471 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Now, I love Alpha Protocol. But I do know that some complained it was too short. They also complained that the game mechanics were clunky (which I found interesting, as they reminded me a lot of ME1), and they hated the timed conversations. All of these are horrible horrible and unjust reasons IMO as the writing and divergence in the game was faaaantastic. I was so sad that the game wasn't more successful.

Essentially, the unfortunate thing is that the game wasn't really a success. So even if the game length wasn't a huge deal overall, I'm worried if I point to it as an example I won't see as much traction. Same with the original Fallout for that matter, which is also a great example of a replayable game.

Well, like you said, I don't think the reason for AP's commercial failure was necessarily the writing or story elements. It was reviewers panning it for thinking it would play like Gears of War and instead it played like the stat based shooter it was, like ME1 or the original Deus Ex.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Unfortunately, I also see that Bio fans often seem to feel our games should be in the 60ish hour range. Games like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, which much of our core hold up as our best games, are games that are typically considered long and engaging and not because of their variations upon replaying the game. Would it be too much of a change from what people expect from a BioWare game?

True, but I also know many people with DAO and DA2 complained of sections of the game they felt were overly bloated with filler to pad the game's length- the endless wave combat in DA2 or the Fade and Deep Roads in DAO. So I guess its a quality over quantity issue. Mind you, I had no problem with the Fade or Deep Roads (at least in my first playthrough).

Again, I guess you could look at the shift in The Witcher to The Witcher 2. TW1 doesn't have the huge plot divergence that TW2 has, and is a longer game for it in a single playthrough- 40-60 hours probably. While TW2 is decidedly shorter in a single playthrough, maybe 30-40 hours. But the split in the narrative isn't just some minor dialogue changes or flavor difference; it is quite literally a completely different experience. So after you've finished the game once, you really haven't finished the game. And its brilliant how seeing the other half of the narrative can then color how you viewed your initial playthrough, as you gain new insights into certain characters that aren't possible in one run of the game.

I like a longer game as much as anybody, but if the unique content and variance felt meaningful while you were playing, then I'm at least ok with the game being shorter.

Tangentially, with how TW2 approached the narrative if they canonize one of the paths for The Witcher 3, I wouldn't mind as much, since they're both great examples of showing consequences to your actions in the game and not leaving them for cliffhangers for sequels.You walk away feeling really satisifed with what you've experienced in the game. The cliffhangers to The Witcher 2 are common plot threads that everyone gets going forward.

But you should definitely try The Witcher 2. Its not perfect by any stretch, but it does a lot of things pretty damn well

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
*snip*

Essentially, the unfortunate thing is that the game wasn't really a success. So even if the game length wasn't a huge deal overall, I'm worried if I point to it as an example I won't see as much traction. Same with the original Fallout for that matter, which is also a great example of a replayable game.

*snip*

Ultimately, Alpha Protocol suffered not due to writing (which is highly regarded by many) but by gameplay and marketing. Shorter games don't detract from the experience which the player has, you'd be disappointed at how short it possibly is but you'd enjoy the ride if it's ultimately what you really liked.

For example, listening to this brings a smile upon most Alpha Protocol player's faces. Just as much as Fallout 1 players who've done low-int playthroughs would smile upon thinking about everybody's dialogue being swapped.

Having choices/consequences possibly detracting from a well-built game would be, in my opinion, unlikely. Most players who finish games--especially RPGs--were in it for the ride from the start, present a satisfying and ultimately great ride and the length wouldn't have bothered most (not all) of them as much.

*NOW TO SHIFT TO FINANCING*

While I don't have evidence which points towards this claim, I've heard the majority of sales given by people who'd purchase the game but ultimately never completes it. If so, wouldn't length of a game serve a minor part to it's financial success, with only the minority ever completing it (possibly repeatedly)?

Wouldn't the people who'd repeatedly play the game, seeing it's many variations and different choices / consequences also keep the game on their hard drives longer, allowing the opportunity for DLC sales to still be relevent when those are eventually pushed out?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Heh, fair enough. If it's any consolation I didn't care for the combat in either game. It's always the story and characters that make or break an RPG for me. Combat's more of a necessary evil of the genre (I don't suck at it, I just rarely find it fun).

Like Brok said though, TW2's divergent stories were really well done. There were some seemingly innocuous choices that could change the entire landscape as well as the people within it. It made you feel like things you did mattered, even some of the stuff you didn't think would. Whether they carry any of those choices forward into future games though, who knows?

I agree.  I'd rather have simple combat, like a KOTOR (Flurry spam), which makes me feel badass.  For me, RPGs (especially "Western RPGs") are all about decisions and character interaction.  This is why I can overlook the gameplay faults of Alpha Protocol and consider it one of the best games I've played in recent years.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Brockololly wrote...

Well, like you said, I don't think the reason for AP's commercial failure was necessarily the writing or story elements. It was reviewers panning it for thinking it would play like Gears of War and instead it played like the stat based shooter it was, like ME1 or the original Deus Ex.

Yeah, I also compare it to the original Deus Ex as well haha.  Although I heard doing the conversations was actually quite a nightmare for writers and cin designers.  Though maybe (hopefully) it was more a tools related issue and could be iterated on.

True, but I also know many people with DAO and DA2 complained of sections of the game they felt were overly bloated with filler to pad the game's length- the endless wave combat in DA2 or the Fade and Deep Roads in DAO. So I guess its a quality over quantity issue. Mind you, I had no problem with the Fade or Deep Roads (at least in my first playthrough).

I think DA2 suffers from this a bit more, though DAO is a longer game.  DAO's length to me is more of a "errr.... I don't know if I haev the time for multiple playthroughs of this..." but at least for the first playthrough, I think it did a better job of keeping me fully engaged for the entire length.

Again, I guess you could look at the shift in The Witcher to The Witcher 2. TW1 doesn't have the huge plot divergence that TW2 has, and is a longer game for it in a single playthrough- 40-60 hours probably. While TW2 is decidedly shorter in a single playthrough, maybe 30-40 hours. But the split in the narrative isn't just some minor dialogue changes or flavor difference; it is quite literally a completely different experience. So after you've finished the game once, you really haven't finished the game. And its brilliant how seeing the other half of the narrative can then color how you viewed your initial playthrough, as you gain new insights into certain characters that aren't possible in one run of the game.

I like a longer game as much as anybody, but if the unique content and variance felt meaningful while you were playing, then I'm at least ok with the game being shorter.

Tangentially, with how TW2 approached the narrative if they canonize one of the paths for The Witcher 3, I wouldn't mind as much, since they're both great examples of showing consequences to your actions in the game and not leaving them for cliffhangers for sequels.You walk away feeling really satisifed with what you've experienced in the game. The cliffhangers to The Witcher 2 are common plot threads that everyone gets going forward.

But you should definitely try The Witcher 2. Its not perfect by any stretch, but it does a lot of things pretty damn well

I'm actually quite intrigued by The Witcher 2 now.  I *should* play it since frankly it's good to see what other companies are doing because good ideas are good ideas.

Do you think I should motivate myself to continue with The Witcher first?

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Do you think I should motivate myself to continue with The Witcher first?

If you really dislike The Witcher, then I would just skip it and start on The Witcher 2. Although, it's kind of like skipping Mass Effect and starting off on Mass Effect 2(or 3).

Modifié par wsandista, 02 juin 2012 - 07:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I just need to go into it expecting the combat to be kind of lame. I might just play on a lower difficulty.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I honestly greatly dislike TW1, while TW2 is one of my favorite games. I'd honestly recommend going straight to the TW2, as the difference in quality of almost every aspect is remarkable.

[AndrahilAdrian]

I recommend playing it in the original Polish with subtitles. The voice performances are much better.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I enjoyed both TW games, TW 1 was a bit weirder though because of how it handled combat. It was timing based rather than full twitch. Likely a limitation associated with the Neverwinter Nights engine it used.

Word of warning if you do choose to play through both, the import is a bit of a letdown. People are going on about how Dragon Age 2 or the Mass Effect games don't take into account your decisions, there is a pretty noticeable decision from TW 1 rendered irrelevant by TW 2 right from the word go. There are other important decisions that are recognized appropriately (integration with main quest path, not cameos), but it's hard not to notice the first one.

OTOH, the narrative reactivity within TW 2 itself is impressive. Helps that the actual story is quite compelling, too.

If nothing else, it's an example of a game with good narrative pacing and almost no filler content or encounters that pad out game time. Which is something BioWare could work on, IMO. Well, there is a bit, since some monsters respawn, but it's still properly integrated into quests.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 02 juin 2012 - 08:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just need to go into it expecting the combat to be kind of lame.

Absolutely!  TW2 is a great game. It particularly speaks volumes about the "new direction" that, for some reason, was chosen for DA2.
Combat sucks horse manure through straw though. Just as it does in Skyrim and DA2. Combat gameplay is worthless in modern RPGs, on their own.

Also sucks: Fixed protagonist.

I might just play on a lower difficulty.

I wouldn't recommend that. While I do think combat sucks, it still serves an important purpose. Installing the dread. Making a sense of a challenge towering over you, in the mist of the future.

Do as you like though.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just need to go into it expecting the combat to be kind of lame.

Absolutely!  TW2 is a great game. It particularly speaks volumes about the "new direction" that, for some reason, was chosen for DA2.
Combat sucks horse manure through straw though. Just as it does in Skyrim and DA2. Combat gameplay is worthless in modern RPGs, on their own.

Also sucks: Fixed protagonist.

I might just play on a lower difficulty.

I wouldn't recommend that. While I do think combat sucks, it still serves an important purpose. Installing the dread. Making a sense of a challenge towering over you, in the mist of the future.

Do as you like though.

Kind of liked the combat once I got used to it. There was one point in act 3 where I really nailed it and it was a glorious dance of death.. raining bombs and magic, rolling and countering in fluid motion.

Initially though it's very clunky and not that interesting till you get some skills. Same can be said about virtually any RPG combat though. If you can overlook Alpha Protocols clunkiness, you should have no issues with Witcher2.

[svenus97]

It raises the issue of :"There is only so much one person can take."

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never played any of ME2's DLC, but didn't mind that they were considered canon. Wouldn't this just be a reasonable incentive for people to pick up DLC? I understand that there are people that have innate reservations against DLC (I rarely pick them up myself, but for different reasons I suspect), but given that they are effectively a type of expansion pack, is there any real reason for not allowing the events that transpired to be events that canonically happen?

It's fine if they canonically happen, as long as they canonically happen to someone else, as in ME3.  Hijacking my PC wouldn't be OK.

And since lots of people don't by DLCs, obviously the game needs to be written to make sense to people who haven't played them.

(I don't buy Bioware DLCs and I won't unless the prices change.  At the least, they could do with going on sale sometimes)

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree.  I'd rather have simple combat, like a KOTOR (Flurry spam), which makes me feel badass.  For me, RPGs (especially "Western RPGs") are all about decisions and character interaction.  This is why I can overlook the gameplay faults of Alpha Protocol and consider it one of the best games I've played in recent years.

I always thought that what you described as "Flurry spam" combat was way out of place in RPGs, especially Western RPGs. If choices, gameplay styles and character interactions are so important... why couldn't the PC fight and destroy any obstacle in the way? Bethany getting taken by the Templars to get put into the circle? NO! Hawke can button mash the two or three Templars there with no problem. The Warden, through some poor choices, actually winds up losing the Landsmeet (not possible, but...) who cares? Just go Dynasty Warriors style and kill anyone in the room who doesn't support you, including Loghain.

But, on the other hand, if fights are truly a balancing act where you have to react to your opponents tactics and utilize all your party's strengths, then combat is not a pre-determined outocome. If you know that going into any fight, your character could wipe the floor with anyone they come across, then how do you suspend disbelief to put any kind of weight behind a decision other than just say "Why am I not just slaughtering everyone I don't like right now?"

Many people felt this way about the Arishok, or Meredith, or Patriece. Why didn't you all let my Hawke, in his button-mashing bad-****ness, just take out all these people who we could see trouble coming a mile away? There was no danger, no fear behind combat as an option, so it was ALWAYS the option, or there was no option other than to suspend your disbelief.

I, too, haven't played the WItcher games, so I can't say anything about its combat, but if the only incentive to avoiding conversation by using dialogue skills is more XP (or XP of a certain type, i.e. persuassion skill XP) and the only reason someone would use a sneak skill is to role play a thief character, not because combat was actually hard or threatening, then it cheapens both of these decisions.

Off topic, I know, but something I felt I wanted to weigh in on.

[robertthebard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

2. ) On the other hand, what about those people who don't buy Awakening? You do realize that Awakening is optional and not the main DAO's campaign? I didn't buy both Legacy and Mark of the Assassin, I'm worried it would effect events in DA 3 as well.

I never played any of ME2's DLC, but didn't mind that they were considered canon. Wouldn't this just be a reasonable incentive for people to pick up DLC? I understand that there are people that have innate reservations against DLC (I rarely pick them up myself, but for different reasons I suspect), but given that they are effectively a type of expansion pack, is there any real reason for not allowing the events that transpired to be events that canonically happen?

This is exactly why I feel the OGB story should be done in DLC.  Good or ill, the OGB can be handled w/out having to write 2 different games with the same title, depending on how Thedas shaking the OGB is meant to be.  I'd buy it, and play it.  I'm rallying about nullifying choices, but as far as the DR goes, I'm not morally against it, as I said, I've done it in more than a few playthroughs, sometimes just to make Alistair squirm.  It doesn't bother me that Alistair is king by default according to Canon, he was written for the role, even if he didn't want it.  This despite the fact that there are reasons, written into who he is, that he may well not survive anyway, again despite player choices, and this has been hashed and rehashed, and mixed with corned beef in the past.

The problem is going to be, as we can see, that this choice was major, and the sides are polarized.  Some to the point that believing that it is better to ignore part of the lore about slaying the Archdemon, where the OG's soul and the Warden's soul cancel each other out, resulting in the destruction of both, to say that Morrigan got the soul anyway.  This undoes what the writers went through a lot of work to accomplish; build a history for Thedas.  The known consequences were laid out at Red Cliffe.  That the soul is destroyed, along with the Warden, is the reason that Morrigan waits until she knows you know what's going to happen to end the Blight to approach you with the DR, and she will tell you as much.  So just saying "She got the soul anyway" completely negates any ending where she didn't get the ritual, and trivializes any ending where she did.

I could buy a rational explanation for Canon on the OGB, but not what amounts to "the soul killed the warden, and then played hopscotch until it found Morrigan's baby from earlier in camp, and merged there anyway",   It is fairly obvious to me that, as was pointed out earlier, Canon is that the Warden survived, Cassandra and Leliana's dialog make that plain.  So, if Canon is going to be that the DR was done, you may as well spill it now, and let the outrage pour out, maybe it will subside by the time the game goes Gold.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree.  I'd rather have simple combat, like a KOTOR (Flurry spam), which makes me feel badass.  For me, RPGs (especially "Western RPGs") are all about decisions and character interaction.  This is why I can overlook the gameplay faults of Alpha Protocol and consider it one of the best games I've played in recent years.

I always thought that what you described as "Flurry spam" combat was way out of place in RPGs, especially Western RPGs. If choices, gameplay styles and character interactions are so important... why couldn't the PC fight and destroy any obstacle in the way? Bethany getting taken by the Templars to get put into the circle? NO! Hawke can button mash the two or three Templars there with no problem. The Warden, through some poor choices, actually winds up losing the Landsmeet (not possible, but...) who cares? Just go Dynasty Warriors style and kill anyone in the room who doesn't support you, including Loghain.

But, on the other hand, if fights are truly a balancing act where you have to react to your opponents tactics and utilize all your party's strengths, then combat is not a pre-determined outocome. If you know that going into any fight, your character could wipe the floor with anyone they come across, then how do you suspend disbelief to put any kind of weight behind a decision other than just say "Why am I not just slaughtering everyone I don't like right now?"

Many people felt this way about the Arishok, or Meredith, or Patriece. Why didn't you all let my Hawke, in his button-mashing bad-****ness, just take out all these people who we could see trouble coming a mile away? There was no danger, no fear behind combat as an option, so it was ALWAYS the option, or there was no option other than to suspend your disbelief.

I, too, haven't played the WItcher games, so I can't say anything about its combat, but if the only incentive to avoiding conversation by using dialogue skills is more XP (or XP of a certain type, i.e. persuassion skill XP) and the only reason someone would use a sneak skill is to role play a thief character, not because combat was actually hard or threatening, then it cheapens both of these decisions.

Off topic, I know, but something I felt I wanted to weigh in on.

In my first attempt at a playthrough, while I was learning all the ins and outs of the new states, and what skills take advantage of what, etc etc, I wiped my party more times than I care to recount, and ended up being the last man standing in big fights.  The funny thing is, I used all the skills I had on my character to do so, stealthing to withdraw for potion or skill c/d, to avoid a larger group, and get where I could get them in smaller chunks, etc etc.  I learned a lot about rogue tactics in big battles that way, and it's carried on to make my gameplay smoother.  I expect to get my first year w/out an unconcious player in NM mode, and I can't get the dev console to work in my d/l through Origins game.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree.  I'd rather have simple combat, like a KOTOR (Flurry spam), which makes me feel badass.  For me, RPGs (especially "Western RPGs") are all about decisions and character interaction.  This is why I can overlook the gameplay faults of Alpha Protocol and consider it one of the best games I've played in recent years.

Preach it, brother.

I'm actually quite intrigued by The Witcher 2 now.  I
*should* play it since frankly it's good to see what other companies are
doing because good ideas are good ideas.

Do you think I should motivate myself to continue with The Witcher first?

Speaking for myself, I think it's safe to skip TW entirely. While I finished one playthrough, I didn't find it nearly as compelling as TW2 (IIRC I even got bored of TW1 at one point and put it down for a couple of weeks). Story-wise I don't think you should be too lost; the sequel fills you in on the important bits. I did find the combat in TW2 to have a relatively steep learning curve right at the start, so some of the earlier scenes can be frustrating. But it gets better as you level up. And there's story + characters to look forward to.

According to Steam it took me 32 hours to finish one play.

[AngryFrozenWater]

robertthebard wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think if people are afraid that exclusive branches mean that they miss out on content, then it is time to play a linear game. If our decisions should "shape the world" then consequences are what one could expect. Also, fans like me play the game more than once and try different choices in the hope they result in different content or twists in the story. And that has to do with promises like that. If those consequences don't materialize then do not be surprised that people are pissed.

This kind of works both ways though, everybody expects that their decision should be honored, and in the case of the OGB, they can't be.  It either happened, or it didn't.  Trying to cater both ways may almost entail writing 2 completely different games, with the same title, depending on how Thedas shaking OGB really is.

Since it wasn't dealt with in Witch Hunt, the next best possible solution, in my eyes, would be something similar to Leliana's Song, the DLC.  Introducing:  Into the Eluvian, starring Morrigan.  With the option to load Witch Hunt saves into the DLC.  Give it closure to the OGB, if there is one, and the Warden, if he goes into the Eluvian.  This effectively closes the issues with it, and with the Warden, if he's in at all.  This can be done as a stand alone module, and can include an option for generating a Warden that did the DR and went into the Eluvian with Morrigan, so that it's available as DLC for whomever wants to buy it.

Like I wrote before there could be an alternative for the opposite choice. However, it was BW that promised that our decisions would "shape the world". Not me. I am certainly not buying a DLC to deal with a choice that is supposed to be important. What's next? A DLC for the ending?

...and so you're decision is the only one that should shape Thedas?  I mean, realistically, I made the same decision in more than a few games, some just to make Alistair squirm by making him sleep with Morrigan, but I also played games where I didn't.  Which of my decisions are going to shape the world?  Why would my DR decision be more important than my non-DR decision, and why would you buy an entire game dedicated to it, but not buy a DLC that wraps it up?  So instead of 20 bucks, roughly, everyone that didn't do the DR should pay 70 bucks for an entire game that spits in their faces?  Did you play Witch Hunt?

I expect the game to be self contained. So if decisions are not handled in one and BW decides to handle them later on then I expect that to be in the next game. I would not buy a DLC, only to see one of my decisions handled there. It is a dubious way to milk customers. If the storyline and the gameplay of a DLC is great then BW can milk me as much as they want, though.

Yes, I played Witch Hunt. That was really a bad idea. I fell for it. I won't do anything like that again. Not only was it buggy because BW didn't even find the DLC interesting enough to test it (because it initialy assumed you didn't perform the ritual), the DLC never provided any answers. It stayed vague and never gave any closure or clarification. Ahum. The only thing you knew was that the OGB existed or not, depending on your decidsion - when you got lucky to play it after the bug fix. And even then the bug was not guaranteed to be fixed. In addition to that the DLC was supposed to have an export file for DA2. That wasn't there initially and that too had to be fixed. There were also numerous bugs with dog's name, achievements, items and rewards. None of these were fixed. I so wish that I never payed for that mess.

Again, it is not me who promised that my decisions would "shape the world". Listen to BW's first DA2 podcast. It was not a slip of the tongue. It was supposed to be a main feature. Which of those decisions play a role is up to BW. So, when Morrigan, Alistair, the werewolves, or any other decision are mentioned then expect them to be spot on.

The same goes for the decisions in DA2 itself. Especially when the player is supposed to "determine the rise to power" and the game is supposed to play in "in an ever-changing world" and "shapes itself around every decision you make". Again, I did not invent these quotes. You can find them on the DA2 website. And again, that never happened. Hawke did not determine anything. Hawke was merely reacting on the events on no decision you ever made changed anything. You still visited the same places and fought the same bosses.

At best you were allowed to chose the order of the side quest, or you had a single dialogue line change of an earlier decision or have a cameo pop by. You see, every one of those are based on a mechanism that makes sure that the storylines play out the same, no matter what you decide. None mattered, none had any impact.

Edit: Saw some really weird typo 10 hours later. Corrected.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[robertthebard]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Yes, I played Witch Hunt. That was really a bad idea. I fell for it. I won't do anything like that again. Not only was it buggy because BW didn't even find the DLC interesting enough to test it (because it initialy assumed you didn't perform the ritual), the DLC never provided any answers. It stayed vague and never gave any closure or clarification. Ahum. The only thing you knew was that the OGB existed or not, depending on your decidsion - when you got lucky to play it after the bug fix. And even then the bug was not guaranteed to be fixed. In addition to that the DLC was supposed to have an export file for DA2. That wasn't there initially and that too had to be fixed. There were also numerous bugs with dog's name, achievements, items and rewards. None of these were fixed. I so wish that I never payed for that mess.

I asked about Witch Hunt because I really thought to find closure for her arc there, and didn't.  Had I written it, it would have closed the issue, one way or another.  There is no good way to close it now, other than denying one side or the other the right to have their choice "change the shape of Thedas".  It would have been far better to close it there, for better or worse, than to add lore that simply made it worse, which is what it did, IMO.

[The_11thDoctor]

I think the issue is more about bioware not knowing how to close their games. If I got closure with my warden or hawke, Id feel better no matter who I was maining each game. As of now, both never got closure and we're 0 for 2 right now... Didnt help that DA2 had terrible story telling. I didnt get a sense of a year passing much less 10 while playing the game. The story present wasnt bad, just the way it was handled... It felt like I was going thru the clifnotes someone wrote...

[AkiKishi]

aang001 wrote...

I think the issue is more about bioware not knowing how to close their games. If I got closure with my warden or hawke, Id feel better no matter who I was maining each game. As of now, both never got closure and we're 0 for 2 right now... Didnt help that DA2 had terrible story telling. I didnt get a sense of a year passing much less 10 while playing the game. The story present wasnt bad, just the way it was handled... It felt like I was going thru the clifnotes someone wrote...

Absolute closure makes it harder to milk something if it's a success (which you never know until after the fact).

[robertthebard]

aang001 wrote...

I think the issue is more about bioware not knowing how to close their games. If I got closure with my warden or hawke, Id feel better no matter who I was maining each game. As of now, both never got closure and we're 0 for 2 right now... Didnt help that DA2 had terrible story telling. I didnt get a sense of a year passing much less 10 while playing the game. The story present wasnt bad, just the way it was handled... It felt like I was going thru the clifnotes someone wrote...

Actually, one version of Origins' ending did have closure for the Warden, which is, aside from the fact that it may already have happened, in danger of being trivialized, or cancelled out.  The US should be closure for the Warden story, but apparently, some archaeologist a thousand years from Origins is going to find the Shroud of the Warden.

[Loaderini]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Loaderini wrote...

they already decided that every Dragon Age game will have a different protagonist. and they have proven that they will not change the team's artistic vision for any reason.

Go offer EA $100,000,000 for the return of the Warden and see how long artistic vision lasts

no, if i could give that amount of money to EA/Bioware, it would be to create an ending for Mass Effect 3.

on topic, i like the idea of having a new protagonist in every Dragon Age game. it's not easy to create a new Shepard for every franchise

Modifié par Loaderini, 02 juin 2012 - 07:30 .

[Dakota Strider]

robertthebard wrote...
This is exactly why I feel the OGB story should be done in DLC.  Good or ill, the OGB can be handled w/out having to write 2 different games with the same title, depending on how Thedas shaking the OGB is meant to be.  I'd buy it, and play it.  I'm rallying about nullifying choices, but as far as the DR goes, I'm not morally against it, as I said, I've done it in more than a few playthroughs, sometimes just to make Alistair squirm.  It doesn't bother me that Alistair is king by default according to Canon, he was written for the role, even if he didn't want it.  This despite the fact that there are reasons, written into who he is, that he may well not survive anyway, again despite player choices, and this has been hashed and rehashed, and mixed with corned beef in the past.

And many of believe that just as Alistair being king is canon, regardless of what ending we picked, the OGB should be canon as well.  Wardens while rare, are not exactly unique.  But at most, there were seven Old Gods in the world.  All with tainted spirits.  The opportunity to purify the spirit of one, and reincarnate it may never come again.  Just as some people did not choose to make Alistair the king, and he turns out to be the canon choice for it, I also believe the Dark Ritual was meant to be the canon ending.  The players that had their decision to do an US, are no more trivialized than the people who killed off Alistair.  The potential for what the OGB can mean to the world, is too important to be trivialized by several hours of DLC content.

The problem is going to be, as we can see, that this choice was major, and the sides are polarized.  Some to the point that believing that it is better to ignore part of the lore about slaying the Archdemon, where the OG's soul and the Warden's soul cancel each other out, resulting in the destruction of both, to say that Morrigan got the soul anyway.  This undoes what the writers went through a lot of work to accomplish; build a history for Thedas.  The known consequences were laid out at Red Cliffe.  That the soul is destroyed, along with the Warden, is the reason that Morrigan waits until she knows you know what's going to happen to end the Blight to approach you with the DR, and she will tell you as much.  So just saying "She got the soul anyway" completely negates any ending where she didn't get the ritual, and trivializes any ending where she did. 

You continue believe that everything the "lore" says, is 100% accurate.  How was this lore acquired?  When it was discovered that the tainted OG spirit would leap from the dying Archdemon, to the nearest Warden, was there any tests done to see where the spirit went, after the Warden died?  Just because it did not leap back into another Darkspawn, does not mean that spirit is destroyed forever.    You are basing your information on 1) what a handful of Wardens have told you, that are simply repeating what they have been told.  2) You are relying on what Morrigan tells you is the absolute truth, and that she held nothing back from you.     Your known consequences are a combination of  handed down legend, and the trust of a "witch" that you do not trust enough to go to bed with, or allow another companion to go to bed with, even to save their lives.   Funny you would trust all that Morrigan tells you in Red Cliffe castle, yet you would not trust her with the ceremony.  A bit of a contradiction.  And Morrigan's parting words makes it clear she has not given up, and that she is going to do something else.  Nor is it in Morrigan's nature to just give up, or to only have one possible plan, when something so important is at stake.  It was the sole reason she accompanied you.  Not to end the Blight.

I could buy a rational explanation for Canon on the OGB, but not what amounts to "the soul killed the warden, and then played hopscotch until it found Morrigan's baby from earlier in camp, and merged there anyway",   It is fairly obvious to me that, as was pointed out earlier, Canon is that the Warden survived, Cassandra and Leliana's dialog make that plain.  So, if Canon is going to be that the DR was done, you may as well spill it now, and let the outrage pour out, maybe it will subside by the time the game goes Gold.

There are many possible explanations of how Morrigan could have captured the soul of the Old God, after it killed the Warden.  By merging with the Warden, it becomes purified.  Without the DR, that kills the Warden.  But there is nothing to prove that either the Warden's spirit, or the OG's spirit is actually destroyed.  Just the Warden's body.  Both spirits would likely to move on to the Fade.  And it is there, where it is likely that Morrigan would have "captured" the Old God spirit.  Or perhaps made a deal with it.   

If Morrigan had any doubts at all, that the Warden would refuse the DR and that was her ONLY way of capturing the Old God's spirit, she would have taken different tactics.  The Dark Ritual was more to save a life, than capture a soul, she already knew how to capture the soul without the Warden, though it was likely going to be easier with the Warden's cooperation.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 02 juin 2012 - 08:10 .

[Get Magna Carter]

I'm fine with a different character in each game
The big problem is that when games add a new protagonist they seem to feel to have a need to create a vague/flimsy excuse for the previous protagonist not to be around resolving it - which takes the player's character and forces a mysterious fate which the player does not know and cannot determine (I could invent a dozen possibilities for my Warden but there is too much a possibility that Bioware will do something official contradicting my version..)

I will add that I feel a greater attachment to my warden as she feels more my own creation and saved a country from a horde of monsters whereas Hawke seems like someone Varric made up - who killed a few people and then got run out of a city...

on the canon debate I believe
1) DA1 endings and transfers are bugged - this is not the same as anything being intentionally canon
2) Cassandra and Lelianna do not specify which warden they were talking about and may have meant a warden from Orlais sent over for the events in Awakenning
i.e. Alistair as king is not canon (I think). Hero of Ferelden surviving is not canon (and OGB is not canon)

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 02 juin 2012 - 08:37 .