471 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Gremlin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Take a look at people's reactions to the Rachni situation in ME3.

And that's a lot smaller choice than what is the big defining end choice of the game, and something that potentially our wardens gave their lives for.

The Rachni situation is part of what led to me asking this question.  Is part of the problem with the messaging though?  Or the implementation.  Had there been some sort of consequence for the Rachni choice in ME1, perhaps fans would have been more accepting?  As it stands, the only time you see a consequence of the Rachni decision is in ME3 (unless I'm mistaken).

In terms of messaging, if we state straight up that some choices are going to be canonized to allow for a tighter story, is that okay?  Essentially, were ME fans upset because the choice was meaningless, or was it more because they were led to believe it'd be more impactful than what was ultimately delivered.

If you canonize anything you might as well not bother making the game. Because there are plenty of RPG games with better gameplay, graphics or more interesting main story (Demon's souls and Darks souls). One thing you had is giving player full choice.
Ability to continue the story without canonizing anything is what distinguishes good writer from a bad one.

[Lord Gremlin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Drilling down and making this a bit more specific with respect to the OGB (since it was the example given).

How would you prefer to see it played out? My impression is as something optional for those that did it, and those that didn't do the ritual obviously don't see it. Would an OGB plot that is essential be frustrating if there was an explanation that Morrigan made it work through some other means (this would allow those that told Morrigan to pike off to still have this plot).

I have some more thoughts but I don't want to assume too much before going forward.

In this situation I'd make OGB plot essential, but make parts of this like important choices influenced by player choice in Origins. Like, well, just a wild exapmple - there's a sub-plot that allows you to change the grand outcome of OGB plot. Normally the main plot line would have 2 possible endings, but if Warden performed DR you discover sub-plot involving NPC Warden that allows you to achieve hidden third, secret outcome of OGB plot.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Drilling down and making this a bit more specific with respect to the OGB (since it was the example given).

How would you prefer to see it played out? My impression is as something optional for those that did it, and those that didn't do the ritual obviously don't see it. Would an OGB plot that is essential be frustrating if there was an explanation that Morrigan made it work through some other means (this would allow those that told Morrigan to pike off to still have this plot).

I have some more thoughts but I don't want to assume too much before going forward.

I'm going to repost what I said on the previous page.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

People clearly like the idea of reactivity continuing into the next game, but how do we balance telling an interesting story that we want to create for the player, and creating choice?

Seven words: Self-contained choices that create divergent paths.

In essence -- and really, the ideal scenario zots provided -- Choice A leads to Path A which is noticeably different from how Choice B would play out when it leads to Path B. But those choices would be wrapped up in-game and you would have no real need to import those choices over. The ramifications of them would have already been seen.

Were this a no-spoiler forum, I'd post my idea for how Act of Mercy could've ideally played out that would've really helped the game, considering Act III's Best Served Cold was just a cluster**** of failure -- for severe lack of a more eloquent phrasing.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Old God Child is probably the biggest point, because it's one that those that did the ritual are definitely super interested in, but if we force a game plot to utilize it, then those that didn't choose it may feel marginalized and jaded that the choice wasn't reflected. At the same time though, I think fans would have been MORE upset if the dark ritual was forced. I suppose we could have had Morrigan forcibly do it with someone else, but that ship has sailed.

Well, there are ways the Old God Baby could exist in a "Warden is dead" playthrough, though not by Morrigan's originally proposed idea.

I've said in the past that maybe Morrigan proposed the DR not because it was the only method, but because it was the easiest method. She never says it's the only way, IIRC. Perhaps there's a longer method that would allow her to obtain the Old God's soul after it died -- and since it's dead, the Warden is too -- but it's very time-consuming and not her ideal method.

And perhaps when you meet her in future games, she's got a different persona towards the Warden and maybe she does some different actions.

Rough description. I could elaborate, but it doesn't really seem to be something worth doing since I doubt it would be considered.

But I mean, would Flemeth -- the one who wanted the Old God Baby in the first place -- really send Morrigan out there without a backup plan in the off chance the Warden refused? Doesn't seem like her. 

And would Morrigan really give up, just because someone said "No"? That doesn't even seem like Morrigan. I'm not a fan of this notion that if the PC says "No", NPCs automatically give up on what they want.

Would they still succeed? Depends on the NPC and what they want. But to give up because someone told you "No" is unrealistic, really. People -- usually teenagers -- will keep trying to do what they wanted despite being told "No", if there's nothing really keeping them from doing it.

But it's a double-edged sword, indeed. On one hand, you have the choice recognized. On the other hand, people will always be upset.

Even if it was said that she did the DR with Alistair, Loghain, or Riordan behind the Warden's back; then you could just say the Warden died of injuries sustained in battle. There's an explosion and a concussive blast of energy.

Would people like that? Probably not all, but hey... it's valid.

I'm not certain this is entirely a good idea in terms of writing. It's probably just... well... a cheap way to do it. I think the OGB should be the sole exception to the method I prefer -- self contained choices which lead to divergent paths -- simply because of how important it is.

I can't see Morrigan's son having a decent story arc if the OGB-ness is delegated to being something trivial about his persona.

At least not right now. I'm thinking about how it might work out, if the OGB-ness wasn't made to be something trivial.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[hussey 92]

Tirigon wrote...

There is no consistent story. DA2 has nothing to do with DAO save for the name and a few (badly done) cameos.

^Yes

[hussey 92]

fchopin wrote...

New pc character
New companions
New story
New dialogue system

No OGB
NO Hawke
No Warden
No DA2 style graphics
No DA2 anything

This is my opinion and this is what i would like for DA3 and i would be ready to buy.

This too

[ohnotherancor]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Rachni situation is part of what led to me asking this question.  Is part of the problem with the messaging though?  Or the implementation.  Had there been some sort of consequence for the Rachni choice in ME1, perhaps fans would have been more accepting?  As it stands, the only time you see a consequence of the Rachni decision is in ME3 (unless I'm mistaken).

In terms of messaging, if we state straight up that some choices are going to be canonized to allow for a tighter story, is that okay?  Essentially, were ME fans upset because the choice was meaningless, or was it more because they were led to believe it'd be more impactful than what was ultimately delivered.

Personally, I was upset that the choice was rendered meaningless. Also it made me feel like the game was hitting me over the head for playing the previous ones incorrectly.

"Oh, you killed the Rachni Queen? WELL TOO BAD SHE BASICALLY SHOWS UP ANYWAY HA HA BET YOU FEEL STUPID FOR THINKING YOUR PREVIOUS CHOICES WOULD HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES BEYOND A MEANINGLESS NUMBER"

My biggest problem with ME 3 was that I felt like the game was mocking me for not playing as the most "valid" option - that is, paragon soldier John Shepard. I don't want Dragon Age to start going the same way by basically ignoring the most important choices in previous games.

[knarayan]

It would depend on the treatmeant of the OGB, wouldnt it? The OGB could be a companion, a general NPC - a Big Good even, a sidequest bonus boss or the Big Bad. But if you did the DR, the OGB has to be big.
Speaking personally, I did the DR only once in all my playthroughs. My warden always sacrificed himself. But I could accept OGB appearing in DA3 if you could come up with a convincing alternate story of creation. What happens to Urtheniel's body after the warden or Loghain/Alistair kills him? Can something be done out of that? Maybe a ritual involving the bones of all the dead archdemons? Magical cloning?
IMHO, the worst thing to do would be to make OGB a minor sidequest character, even though in my canonical game, no DR happens.
As for continuing MCs, I always though Hawke was very meh, and at best would have made a decent companion character. But his/her blandness is more a reflection of the storyline - Hawke is ineffectual in the larger scheme of things, while the warden was effective. I have no problem with a new hero, as long as there is agency.
Plus, I always felt my warden could kick Hawke's butt to the black city and back, even if Hawke had dealt with High Dragon rushes and ancient rock wraiths and original Tevinter Magisters.

[Dakota Strider]

x0hn0th3r4nc0rx wrote...

Personally, I was upset that the choice was rendered meaningless. Also it made me feel like the game was hitting me over the head for playing the previous ones incorrectly.

"Oh, you killed the Rachni Queen? WELL TOO BAD SHE BASICALLY SHOWS UP ANYWAY HA HA BET YOU FEEL STUPID FOR THINKING YOUR PREVIOUS CHOICES WOULD HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES BEYOND A MEANINGLESS NUMBER"

My biggest problem with ME 3 was that I felt like the game was mocking me for not playing as the most "valid" option - that is, paragon soldier John Shepard. I don't want Dragon Age to start going the same way by basically ignoring the most important choices in previous games.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but was not a lot of the ME Rachni controversy because the game narrative had told you if you destroyed the Rachni queen, that would be the end to the Rachni race?  And then they resurrected her, or had a clone or something later.

In DAO, Morrigan never  claimed that the Dark Ritual was the only way for her to achieve her goal.  But, she did say it was the way the Warden could keep someone from dying, to kill the Archdemon.  Even if the Warden and Morrigan hated each other, she may have had a notion that "her" world would be better off if the Warden lived, and wanted to give him that chance.  And perhaps it was the method of achieving her objective that was easiest for her.   So a player that finds out in a future game, that Morrigan was raising an OGB, that was not sired by his/her Warden, really has no room to complain, especially if that choice is acknowledged in the game. 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 01 juin 2012 - 12:51 .

[Blastback]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Take a look at people's reactions to the Rachni situation in ME3.

And that's a lot smaller choice than what is the big defining end choice of the game, and something that potentially our wardens gave their lives for.

The Rachni situation is part of what led to me asking this question.  Is part of the problem with the messaging though?  Or the implementation.  Had there been some sort of consequence for the Rachni choice in ME1, perhaps fans would have been more accepting?  As it stands, the only time you see a consequence of the Rachni decision is in ME3 (unless I'm mistaken).

In terms of messaging, if we state straight up that some choices are going to be canonized to allow for a tighter story, is that okay?  Essentially, were ME fans upset because the choice was meaningless, or was it more because they were led to believe it'd be more impactful than what was ultimately delivered.

Honestly both. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

x0hn0th3r4nc0rx wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Rachni situation is part of what led to me asking this question.  Is part of the problem with the messaging though?  Or the implementation.  Had there been some sort of consequence for the Rachni choice in ME1, perhaps fans would have been more accepting?  As it stands, the only time you see a consequence of the Rachni decision is in ME3 (unless I'm mistaken).

In terms of messaging, if we state straight up that some choices are going to be canonized to allow for a tighter story, is that okay?  Essentially, were ME fans upset because the choice was meaningless, or was it more because they were led to believe it'd be more impactful than what was ultimately delivered.

Personally, I was upset that the choice was rendered meaningless. Also it made me feel like the game was hitting me over the head for playing the previous ones incorrectly.

"Oh, you killed the Rachni Queen? WELL TOO BAD SHE BASICALLY SHOWS UP ANYWAY HA HA BET YOU FEEL STUPID FOR THINKING YOUR PREVIOUS CHOICES WOULD HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES BEYOND A MEANINGLESS NUMBER"

My biggest problem with ME 3 was that I felt like the game was mocking me for not playing as the most "valid" option - that is, paragon soldier John Shepard. I don't want Dragon Age to start going the same way by basically ignoring the most important choices in previous games.

Oh DA 2 did that a lot with Mage-templar crisis, Feyneriel in Wayward's Son, Qunari Conflict, All that remains etc.. So I understand why it can be upsetting.

My proposition is the next game should acknowledge such decisions like DR or US was performed. But beyond the ultimate sacrifice and DR, the player cannot blame the story for "hiting them with bad decision." Things could happens during the absence of ultimate sacrifiying Wardens. Acknowldge the new event unfold after death is not equal to hitting you with bad choices. It simply series of events that you cannot control because you're dead. So it's probably for the best if the game acknowledge the decision done by ultimate sacrific wardens, expand it further by giving the affected player a glimpse of what happen beyond death - which is beyond their control, to explain all the   things to come such as the birth of the warden's son. I tend to think it's for the best if the child is forced to be directly blood related to the warden whether the warden is female or male. Maybe some comments from Morrigan that tell how much the baby resemble the warden.  In that case the warden had a purpose to pursue the OGB's plot for whatever reason they had without thinking that the game had hit them hard with bad choices. I hope they don't repeat the same decision tho by opting to kill an innocent baby, their own flesh and blood. It's a merciless and heartless thing to do. And I'm sure any good wardens wont do that despite how much they dislike kid in real world. I know some people just hate the idea of having a kid for whatever reason. Not all kids are nuances - just look at Casper the movie. But all kids are innocent cute little creatures and should be nourished with lot of love for them to grow -  which explain why even Loghain still see Anora as a 6 year old with a pony tail, and make it difficult for me to kill him . 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 01 juin 2012 - 01:45 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think I rather go for Brockololly's idea that choice A leads to exclusive path A and choice B leads to exclusive path B in a self-contained manner. Although I usually like The Ethereal Writer Redux' posts, I think his idea to replace events by alternate ones to keep the story on track (like keeping the OGB when the Warden was not involved and it got there by other means), may sound attractive, but is exactly what bothered me in ME3. In that game you could kill the rachni queen or not, but it really didn't matter, because when you killed her she was replaced by an artificial one created by the reapers. It played out much the same. You never saw the queen's troops fighting near the ending and at best Hackett told you that they were a great at working at the Crucible. Whether or not saving the rachni queen or whether or not performing the ritual, it kept posters busy for years speculating on the forums. You cannot wave such a main decision away by just letting it pass in a "by-the-way"-like conversation.

Consequences in the form of cameos do not cut it for me. There is one in which werewolves are attacked by elves. It only appears after the werewolves survived. You won't miss it when you made another decision. It has no impact either way. When there are a lot of those then it gets confusing at best. Oh, here they are. It looks like I sided with the werewolves. Or, if I take the next corner then I know whether this character sided with the werewolves. Or, after several playthroughs, cameos and dialogue line changes become nothing more than a background noise. Yes, I played the game more than once.

Drilling down and making this a bit more specific with respect to the OGB (since it was the example given).

How would you prefer to see it played out? My impression is as something optional for those that did it, and those that didn't do the ritual obviously don't see it. Would an OGB plot that is essential be frustrating if there was an explanation that Morrigan made it work through some other means (this would allow those that told Morrigan to pike off to still have this plot).

I have some more thoughts but I don't want to assume too much before going forward.

An import of the OGB would mean a Morrigan quest with a great unique award. No OGB (which could be canon for new players) would produce an alternate quest with another great unique reward. As long as the alternative is just as good as the Morrigan one then I would be OK with that and feel that my choice had a consequence.

The alternative by creating a similar one where Morrigan appears too, would feel cheap and in that case you will have that awful feeling that it doesn't matter what you decide.

Like I said before, I rather see those consequences handled in the same game. Another good example of that is siding with the templars or mages in DA2. If I side with the mages then I fight Meredith in the end game. If I side with the templars then I fight Orsino. But it does not make sense to fight them both.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juin 2012 - 01:37 .

[TEWR]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Like I said before, I rather see those consequences handled in the same game. Another good example of that is siding with the templars or mages in DA2. If I side with the mages then I fight Meredith in the end game. If I side with the templars then I fight Orsino. But it does not make sense to fight them both.

I don't want to get too far off track, but Meredith was a necessary boss fight in terms of the story from how I saw it.

See here and here for why I feel that way.

Orsino should've been left to player choice for pro-mage players and an unavoidable fight for pro-Templar players.

It's implementation that's at fault, really.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2012 - 01:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Ability to continue the story without canonizing anything is what distinguishes good writer from a bad one.

I think that that is a bit too blanket of a statement.  If that's what we get judged on it'll ultimately result in more conservative stories that have less chance of offering potentially divergent story.  Or at the very least, more railroading.  Would anyone here have preferred it if the Dark Ritual MUST be performed, or do people prefer to experience a game like DAO where they can make choices within that game, but they're okay with the fact that depending on the story that choice may not be reflected in future games?  Should we only allow choice if we intend to ensure that it can't be overridden in future games?

An advantage of making OGB canon would be that it would afford writing the possibility to greatly expand upon it if they wish.  If it's an option that cannot be canonized, it effectively marginalizes it to a side story at best unless we decide that Morrigan were able to still capture the Old God's essence through some other means.  It sounds like, at least for some people, this is actually worse because while they can accept "okay this is just canon, I've dealt with this before" it turns into "Well, Morrigan didn't really need the Warden or the Archdemon to perform this, so the fact that you didn't do it has no effect on anything."  This seems to be Wulfram's perspective which I think is just as valid of one.

If you canonize anything you might as well not bother making the game.

It wasn't an issue for fans of Baldur's Gate and I'm sure many would love a BioWare KOTOR 3 even if it took canon Revan and Exile.  I don't think this is actually the case.

I'm not certain this is entirely a good idea in terms of writing. It's probably just... well... a cheap way to do it.

Agreed that it seems a bit cheap.  While it'd maintain reactive cohesion with prior choices, does it actually make for a better game and a more interesting story?

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Agreed that it seems a bit cheap. While it'd maintain reactive cohesion with prior choices, does it actually make for a better game and a more interesting story?

That is the question isn't it? I can't really offer an answer to it -- and really, can anyone? Because of the weight behind the choice, you'd have to do divergent paths justice. But that'd cost resources, which would hurt the rest of the game probably.

But if you make the OGB an everpresent variable -- with differing circumstances -- you'd have to make sure that doesn't also hurt the rest of the game.
 
What I proposed is a rough idea though and I'm sure given enough time I could devise a better way of doing it. Maybe. There are many ideas one can come up with, but how well they'd work is hard to say.

But, I can easily see why Morrigan wouldn't have told the Warden why she knew of other methods to achieve what she wanted. To that end, it would (personally) enhance how I view her character.

The most important one being that to tell the Warden saying "No" doesn't mean she's barred from having an OGB would possibly be detrimental to her life. If the Warden knew she'd keep trying, he/she might try to kill her.

Whereas if the Warden is only told about the one possible method, he/she is assuming that Morrigan's screwed over by the refusal and there's nothing bad about letting her walk away.

Even if the OGB would exist in all playthroughs -- with the circumstances of it being different depending on what the Warden said and whether he's alive -- you could make the OGB lend itself well to a story, if you can find a way.

Where there's a will, there's a way

It's not only about ideas put forth, but how they're implemented. An idea means nothing if its implementation falls short.

Like was said earlier, the OGB is a double-edged sword. How do you do the OGB justice? There's no easy answer to it, but perhaps with enough discussion a suitable idea will come into light. Or one that begins the foundation of what to do.

TL;DR: No clue

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2012 - 02:17 .

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How would you prefer to see it played out? My impression is as something optional for those that did it, and those that didn't do the ritual obviously don't see it. Would an OGB plot that is essential be frustrating if there was an explanation that Morrigan made it work through some other means (this would allow those that told Morrigan to pike off to still have this plot).

I have some more thoughts but I don't want to assume too much before going forward.

Basically, I see the need for two diverging paths (which hurts when in the resource game) unless it's canonised (which hurts player reactivity and expectations). Preferably, most players would prefer the branching narrative over creating one overall plot to present.

However, I do see the benefits of both sides of the coin. Personally, I'd throw my lot into the diverging path as it would throw more replay value for me, however it does present the problem of most people not even finishing their first playthrough wouldn't get to see it.

The way I'd see it presented is so the player can experience both sides of god plot regardless of their former decision, just the consequences and events leading up to it are different. Imagine Morrigan's trying to reenact what the god baby would do if it existed, yet it's much more straining and requires much more sacrifice to achieve.

Let's play with hypotheticals! 
How I'd present it:

Consequence A: God Baby does it's thing.
Dark Ritual completed > Morrigan let's the god baby do it's thing, since you've done the ritual then it's much easier to do and the events occur without much hassle.

Dark Ritual refused > Morrigan recreates what the god baby would do, though she needs to say... lure templar / mage armies into a trap and use blood magic to drain them all to recreate the effects. Perhaps some of your friends on both sides are in the armies and you need to sacrifice them.

Consequence B: God Baby doesn't do it's thing.

Dark Ritual completed > The player has to actively hunt down the god baby, possibly abandoning friends in need or critical battles to try and stop whatever might happen.

Dark Ritual refused > You stop Morrigan from luring the armies.


Ultimately, you'd be able to experience the events / consequences from both sides within one playthrough but you'd experience different events leading to it. Sort of similar to how (in ME3) Wrex / Wreav being in charge of the clans lead up to different events which alter the finale of the genophage plot.

Resource-wise, this would be four branching paths but they all connect.  Depending how it's done, the branching could be minor. I'm thinking something similar to DA2's ending choice, which branched but ultimately reconnected 20-30 minutes later, this time reconnecting into Consequence A or Consequence B.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[knarayan]

Allan,
I think canon would matter more if I was playing my warden through three DA games. When you start a new character it matters a little less.
But if you didn't want to canonize, is there anyway apart from the Wrex/Wreav route? That is, DR doers, they get OGB. For the sacrificers, you get someone else - an analogue to OGB, but NOT OGB. The quests and mechanics involved can be the same, but the origin and the character have to be significantly different

[wsandista]

knarayan wrote...

Allan,
I think canon would matter more if I was playing my warden through three DA games. When you start a new character it matters a little less.
But if you didn't want to canonize, is there anyway apart from the Wrex/Wreav route? That is, DR doers, they get OGB. For the sacrificers, you get someone else - an analogue to OGB, but NOT OGB. The quests and mechanics involved can be the same, but the origin and the character have to be significantly different

I suggest that Morrigan gets knocked up by some random joe and has a kid she trains to do whatever the OGB is meant to do. Not the most elegant way to put things, but it can work.

[ohnotherancor]

@ Dakota Strider
@ Sacred_Fantasy

I am much more interested in seeing divergent storylines based on the DR choice instead of seeing the OGB present in all playthroughs. Not as major as The Witcher 2, but something akin to that.

There might be a way to implement the OGB without making it seem like a retcon, but I'm currently not seeing it. David Gaider previously said this:

David Gaider wrote...

May I put this to rest?

If the player didn't do the Dark Ritual, or didn't get Alistair or Loghain to do it, then it wasn't done. Had Morrigan figured out some way to otherwise do it, then nobody would have died when the Archdemon was slain. If she had some way to go about getting the Archdemon's soul without resorting to the Dark Ritual as she proposed it, then why did she go through all the trouble?

We could undoubtedly come up with some complex Plan B on Morrigan's part whereby she gets the Archdemon's soul but has to do something far more terrible-- but a) that removes the player's agency in the biggest single choice of Origins and would probably be pretty lame.

(emphasis mine)

And I'm inclined to agree with him.

Edit: I apologize if I'm coming off as a bit snappish. I don't mean to. The OGB is undeniably important and I'd like to see him again. Just not in every playthrough.

Modifié par x0hn0th3r4nc0rx, 01 juin 2012 - 02:51 .

[Dakota Strider]

x0hn0th3r4nc0rx wrote...

@ Dakota Strider
@ Sacred_Fantasy

I am much more interested in seeing divergent storylines based on the DR choice instead of seeing the OGB present in all playthroughs. Not as major as The Witcher 2, but something akin to that.

There might be a way to implement the OGB without making it seem like a retcon, but I'm currently not seeing it. David Gaider previously said this:

David Gaider wrote...

May I put this to rest?

If the player didn't do the Dark Ritual, or didn't get Alistair or Loghain to do it, then it wasn't done. Had Morrigan figured out some way to otherwise do it, then nobody would have died when the Archdemon was slain. If she had some way to go about getting the Archdemon's soul without resorting to the Dark Ritual as she proposed it, then why did she go through all the trouble?

We could undoubtedly come up with some complex Plan B on Morrigan's part whereby she gets the Archdemon's soul but has to do something far more terrible-- but a) that removes the player's agency in the biggest single choice of Origins and would probably be pretty lame.

(emphasis mine)

And I'm inclined to agree with him.

Edit: I apologize if I'm coming off as a bit snappish. I don't mean to. The OGB is undeniably important and I'd like to see him again. Just not in every playthrough.

It is my thought that the OGB is far too important to just give some lip service to, or as a minor side quest in DA3 and beyond.  As for Mr. Gaider, sometimes I have to restrain myself about what I think of some of his opinions.  However, I think this is a case where he does not see the forest, because he is standing too close to the trees.  I find it so hard to believe, on what had to be Morrigan's own personal quest, that she would take "No" as the final answer, just when she was so close.  She would have had to have a Plan B.  And I would not be surprised if she had a Plan C and D.   The reason she tried to have the Warden's baby, is because plan A was the simplest one.  And she would not have told the Warden about alternate plans, because if the Warden was against Plan A, he/she may have attempted to stop her from succeeding with one of the other plans. 

I understand that player agency is important.  And I think those that chose the Ultimate Sacrifice deserve their due for their decision.  But just because they decided that Morrigan would not have "their" baby, does not mean that Morrigan was thwarted.  Otherwise, she would have tried a lot harder.  If she was really desperate, she could have resorted to Blood Magic and compelled one of the Wardens, and made her escape. 

I understand that DG is supposedly the "word of god", but if the OGB is such a minor character that it does not belong as canon, it seems like they should not have even introduced it as a possibility in the first place.  Unless they are able to create two completely different games within one, which even in Bioware's best days, before EA, they did not have the resources to do.

[TEWR]

And I'm inclined to agree with him.

I don't really agree with him that it removes player agency.

[brushyourteeth]

It's much easier for me to believe that Morrigan obtained the OGB by any means necessary than it is to believe that she just said "gosh darnit, at least I tried." and sauntered off into the sunset.

For me it's not even a retcon issue. One way or another, I'm absolutely positive that Morrigan has an Old God baby. Period.

When it comes to other issues like Alistair's fate or the Architect's, that's much more complicated. But for me this one issue is pretty clearly set in stone.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Like I said before, I rather see those consequences handled in the same game. Another good example of that is siding with the templars or mages in DA2. If I side with the mages then I fight Meredith in the end game. If I side with the templars then I fight Orsino. But it does not make sense to fight them both.

I don't want to get too far off track, but Meredith was a necessary boss fight in terms of the story from how I saw it.

See here and here for why I feel that way.

Orsino should've been left to player choice for pro-mage players and an unavoidable fight for pro-Templar players.

It's implementation that's at fault, really.

I see what you mean. The problem with the story was that Meridth already was loony even before the idol and Orsino went too far with one of Hawke's family members. Both fights were forced and the story did't make much sense. Same goes for the choices. They didn't matter. In the meantime Anders didn't play nice with the Chantry. He too was unstoppable. Insanity all around.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juin 2012 - 03:48 .

[robertthebard]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And I'm inclined to agree with him.

I don't really agree with him that it removes player agency.

It does though, since from what we know, if the ritual is successful, then the soul of the old god goes to the baby, and nobody has to die.  If you refused the ritual, and your warden died, then Morrigan ends up OGB anyway, then why bother refusing the ritual?  It makes that choice, which was a major choice, meaningless.  After all, did somebody refuse the ritual simply because they wanted to die, or did they refuse it because of the ramifications of the OGB?  Either way, it's a slap in the face to people that didn't do it.

[HiroVoid]

x0hn0th3r4nc0rx wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

May I put this to rest?

If the player didn't do the Dark Ritual, or didn't get Alistair or Loghain to do it, then it wasn't done. Had Morrigan figured out some way to otherwise do it, then nobody would have died when the Archdemon was slain. If she had some way to go about getting the Archdemon's soul without resorting to the Dark Ritual as she proposed it, then why did she go through all the trouble?

We could undoubtedly come up with some complex Plan B on Morrigan's part whereby she gets the Archdemon's soul but has to do something far more terrible-- but a) that removes the player's agency in the biggest single choice of Origins and would probably be pretty lame.

(emphasis mine)

And I'm inclined to agree with him.

Edit: I apologize if I'm coming off as a bit snappish. I don't mean to. The OGB is undeniably important and I'd like to see him again. Just not in every playthrough.

Old dev posts aren't always the most reliable source of confirmed news.  Plans change, and it's obvious they're still trying to figure out exactly what to do about this issue.  While this certainly reflects how he feels about it then and maybe at the moment, they may in the end, still feel its worth enough story value to have the plot element used in one way or another.