21 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

I really don't want to get involved in the Mage/Templer conflict.
I know it going to affect most of Thedas and is most likely to be a big part of Dragon Age 3, but I hope we will be giving the option to ignore it.
By ignore, I don't mean the quest won't start untill you want it to. I mean when the Mages/Templers ask you to choose a side, you can pick neither side and this effects the story.

One of the complaints I have about the ending of Dragon Age 2 was that you had to pick a side. There was no option to walk just away. You can say you don't want to get involved, but your told you have do. Why? If it was because it would of been anticlimatic to end the game without a final boss, I say so what, not everything has to end in a bang. Also I could of just had the boss fight right there if need be.

You may ask why I don't want to get involved, it's mostly because politics bore me. I rather be exploring and fighting monsters than listening to another security vs liberty dabate. Also it's because alot of Dragon Age 2 involved fighting Mages and Templers and I don't want to have to fight them again.

If I do have to take a side in the conflict, I would ask that the quests not amount to "go kill these Mages/Temples", but rather "go get this person to support us", "go find this item", "convince the Dwarfs to stop selling Lyrium to the other side" etc.                  

[Allan Schumacher]

Which is yet another reason I don;'t like that they've taken this story up so early. It's pretty much inevitable we'll be railroaded into one outcome since different conclusions would simply be too diverse and complicated to successfully carry over into future media. If they were going to do this story, they should have concluded the series with it and tied it in with the Flemeth/Morrigan arc so they wouldn't have to worry about imports or cohesiveness in regard to player choice etc.

Do you think it'd be more important to make sure that we acknowledge player choice in future games (possibly leading to the restrictions like you indicate), or do you think it'd be better to allow for more in game choice and different outcomes, but allow ourselves to establish "this is canon because it's the story we've been building up to" for some/most/all [important] choices?

[Allan Schumacher]

To be honest I would quit the series the moment that some standard warden/Hawke/future protagonist became canon

This is quite a reaction and the one that I can relate to the least. As such I am most interested by it.

I'm curious as to why. I'm someone that enjoys games for what they are, and as long as I feel I'll enjoy the content that exists within the game then that's enough of a basis for me. This obviously isn't the case for you, and my assumption is that you feel if we go with canon choices it ultimately makes you feel like your decisions weren't worth anything and that's NOT something that you want.

I noticed you specifically mention the main character. I can reasonably assuming this would include gender, race, and class of the main character. What about something big like the Old God Baby, since that IS something that many on the board are excited to see. That isn't necessarily a specific assumption about the main character's principle characteristics, but it IS a decision the Warden must make so it's definitely not entirely removed from the Warden.

[Allan Schumacher]

It homogonises *all* player experiences into one developer-chosen truth

This I do disagree with.

Canon Revan is lightside. I do not in any way feel this takes away from my experience of playing through KOTOR as a good guy soldier that slowly falls to the darkside in a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" sort of way. It's still easily one of my most enjoyable CRPG roleplaying experiences and literally changed the way I approach playing CRPGs.

A player's experience is a player's experience. Nothing anyone says or does can take away from that. It's fine to be disappointed if choices aren't reflected in sequels, but anyone that lets that take away from the experience they had playing the prequel is letting the disappointment spill over too far, in my opinion.  I do feel it's in the player's control to restrict the disappointment to the sequel itself.

I liken it to those that were so outspoken against Fallout 3 because they felt that it was an abomination and would some how take away from Fallout 1 and 2.  But it doesn't.


I have a more general response mulling in my brain to the topic at hand (which I am thoroughly enjoying reading as an FYI), but I'm eating lunch right now. Nom nom nom.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 juin 2012 - 05:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A player's experience is a player's experience. Nothing anyone says or does can take away from that. It's fine to be disappointed if choices aren't reflected in sequels, but anyone that lets that take away from the experience they had playing the prequel is letting the disappointment spill over too far, in my opinion.  I do feel it's in the player's control to restrict the disappointment to the sequel itself.

Personally, the only thing that really annoys me is the lack of forward thinking involved in these summary declarations by the devs.  This is one area where DA2 shows vastly better planning--nothing that happens or can happen in DA2 is canon-shaking.  Nor was there a lengthy epilogue that detailed events a later game contradicts.

Do you consider this a way that DA2 is superior to what DAO provided?


The impression that I'm getting is that we should only provide choice if we intend to properly follow up on it, requiring forward thinking for all of the decisions and how we're going to work with them moving forward.  (Ignoring the minor choices that can be ignored, for instance)

It's fine to feel this way.  I'm literally asking this just to make sure I'm understanding your position.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 juin 2012 - 10:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

nightscrawl wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The impression that I'm getting is that we should only provide choice if we intend to properly follow up on it, requiring forward thinking for all of the decisions and how we're going to work with them moving forward.

I hate to continually use this as an example, but the Old God Baby is one such choice.

IF the devs sat around discussing the ending of DAO and the various options and it was decided that there needed to be a way for both Alistair and the Warden PC to live (particularly since he is a romance option and many people want a postcard ending -- not dissing this here, I fall into this category), and then someone comes up with the dark ritual without ever thinking how the players might react to this, how it would be perceived as a sort of cliffhanger, or what it means for the future of Thedas (since both Morrigan and Flemeth are certainly forward thinkers), then it was poor planning.

The Old God Baby is certainly the lowest hanging fruit, and you don't need to apologize for bringing it up.  Though with things like DA2's XP getting nixed, it does provide some additional incentive to make sure stories are wrapped up more thoroughly within the game.  But outside influences can change how things end up going.


The thing I am most concerned about is if we end up being held accountable that we have to make our choices be reflected in future games is that we have to restrict the players to do things that may have catastrophic consequences.  If our long term picture involves revisiting the area, then we actually have to outright prevent the player from making those choices.


It'd require writing your sequel so as to minimize the need for references to past events.  The example I fall back on is Shady Sands and the NCR.  Fallout 2 is a very different game (and I love Fallout 2) if the player sells Shady Sands to the Slavers.  Or is just mentally unstable and snaps on the Shady Sands population.


Maybe the best solution is to just allow Morrigan to have an Old God Baby by other means.  Though I know there was disappointment for ME3 over players like Wiks (who only exists if Mordin died in ME2) because people felt it meant that there wasn't really a consequence for Mordin dying.

[Allan Schumacher]

True, but it's still about reconciling fan feedback.

I disagree that having Wiks in ME3 undermines Mordin's death, for example. Plus I think the situation plays out differently enough anyway. This IS probably a smaller perspective, and it's certainly true that you won't be able to please everyone.

[Allan Schumacher]

The OGB doesn't necissarily have to change the world, and I imagine the rituals purpose (in the dev's minds, at least) was to provide a way to save the warden/alistair, rather than to create the baby, since they don't seen to have any perticular plan for it and it didn't show up in the sequel.

The way I read it when I first played through the game, was that it was more a choice that was ambiguous to prevent there from being any sort of "good" or "bad" consequence of it.

Similar to my breakdown of the ME3 endings, an ambiguous consequence places more emphasis on the choice itself, rather than the consequence. If the epilogue slides mentioned the resurgence of an old god terrorizing people, or an old god being all awesome and benevolent, people will factor that in as judgment for the choice they make.

I find choice tricky in games because while sometimes I think it's best to have you choose well/poorly with that choice, sometimes you want that choice to just be something different. From a roleplaying perspective, the choice is uncertain to both the player and the hero. The player/hero must decide if they feel it is worth the risk.

If we tell the gamer that it was/wasn't worth the risk, then it often will impact their decision in a metagaming sort of way. Sometimes it's okay, but I think sometimes you don't want to give the player any sort of metagaming advantage.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thats an interesting take on the situation. But, by making the OGB appear in future games, wouldn't you be falling into that very trap? Its appearance would either be as an ally, a "grey" character, or as a villain, and all of those outcomes are a "judgement for the choice [we] made" in DA1. It seems the only way to keep the choice ambiguous is to not have the OGB in future games.

I agree. To be perfectly frank I have no idea if the OGB actually features into future plans. Whether in a significant or insignificant sort of way. (I literally discuss the OGB since it's the most obvious example, and it often comes up because people DO want to see resolution in it)

At the same time though, one may be able to rationalize that the focus for those choices is best contained within that particular game.

For example, while discussing Fallout with a friend, I mentioned that stating what the Vault Dweller does after the Overseer exiles him would be bad as it'd remove player agency and introduce obvious "What I wouldn't have done that." But stating that the Vault Dweller goes out to form his own settlement just works better for me at the start of Fallout 2. I can't really explain the exact mindset, but I guess for me I went into Fallout 2 with some sort of understanding that it'd be a new experience, so I was okay with Black Isle directing the Vault Dweller's actions in the past so that they could provide an interesting story for my future.

[Allan Schumacher]

Its also a dangerous precedent to establish, because it encourages players to metagame and pick the choices they think the devs will follow up on, rather than the one that fits their character.

Does it really affect what choices other people make in the game? Or does it just make the choices within the first game variations that players can make for their own enjoyment? I guess the thing here is, if you found out that Alistair becomes king in canon, why would that lead you to want to choose Alistair as king in a playthrough of DAO?

Realistically, if a company goes with canon endings for a sequel, it effectively makes all of the choices irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if you did choose Alistair, as that choice ultimately still has no bearing on the future game. I could see a gamer maybe preferring that as the story would make perfect sense.

Although I'm glad you brought this up because maybe it helps me understand the other perspective a little bit more.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sorry, when I said "perfect sense" I meant from a continuity perspective. I can understand that people might do that. Though I am not sure why.

It would absolutely lead me to choose alistair as king.

Is it simply because it'd provide you the internal consistency that you need for the story? Furthermore, how do you reconcile this when you wouldn't know what is canon until the sequel?

Internal consistency across games is just as important as consistancy within games. How would you feel if, in the Empire Strikes Back, eveyone acted like Han Solo didn't come back to help Luke blow up the death star?

I don't think this is a valid analog as movies and games are intrinsically different, especially if the game does allow plot divergence. Would it be ideal if we made games that didn't allow any choice whatsoever so that we can guarantee our stories are internally consistent. I think that that'd make for a less interesting experience for gamers.

I think the analogy would make sense if the sequel set something as canon that wasn't possible in the first game. Let the player choose Alistair, Human Noble, or Anora as leader of Ferelden, but then have... some other guy... be king, would be very jarring indeed. This is probably (hey I think I'm better able to understand this whole thing better!) why some people are not in favour of Morrigan working out some other way to get the Old God baby, since it's not part of the choice they made and maybe lacks consistency with the story? It's something that has manifested for no predictable reason.

[Allan Schumacher]

Since you see it more like a movie, is it safe to say that linearity is less of an issue for you?

[Allan Schumacher]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Since you see it more like a movie, is it safe to say that linearity is less of an issue for you?

Thats not really what I meant. The movie analogy was to show that continuity consistency is just as important in a game with multiple choices as it is in a film, or a book series for that matter. I enjoy some linear games (Assassins Creed, for instance) but I don't think Bioware should go down that route. I think you should have choices, but make sure all options are given fair treatment in sequels.

How much would you be willing to compromise in terms of level of choice in order to make this more manageable?

It seems like providing options that are more extreme would immediately come under the chopping block.  Would you be okay if the destruction of the Urn could not be done (or was mandatory)?  Or the sacrifice of a character for the death of the Archdemon?  Imagine if it HAD to be the player character.

The other alternative is making design decisions that minimize the impact of the choices.  This would start to place restrictions on whether or not we can revisit areas that we went to in the past, as well as bringing back characters.

Other alternatives would be: Just not making sequels (an idea that I'm not actually against as a game player).  I don't know how popular this would be with the fanbase, and it would incur additional development on our part.  BioWare could also consider revisiting how they do their games, perhaps allowing for increasingly divergent gameplay and providing more unique experiences based upon player choice.  I think this is quite interesting, but at the same time uncertain and probably quite risky.  It also poses a risk of alientating anyoen that picks up the series at a point different than the beginning.

The problem with Wiks, is that from a metagame perspective, it sort
of cheapens Mordin's special role in the world. "It had to be me.
Someone else might have gotten it wrong." No, Mordin, Wiks would have
gotten it done just fine apparently.

Should we actually make design decisions around the fact that metagaming will always occur?  Is this a responsibility of the game designer, or of the gameplayer to not sabotage their own game experience?  I think this could make creating CRPGs increasingly more challenging.

But I think the important thing is to have a consequence shown to the
PC who made the choice. When you're making a decision about a choice,
you're mostly thinking about the possible consequences and the different
varaibles. Thats what makes it fun.

I've become increasingly skeptical that gamers really want genuine consequences.  I more feel that when they want consequences, it's more that they want things to play out in a slightly unique way but still in a way that they want.  Gamers get very upset when a decision they made ends up coming to bite them in the ass later on.  Just look at some of the solutions for the Old God situation, which almost always involve providing a different and relatively equal outcome for those that did NOT make the choice.  While it's just a consequence, people WILL see it as being penalized for making suboptimal choices.

We see people who get upset and call BS because Anders can get offended if the PC turns down his advance.  It's a consequence, and one that I think is quite believable (and certainly not impossible to overcome), and it's even possible to completely avoid it if you made different choices.  But somehow we're not being fair and it's BS.


Although I love making tough choices in games.  For all the shortcomings of the ME3 ending (remember to keep spoilers to a minimum), on a fundamental level I love the choices that the game provides to you as they actually made me think about what is "right" when there's no obvious "right" choice.  Provide consequences for those choices, and I'll show you people that end up making their decisions based on the metagame knowledge of what those consequences provide.  Especially if only some of the options deliver on some of what they want.  Coupled with this, I'll show you people that call BS and feel it's unfair because they'd rather make a different choice and still get what they want.

IMO people like to see "consequence" in that seeing the game react differently based on their decisions is cool.  But they don't like to see "consequence" in that, if the result of the decision isn't what they want or if they feel in any way cheated compared to making a different choice, they get upset.  Even if the consequence itself actually makes sense and doesn't just manifest out of thin air.  People seem to like the idea that variation exists, as long as they still do what they want and the results are what they want to have happen.  I find it quite a challenging prospect to reconcile this viewpoint.

[Allan Schumacher]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Maybe instead of the major choices happening at the end of the game they should be made at the start or the middle and then by the end you get to see them resolved.

It still poses a risk.  The Urn of Sacred Ashes has very different outcomes, and isn't at the end of the game.  In order to fully respect the player's choice in this regard (barring an easily dismissed codex entry), we're effectively handcuffed from being in the area, or utilizing people that may have been a part of it.


I think forcing the player to save it or destroy it is suboptimal, but suddenly the ability to make reference to NPCs like Wynne or Leliana are no longer viable.  They certainly couldn't possibly be a recurring character.  In order to do so would require both of those characters to have plot armor that prevents their death.  Or we could have had the decidedly less interesting "they speak out and are mad at you, but ultimately there's no real consequence to your decision."  Even just revisiting the setting, or whether or not interactnig with Genetivi is possible, suddenly is brought into question.


Or the alternative of course is setting the game so far removed from the prequels that ultimately any decisions the player makers are still rendered inconsequential because they can't have any real impact outside of their local setting.

[Allan Schumacher]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Is killing characters the only way to have a consequence though? In the example you gave, couldn't Leliana and Wynne not just have run off? You'd still lose them as companions but they could still be used as part of the Dragon Age story. Leliana could still show up in DA2 and it wouldn't break the story or anything. 

In my DA2 playthrough Isabela ran away, which did feel like quite a consequence cause she was an awesome character, but if she ended up having a major role in DA3 it wouldn't somehow break my story in DA2. 

No, but I think it makes Leliana a more interesting character that she was willing to fight to the death for something that she believed in.

I think it served Isabela well to run away because arguably she had somewhat of a history of looking out for herself, and sticking around a crap situation isn't something she's so keen on doing.

[Allan Schumacher]

One of my least favorite moments in gaming was in KOTOR 2 when the Exile can meet Bastila and Carth. As a player, I knew exactly who they were and I was excited to see them again. Then I realized I was playing as the Exile and the Exile has no clue who they are. That sucks.

Basically, it seems like with a new PC every game, the DA games want to structure themselves like A Song of Ice and Fire books. Where each chapter of the book takes place from the POV of a certain character and its from those different points of view that the reader can piece together certain aspects of the story that might never be explicitly stated.

Its a dilemma no doubt. If you bring back Morrigan or some other old companion in a future game, as a designer do you expect people to be stone faced role playing their new PC who shouldn't know anything about them? If you're bringing back some old character or revisiting some old locale, what are you trying to make the player feel? Should they be strictly role playing with limited knowledge or should they be using metagame knowledge from past games to maybe piece together some greater plot/observation?

I'm reminded of an RPS story with the writers from Valve when they were playtesting Portal 2 regarding whether to have Chell in Portal 2 or some new PC:

Thanks a lot for sharing this. It's a very interesting point and not one that I consciously thought much about.

I think it's interesting because the game player is still an observer to the story, and I think if Varric were to pop up again with a different protagonist, people would in general go "Oh yeah it's Varric!" But at the same time, you won't necessarily be able to talk with him about his past adventures like you were Hawke which could be jarring.

I don't know if that necessarily means that we shouldn't consider bringing back past NPCs. I mean, I'm sure there are many that would love to bring back Cullen...

Again, with that instance I think the people getting upset are possibly more upset at getting the negative connotation of the red, "rivalry" points which seem to have a negative connotation. Would people have still been upset if they didn't see the red rivalry points?

I don't feel explicit morality is necessary either. But I know there are some that like that sort of feedback. Especially from a power gaming perspective.


I do agree that consequences should very rarely be a "GOTCHA." I think this ties in that most people (rightly or wrongly) have a bit of an expectation that what they do ultimately helps achieve their goals in a lot of cases. I bet that GOTCHAs that are beneficial to the player are much less poorly received. A character that pops up going "Thanks for helping me earlier. Here's my phat loots I found" makes someone go "Oh cool! The game reacted!" A character that pops up going "You were a jerk earlier, so just as an FYI I stole half your gold while you were away... sucker" brings out rage guy.

[Allan Schumacher]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, but I think it makes Leliana a more interesting character that she was willing to fight to the death for something that she believed in.

Doesn't her coming back from the dead with no explaination in DA2 kind of undermine that? 

For myself, it actually doesn't bother me.  If it had happened at the end of DAO, I would have certainly been confused and frustrated by it.

I'm someone that doesn't mind things being canon from previous games.  I do understand that that bothers you though.

I'm not even really sure WHY it doesn't bother me.  Just a quirk with the type of gamer that I am I guess.  I seem to be forgiving of choices that transcend other games, as long as the choices within those particular games are respected.  Maybe it's a concession I made due to previous experience with sequels, or something along those lines.

[Allan Schumacher]

deuce985 wrote...

Isn't Leliana showing up in DA2 if you killed her actually a import bug though?

It could be. I actually don't remember.

I did do testing for the Import system into DA2 (just the system itself, to make sure it was reading the flags that the specification said it was looking to read, and to make sure that upon import they were the values I was expecting).

There may have been other issues in the way the logic was set up.  There were a large number of flags and i don't recall if Leliana's death specifically was in there or not.  Though even then her omission from our import criteria may still be a bug.

[Allan Schumacher]

Or you could've done the "They speak out, they get pissed off at you if you go through with it, and they leave your group because they can't stand the sight of you anymore for daring to desecrate a sacred relic"

I have long since argued that killing off the companions as a means to give the player a consequence to their choices should be stopped.

Pursue other avenues. They exist.

That's fair. Though the actual combat does convey a different message than simply storming off.

By fighting, Leliana shows she's willing to die for her beliefs. Storming off in a huff does provide some additional consequence that simply being pouty but sticking around doesn't have, but I'd still contend it's a less interesting angle than having her say "No. You can't do this, and I'm going to try to stop you from doing it!"


I don't know if I'd say killing off party members should necessarily be stopped either. Thane died in my ME2 playthrough and it was poignant. My main squad in ME1 was Ashley and Kaiden and I had to choose between them, which wasn't easy. Both cases illicited an emotional response from me which is the ultimate win in video gaming for me.

I think death is powerful because we understand what level of price that is being paid.

[Allan Schumacher]

There's also having her fight the Warden, but show a cutscene that shows her bleeding profusely but still alive.

This way, the player sees her as willing to die for what she believes, even if she doesn't actually die from them.

This will still come under fire as it's effectively a plot armor. People will be annoyed that they couldn't verify her death (though I think this is probably a group that I wouldn't bother catering to.  Just in a "sometimes you have to pick your battles" sort of way).

But then going forward for a game that spans who knows how many iterations, doesn't this introduce the problem of trying to create a world that works around the deaths rather then an interesting story? It might end up being a drain on resources. Or maybe it results in less choices for that game.

It does pose problems yes. This is where I as a gamer start to get lenient with the "canon" card though. Which is my quirk I guess haha. I like the idea of a game allowing me exterme responses because sometimes they are interesting and cool to see. Knowing that I actually have the option to sell Shady Sands to slavers is just a cool game mechanic, even if ultimately canon has Shady Sands and Tandi forming the NCR.


I think another thing that factors in for me is the idea of whether or not I'm playing the same protagonist. I think respecting the choices plays a bigger part if I'm continuing to play with the character that made those choices. Although I was able to overlook it for BG2 so obviously it's not a deal breaker for me haha.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 juin 2012 - 06:07 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm pretty sure BG 2 didn't break continuity with BG1 (there weren't many divergant choices in BG1).

BG2 lets you have pretty free reign over who lives and dies. Minsc will actually fight you to the death if you procrastinate saving Dynaheir, but at the start of BG2 he's there in prison with you, clearly with an established history with you.

Same with Jaheira, and Khalid is in the dungeon too.

If anything, doing the ritual was the extreme response. So canonizing the ritual is very different from just ignoring an outlandish option (like slavery) which few players probably went with. Canonizing the ritual would be ruining THE major choice of DAO, in a series that claims to be all about choices and seeing their consequences. It would spoil player agency in a way that "no you can't actually become a slaver" simply can't compare with.

That's fair, but from what I gather the extreme responses such as not saving Shady Sands from the Raiders still violates your preference for story continuity so isn't it still valid to bring it up.

The impression I was getting from your position is that this extends WAY beyond just the Dark Ritual, and that things such as selling Shady Sands into slavery is still unacceptable. Or are there situations that you're less rigid about this for? As you say most people probably didn't sell Shady Sands into slavery, but then most people probably didn't destroy the Urn of Sacred Ashes either.

I do agree that the Dark Ritual is a big choice. Maybe it's a place where, even if some stuff is canon, we don't go canon with it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fair point and it makes sense that the bigger plot points are obviously areas that would be of larger concern for you.

On that note I'm off to bed.