68 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think Morrigan or the baby will be the main element of DA2.

[Statulos]

It will be nice to have it as the "kill Flemeth" thing in this game: a side quest and that´s it.
It shouldn´t be a main part of the game because it would dissapoint all that people who couldn´t care less about Morrigan (and they´re very entitled to think so!).

Modifié par Statulos, 11 décembre 2009 - 11:57 .

[Driveninhifi]

Well, either A) They wanted to, but couldn't include it for time/resources restraints (very likely) or they wanted her to be in part 2 (also very likely). It's unfortunate to so obviously force the plot a certain way in a game that tries to be so dynamic, though I recognize that dynamism must have its limits for a comprehensible plot (Not to say the baby plot will be the focus, but it seems like Morrigan will play a role in future stories or lore). Still feels disappointing - I did get a hint of the writers playing favorites. Can't have everything though!

Modifié par Driveninhifi, 12 décembre 2009 - 12:12 .

[Korva]

Maconbar wrote...

I think that if Bioware wasn't going in that direction, they would have excluded this element from the narrative.

If they ARE going in that direction, they should not have made it possible to avoid the ritual. Period. You could still have said no, but Morrigan would have taken her chosen "tainted sperm donor" by force then. And no, as the game stands it would be impossible to retcon the ritual into being "canon" with that explanation because in three out of the four possible endings, the one who strikes the killing blow still dies.

Retconning player choices and options as never even having been possible is really, REALLY aggravating, a sign of extremely bad/lazy writing, and lack of "respect" for your players. I honestly hope the Bioware folks would not do that.

[Malsumis]

Korva wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

I think that if Bioware wasn't going in that direction, they would have excluded this element from the narrative.

If they ARE going in that direction, they should not have made it possible to avoid the ritual. Period. You could still have said no, but Morrigan would have taken her chosen "tainted sperm donor" by force then. And no, as the game stands it would be impossible to retcon the ritual into being "canon" with that explanation because in three out of the four possible endings, the one who strikes the killing blow still dies.

Retconning player choices and options as never even having been possible is really, REALLY aggravating, a sign of extremely bad/lazy writing, and lack of "respect" for your players. I honestly hope the Bioware folks would not do that.

Obsidian did this with NWN2>MoTB, and I think 99% of people are glad they did. I'm all for the writers doing what is necessary to write a great story. If that requires some peoples choice being ignored, so be it. I  disagree that it shows a lack of respect to the players and that it's lazy writing. I say it's lazy writing to not do it or a lack of will to see their vision though(If it is their vision). Sure some people will be upset, but most will still purchase the sequel anyway.

I do however agree that the writers should have forced the ritual's completion (blood controling Alistair/MPC/Loghain etc), freedom of choice is great, but sometimes a path needs to be set to tell a great story.(Bhaal Spawn/Revan)Besides it's not like there wasn't any railroading in DA.

Modifié par Malsumis, 12 décembre 2009 - 12:54 .

[Korva]

Malsumis wrote...

I'm all for the writers doing what is necessary to write a great story. If that requires some peoples choice being ignored, so be it. I disagree that it shows a lack of respect to the players and that it's lazy writing.

It's lazy, cheap and stupid because a great story requires consistency pretty much above all else, otherwise immersion goes out the window in two seconds flat. At Warp Ten. And if you have a "vision" then plan for it from the start and stick to it. Any moron can retcon and handwave and ignore today what they said yesterday. (Hello Blizzard, hello World of WarCraft.) A good writer does not do that. A good setting, a good story doesn't change parameters and premises all of a sudden.

And I believe it shows a lack of respect because it essentially creates a lie -- the lie that you can choose, and that your choices matter. You don't deceive your fans/customers in that way. What is the point in getting immersed and investing emotionally into your game only to have them go "ha ha ha sucka that never happened"?

Not to mention it'd also be a complete waste of money to create endings based on turning Morrigan down if the next thing they do is retcon them all out of existence.

[Behindyounow]

The Ritual shouldn't be canon, because most endings ended without giving that cow what she wanted.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Count Viceroy wrote...

She has probably a vital role to play in the sequel if her endings are anything to go by. 

Irrelevant.
You have multiple possibel endings, but only ONE can be canon. So evne if oyu could kill Morrigan ten times over, that doesn't mean it would be the "canon" ending. Therere, not including a option ot kill Morrigan has little to do with a sequel.

I plan to mod that option in myself.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Behindyounow wrote...

Morrigan is an apsolute cow, and I would've relished a chance to kill her.

Handing her over to the Templars doesn't really do it for me.

And she STILL somehow escapes and comes proposing the smae deal.
And then some pople claim she's proposing the dealk out of love...*snicker*

[Walina]

GmanFresh wrote...

after the ritual...demon dies..goes to the baby... wouldnt it be easy to kill her then and there and prevent this old god? and get to save the wardens whilst preventing a freak of nature from being born?

Probably because she will become your "moma" in DAO 2 if you play her child

Or maybe she is just going to be an npc that you will see often in the futur 

I dislike both ideas and I hope it won't happen <_<

Modifié par Walina, 12 décembre 2009 - 02:28 .

[Herr Uhl]

The obvious, to get the proposal. It is one of the major plot-twists after all.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think Morrigan or the baby will be the main element of DA2.

I approve this.

[Behindyounow]

Herr Uhl wrote...

The obvious, to get the proposal. It is one of the major plot-twists after all.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think Morrigan or the baby will be the main element of DA2.

I approve this.

I approve also. I just hope all the Alistair fangirls wanting a happy ending with him adds to Biowares decisions on what is canon.

[Marine0351WPNS]

What i think will happen is something like what bioware is doing with mass effect 2, you will be able to pick a save from dao 1, then it will transfer your choices to dao 2. though this will create a problem if you chose to die, idk maybe youll be a new warden regardless of whether or not your pc survived denerim, and if your pc survived then he/she will become the leader of the wardens and do something like duncan did

[elkwolf]

I don't think Morrigan will be the villain of the sequel. It's possible that the baby goes ape ship and is the villain and then you have the choice to get back with morrigan or kill her. Then playing as her child may be possible since it would be hard to continue as the Grey Warden because that would be like saying there was one ending to DA.

[elkwolf]

But then again so would her having the child...

[Tamyn]

Morrigan says a very interesting line if you choose certain dialogue options about the baby. She says something like, "Your life lasts as long as it does." I took this to mean that if you took the deal and slayed the archdemon yourself, the baby's life is then tied to yours and if it dies, you die too.

Modifié par Tamyn, 13 décembre 2009 - 01:16 .

[Reader81]

Wait, but what if you die, would baby die as well?

[Herr Uhl]

Reader81 wrote...

Wait, but what if you die, would baby die as well?

Why would the baby die?

[Marine0351WPNS]

@ herr uhl



its a possibility cause like Tamyn said morrigan had said that the babie's life would be tied to your own, so it could be interpreted that if you should die, so would the child, and vice versa