimises in DA2. In an open world game it works the other way around. The world has to be created no matter what and generally the story has to be the victim of compromises. I think we can see that at work in TES games.

It's not that the story gets compromised as much as it's not really the focus. In TES/FO/NV the "plot" is maybe 1/10th of the potential playtime of the game. If you take something like ME3/DA once the plot has ended the game is over, there is nothing left to see.
Yrkoon brought up BG2. Well one of the common "complaints" of BG II was that in chapter 2 you could quite litteraly "lose the plot" there were so many side quests and non plot related things going on. Now chapter 2 is my favourite part of the game , but it's in no way plot centric. If Bioware are shooting for a plot centric game, then it's something they need to avoid. Same complaint was leveled at ME2 (again one of my favourites) that the ME2 is a game of "side quests" and little plot, and again that is essentially correct.

[Brockololly]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I can't think of a single game series that successfully did this, so I'm disinclined to think it's because of their cinematics and AAA graphics. After all, ME 3 has far more expensive add-ons than DA and it's done it better than any other BioWare game to date.

Well no other game series has really done the import feature to any extent, but there are others that have managed within game choice with meaningful consequence better than BioWare. ME3 does bring back characters and so forth from old games, but to what extent? Sure you see Miranda or Grunt or Samara again, but it began to feel kind of cheap how you'd see the old character at the start of a mission and then they'd conveniently disappear until the end, not letting them even be temporary squadmates. I can't help but think thats a resource issue. Or how Ash/Kaiden conveniently get taken out the picture for about half of the game. Makes it easier not to have to make unique content for them that way. Or how certain choices which at the time of being made seemed to have big consequences end up being practically the same, just affecting the War Asset number, which in itself amounts to next to nothing (the Rachni comes to mind).

ME3 does well with the illusion of choice to some extent but thats it. AAA games are expensive to make and BioWare has never been big on creating meaningful divergent content. I'm thinking more in line with the plot reactivity in Alpha Protocol or the Act 2 split in The Witcher 2. Thats the kind of thing I'd like to see out of BioWare but I don't know thats a priority for them.

I just remember back on the old DA forums, Gaider mentioned the import feature and how it could possibly affect new games and thinking that sounded awesome and really groundbreaking. Like if you had your PC romance someone in the first game, then your child could be a possible origin story/PC in the sequel or that depending on how you dealt with a character in one game they may become a villain in a sequel. I wish I could find that post, as it had some interesting ideas. I like nice graphics and so forth just fine, but even those have stagnated I think and I'd be more in favor of BioWare doing truly new things with the interactive narrative.

Maria Caliban wrote...
If we ever get those answers at all. Primeveal Thaig? Interesting idea, but no follow through.

Right. Eventually no matter how cool some of these ideas are, they need to followed through and given some satisfying exploration in a meaningful and conclusive way. The longer certain things get teased and dragged out the larger expectations may get and then you end up with stuff like ME3's ending where you have mass dissatisfaction at the writers basically not giving any meaningful closure but just "Lots of speculation from everyone." They can only tease some of these plot threads for so long before people either forget about them or stop caring completely. Especially if its goingto be a new PC for each DA2 game, I wish they'd keep them as self contained as possible and not leave these unsatisfying cliffhangers, knowing they'll never be resolved by old PCs like the Warden or Hawke.

[upsettingshorts]

@Brockololly

Reading your post it's like you're trying to fit your own narrative as to why things are they way they are around the obvious truth which is that games like The Witcher 2 put their branching choice in a more efficient place and games like Alpha Protocol don't have sequels.

"Presentation" has nothing to do with it.  Voice acting and cinematics are not the reason we didn't go back to Orzammar in DA2 and you know it.

Though it would seem disingenous to say ME3 does well with the illusion of choice and that's it, it does implement your choices, especially the host of minor ones.  Indeed unlike The Witcher 2, at least it gives a crap who you've romanced before.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 07:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

Yrkoon wrote...

Pretty  much the ONLY way to measure the popularity or lack thereof of voiced/silent protagonists is to look at sales, but you've already  attempted to dismiss   those away as 'not definitive' because lack of sales could be indicative of a game's other faults or whatever.   I, though,  would argue that a voiced protagonist is a  glaring, primary thing that  defines a game almost entirely, and therefore sales is INDEED a good indicator of whether  the public prefers voiced protagonists.

Your bias is showing, though, because you don't feel like you have to prove it.

But you do.

It's an affirmative argument, you're saying that SALES are the result of ONE KEY FEATURE.   The burden is on you to demonstrate how.

I didn't attempt to dismiss the possibility.  I successfully dismissed that you can take such an argument for granted.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2012 - 08:02 .

[slashthedragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

However, I can think of at least one feature that I feel as though BioWare implements because they feel they have to and not because they think it makes for a good game, but it seems clear to me - from their comments and their steadfast resolution to stick with the voice - that VO is not one of them.

I'd be interested to know what you think that feature is.

 

The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity.

We've seen the results in many complaints about BioWare games only offering the "illusion of choice," or retconning, or acknowledging decisions in letters, emails, and brief cameos.  It's because having a big choice that result in big consequences then supporting all possibile outcomes seems impossible, short of having unlimited zots.

I think they've mismanaged expectations with regards to what they're capable of delivering on this front, which has been exacerbated by fans having determining what they're getting isn't good enough, and so now there's this negative feedback loop.  

Something in this dynamic has to change or - in my opinion - it's just going to create more disappointed fans and more frustrated writers.

Why are real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

Modifié par slashthedragon, 31 mars 2012 - 08:11 .

[Maria Caliban]

slashthedragon wrote...


Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

Zots. You jotting something on paper costs nothing and takes hours. Turning that into a game cost millions and takes years.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 08:11 .

[upsettingshorts]

slashthedragon wrote...

Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

"The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity."

Because what the forums define as "real choice" basically means "plot flag setting" and if you leave major plot choices up to the player you must then support them both in the savegame-imported sequel.  

But since everyone didn't make the same decision, that's gonna create issues of zots.  

DA2 broadly gets around this by moving the setting to Kirkwall.  The Witcher 2 gets around this by putting its big decision early in the game, changing the middle, preserving the end (afaik, I haven't played much of it).  That's why I was careful to say "endgame defining."  

[slashthedragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...


Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

Zots. You jotting something on paper costs nothing and takes hours. Turning that into a game cost millions and takes years.

I wasn't talking about cost though.  Just saying that a story with choices and consequences can be done.  However, if putting this into a game costs x times more money, then it should be said that because of cost issues, the game isn't going to be really all about the choices the player makes.  I don't like false expectations.  And also, how much of it is money costs and how much of is it the writers wanting a specific story to be told?

[slashthedragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

"The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity."

Because what the forums define as "real choice" basically means "plot flag setting" and if you leave major plot choices up to the player you must then support them both in the savegame-imported sequel.  

But since everyone didn't make the same decision, that's gonna create issues of zots.  

DA2 broadly gets around this by moving the setting to Kirkwall.  The Witcher 2 gets around this by putting its big decision early in the game, changing the middle, preserving the end (afaik, I haven't played much of it).  That's why I was careful to say "endgame defining."  

Now is this a problem with size or money or computer limitations?  Because again, it shouldn't be a problem on the writing end, but if it's any of the others then ok.

[upsettingshorts]

slashthedragon wrote...

Now is this a problem with size or money or computer limitations?  Because again, it shouldn't be a problem on the writing end, but if it's any of the others then ok.

Writers have to account for it and figure out how not to make the designers hate them.

Ultimately though trying to accomplish both through the medium itself is inherently limiting.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Maria Caliban]

slashthedragon wrote...

I wasn't talking about cost though.  Just saying that a story with choices and consequences can be done.  However, if putting this into a game costs x times more money, then it should be said that because of cost issues, the game isn't going to be really all about the choices the player makes.  I don't like false expectations.  And also, how much of it is money costs and how much of is it the writers wanting a specific story to be told?

If you ask why something is possible or not in a game, then you're talking about cost.

And no, it's not the writers' fault. David Gaider does not hate choice and consequences. He might value more content for everyone over specific content for some, but that's because he's dealing with issues of cost and has to prioritize.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 08:20 .

[slashthedragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

Now is this a problem with size or money or computer limitations?  Because again, it shouldn't be a problem on the writing end, but if it's any of the others then ok.

Writers have to account for it and figure out how not to make the designers hate them.

Ultimately though trying to accomplish both through the medium itself is inherently limiting.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

My point was in response to some people saying that it is impossible to do something like have x amount of race choices and 2 gender choices and then having choices in game actually mean something.  I was wondering WHY people are saying that it is so hard to have choice that isn't superficial and if they think the problem is on the writing end or the physical limitations of computer/money end.

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah but that's not the kind of choice I was talking about.

Racial and gender choice would wall under customization to me.

[slashthedragon]

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...

[quote]slashthedragon wrote...

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...

I wasn't talking about cost though.  Just saying that a story with choices and consequences can be done.  However, if putting this into a game costs x times more money, then it should be said that because of cost issues, the game isn't going to be really all about the choices the player makes.  I don't like false expectations.  And also, how much of it is money costs and how much of is it the writers wanting a specific story to be told?[/quote]

If you ask why something is possible or not in a game, then you're talking about cost.

And no, it's not the writers' fault. David Gaider does not hate choice and consequences. He might value more content for everyone over specific content for some, but that's because he's dealing with issues of cost and has to prioritize. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

OK then BW should not say that choices really matter if it impossible for them to do it.
I still wonder though if sometimes the story they want to tell doesn't take precendence.  I'm not saying the writers hate choice.  But something like the FrankenQueen Rachni in ME3 seems like 'well we know you chose x but it's important to the story to have y any way possible'.

Modifié par slashthedragon, 31 mars 2012 - 08:22 .

[slashthedragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yeah but that's not the kind of choice I was talking about.

Racial and gender choice would wall under customization to me.

I meant in places of the story where in would change depending on your class (gender is less of an issue I think).  For example, one point in the story might have an elf facing a different situation than a human due to race issues.

[upsettingshorts]

The only such decision that would fall under what we're both talking about then would be the Boon option at the end of DAO, where elves/dwarves/humans could ask for different things. None of them had to be supported in DA2 because of changed setting.

[Maria Caliban]

slashthedragon wrote...

OK then BW should not say that choices really matter if it impossible for them to do it.

That's a bit vague. Most of the marketing for DA II was about the framed narrative (like Get Shorty and the Princess Bride) and Button -> Awesome. I do remember a few 'shape your destiny' and 'rise to power' bits, but nothing substantial.

EA marketing is no different than the Budwitzer ads that feature 'regular guys' suddenly surrounded by nubile blondes in bikinis.

I've always found the posts by actual developers far more informative.

I still wonder though if sometimes the story they want to tell doesn't take precendence.  I'm not saying the writers hate choice.  But something like the FrankenQueen Rachni in ME3 seems like 'well we know you chose x but it's important to the story to have y any way possible'.

To be sure, the ReaperQueen you get makes sense within the lore. According to ME 1, the Reapers started the first Rachni War by indoctrinating a bunch of queens.

I don't think she's there because a specific writer decided he liked the rachni and they would live regardless.

slashthedragon wrote...

I meant in places of the story where in would change depending on your class (gender is less of an issue I think).  For example, one point in the story might have an elf facing a different situation than a human due to race issues.

It's a resource issue, not because the writers don't want to create situations like that.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 mars 2012 - 08:40 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...


Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

Zots. You jotting something on paper costs nothing and takes hours. Turning that into a game cost millions and takes years.

And you have fewer Zots when you push a game out the door as complex as most CPRG's are in 18 months. See DA2 as the example.

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And you have fewer Zots when you push a game out the door as complex as most CPRG's are in 18 months. See DA2 as the example.

One hopes DA III is given a bit more time in the oven than DA II.