202 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.                  

[Dave of Canada]

If you've read Asunder, there's actually three parties at work. There's the ex-Chantry Templar which want to hunt down the mages, there's the ex-Circle Mages which want their freedom and there's the Divine and what's left of her Seekers.

You'd probably fit in more with the Divine, she wants more the status-quo to return with more liberties for mages. Arguably the least extremist side and possibly the most neutral.

[AkiKishi]

I think this is another area where a pre-gen character helps. I don't want to do X is a very valid stance if you have open character generation. If you are playing the role of someone like Geralt, you do it because it's what Geralt would do, not because it's what you want.
Ideally a pre-gen for each side of the conflict and a different view of the story, but I don't think DA3 looks to be putting in that sort of budget.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MichaelStuart wrote...
I really don't want to get involved in the Mage/Templer conflict.

Me too.

MichaelStuart wrote...

One of the complaints I have about the ending of Dragon Age 2 was that you had to pick a side.

BioWare doesn't believe in playing peace maker role.

MichaelStuart wrote...

There was no option to walk just away.

Bioware doesn't allow that.

MichaelStuart wrote...


You can say you don't want to get involved, but your told you have do. Why?

No reason except to appease the extremists.

MichaelStuart wrote...

You may ask why I don't want to get involved,

My reason: I don't have any reason. I'm normally play neutral lawful warrior or chaotic neutral rogue. 

MichaelStuart wrote...


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.                   

I would ask tranquil or kill all mages. Ban all religions and forced secular education  The only law applicable is secular law with limited democracy.





And me as the new Emperor Palpatine with a harem full of desire demons. 

[brushyourteeth]

I get what you're saying, but it all had to do with the context of the game. In DA:O you could choose to be neutral about Templars and mages - the only thing you *had* to do was get some kind of help at the Circle tower. You could not, however, just plug up your ears and run from the Blight hoping someone else would take care of it. Of all the things history may disagree on about who/what/how the Hero of Ferelden was, a non-Blight-stopper isn't one of them. You had the same restriction with that character.

It's the same with Hawke in DAII. Accounts may differ in the next age about whether the Champion was male or female, which sibling/s lived and which ones died, etc. but three things we do know:
1.) Hawke fled Ferelden
2.) Hawke defeated the Arishok
3.) Hawke killed both Meredith and Orsino

That's the story the devs wanted to write. Hawke is a pre-set character on those three things, and as far as those go you aren't given any choice. Your character in DAIII may actually have a choice, but if Hawke hadn't been involved in the conflict between mages and Templars he/she wouldn't have had a story that Varric would need to repeat to a Seeker. They could have written it so that you claimed neutrality but still had to kill both characters, but then fans would be even more up in arms about "lack of meaningful consequences" than they are already. Instead Hawke is a character that must make some kind of stand.

Is that kind of lame? Yeah. I'm all for more choices myself. But being neutral in DAII would have meant saying no to at least 40% of your quests and probably only reaching level 15 (just a guess, don't anyone jump all over it).

[AkiKishi]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I get what you're saying, but it all had to do with the context of the game. In DA:O you could choose to be neutral about Templars and mages - the only thing you *had* to do was get some kind of help at the Circle tower. You could not, however, just plug up your ears and run from the Blight hoping someone else would take care of it. Of all the things history may disagree on about who/what/how the Hero of Ferelden was, a non-Blight-stopper isn't one of them. You had the same restriction with that character.

It's the same with Hawke in DAII. Accounts may differ in the next age about whether the Champion was male or female, which sibling/s lived and which ones died, etc. but three things we do know:
1.) Hawke fled Ferelden
2.) Hawke defeated the Arishok
3.) Hawke killed both Meredith and Orsino

That's the story the devs wanted to write. Hawke is a pre-set character on those three things, and as far as those go you aren't given any choice. Your character in DAIII may actually have a choice, but if Hawke hadn't been involved in the conflict between mages and Templars he/she wouldn't have had a story that Varric would need to repeat to a Seeker. They could have written it so that you claimed neutrality but still had to kill both characters, but then fans would be even more up in arms about "lack of meaningful consequences" than they are already. Instead Hawke is a character that must make some kind of stand.

Is that kind of lame? Yeah. I'm all for more choices myself. But being neutral in DAII would have meant saying no to at least 40% of your quests and probably only reaching level 15 (just a guess, don't anyone jump all over it).

As I said above if that is what they want to do don't pretend that the character is the players creation. Being a Warden was something you could not escape and beyond your control (alternative being dead) that's fair enough. Hawkes got nothing like that hanging over him, only being railroaded through the story because that is how the story must be told.

Makes no real difference is a scaled game.

[Cultist]

Join Blood Mages, kill them all.

Modifié par Cultist, 08 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[brushyourteeth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I get what you're saying, but it all had to do with the context of the game. In DA:O you could choose to be neutral about Templars and mages - the only thing you *had* to do was get some kind of help at the Circle tower. You could not, however, just plug up your ears and run from the Blight hoping someone else would take care of it. Of all the things history may disagree on about who/what/how the Hero of Ferelden was, a non-Blight-stopper isn't one of them. You had the same restriction with that character.

It's the same with Hawke in DAII. Accounts may differ in the next age about whether the Champion was male or female, which sibling/s lived and which ones died, etc. but three things we do know:
1.) Hawke fled Ferelden
2.) Hawke defeated the Arishok
3.) Hawke killed both Meredith and Orsino

That's the story the devs wanted to write. Hawke is a pre-set character on those three things, and as far as those go you aren't given any choice. Your character in DAIII may actually have a choice, but if Hawke hadn't been involved in the conflict between mages and Templars he/she wouldn't have had a story that Varric would need to repeat to a Seeker. They could have written it so that you claimed neutrality but still had to kill both characters, but then fans would be even more up in arms about "lack of meaningful consequences" than they are already. Instead Hawke is a character that must make some kind of stand.

Is that kind of lame? Yeah. I'm all for more choices myself. But being neutral in DAII would have meant saying no to at least 40% of your quests and probably only reaching level 15 (just a guess, don't anyone jump all over it).

As I said above if that is what they want to do don't pretend that the character is the players creation. Being a Warden was something you could not escape and beyond your control (alternative being dead) that's fair enough. Hawkes got nothing like that hanging over him, only being railroaded through the story because that is how the story must be told.

Makes no real difference is a scaled game.

Yep. What you said. Hence why many fans (including myself) feel like Hawke was completely Bioware's creature and not a character I created. Having one dramatic event alter the course of your (in game) life is one thing - reaching frequent critical checkpoints and being told "you must go this way" is quite another. If anything we're more like a little angel or devil on Hawke's shoulder dropping hints and influencing dialogue choices.

Hopefully our character is less restricted for The Next Thing™

[Chiramu]

I'd love to be neutral in this conflict , I do hate how we're forced to choose sides :<. I think way more than the PC is written to think and it really tears me away from the game. I want my PC to go, "hang on, wait, I just came here to talk." Or something like that.

There's never enough talking to people when it's important, there's always irrelevant banter and then forced choice between two sides, but never going up to your friend and asking them what's up.

[King Cousland]

I would like a neutral option yes, but I'd also like to make this appeal to BioWare: conclude the Mage-Templar War in DAIII. DA isn't the sort of series where you can drag out a single story across multiple games with different characters each time, unless it's done subtlety (Morrigan/Flemeth arc for example). There's so much potential in the world of Thedas for a multitude of beautifully crafted tales and it seems a shame that this rather shallow and predictable one's being strung out.

[FaWa]

What I'm afraid of is the mage templar conflict being railroaded into one outcome just for the sake of the overarching lore.

[King Cousland]

FaWa wrote...

What I'm afraid of is the mage templar conflict being railroaded into one outcome just for the sake of the overarching lore.

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. 

[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?

[Urzon]

I simply want my PC to be the mediator of the three sides, for when they write the treaty ending the war.

....with master coercion of course. So even if i wasn't part of the war, I can still push my own views and thoughts ......peacefully settle the dispute on how things should run in Thedas. All the while being diplomatically "neutral".

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Modifié par Urzon, 09 juin 2012 - 05:05 .

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I am for more in game choices. I think it was a mistake trying to import choices from DAO. The warden's story should have been (IMHO) wrapped up in DAO. Awakening should have used only the Orlais commander and not allowed imports. I know the fan base wanted to import their warden's but the series would have  been better served limiting the import choices or having none at all. 

For example not allowing Leliana to be killed if Bioware was going to use her in DA2. Simply allow her to escape after losing half her life points (during the Sacred Ashes quest) or having another companion step in and stop the warden. Leliana then simply leaves. Leliana appearing in DA2 would then make sense. Zevran was handled properly (even if some did not like his physical appearance). He only appears if the warden let him live. The same with Nathaniel. 

The Dark Ritual should not have been an option. It should have been one of the wardens makes the ultimate scarifice period. That way no worries about OGB.  The story could have ended with the warden choosing to live his life with Morrigan in the wilds or with Leliana in Denerim or run off with Zevran to slaughter Crows or dead.

Anders did not have to be used in DA2. It could have been a new mage healer warden who came across Kristoff's body falling apart  and offered to accept the spirit into himself or herself. He or she is unable to control the Spirit which has slowly been corrupted by living to long outside the Fade.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but the epiologue slides should have tied up all the loose ends. The only parts that Awakening should have imported was backstory reflecting the basic outcomes of the DAO endings. I firmly believe that Bioware should have employed the KISS principle with regard to DAO's endings. It would have made it easier in DA2.

As far as DA2 is concerned there should have been a neutral option in the mage/templar choice or an option where Hawke sides with the general population against both mages and templars especially if you like neither side. A pro-mage Hawke should not have to fight the first enchanter. It simply made no sense. It would make sense if Hawke had discovered that the first enchanter help in the cause of his mother's death and attack the first enchanter pushing him to that extreme.

Mark of the Assassin (which I do like) falls into the same problem of a choice that is not a choice. If you choose to leave Tallis it does not matter you still have to fight the Duke instead of just finding a way back to Kirkwall without engaing the Duke. I would have like to see Hawke get back to Kirkwall and either hear the Duke discovered the real value of the scroll and began eliminating the agents or Tallis killed the Duke and retrieve the scroll vowing vengence on the Champion for leaving her.

Choices that carry over are usually more trouble and problematic than they are worth. Those kind of choices raise expectations which if not met cause disappointment.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 09 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[brushyourteeth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I think it's kind of already too late not to establish some kind of canon. So many of our choices have been, up to this point, pretty pivotal that you're only going to be able to get so far without either establishing a canon or ignoring important parts of the political geography of Thedas (who is the Ferelden monarch? for instance. Also there could be one or more Old Gods running around?!) Add to that that a lot of us who have been paying attention kind of know what some of the writers' favorite conclusions are and we're kind of halfway to canon already.

At the sime time though, I support player choices that impact future games (though if we lost that I wouldn't cry about it) and I support being able to still make future in-game choices that go against canon. I think as long as we're told what canon *is*, we can make the choice to either stick with it, play again so we have it, or write our own story and buck against it. Because the series is called "Dragon Age" the implication is that Thedas will move forward in history and time and human error can muddle the story. We could even go back and find that Garahel was a she and Duncan was mistaken in his assumption that she was a man.

When I choose to make Anora the Queen even though Alistair is the canon choice for ruler, by the time I've played up through DAIII I've essentially created an alternate universe to the canon Thedas and written my own story - not something false. But since I'm a lover of the world and the lore I'd find it incredibly instructive and satisfying to know that my actions aren't actually what comes to be. So if you tell me that in DA:O the Ferelden Circle is actually annuled and all the mages die, I as a mage-lover may take even greater satisfaction in saving all of them on my playthrough, because hey - at least in my world they get to live and prove the Templars wrong.

 And just because the canon Warden may be a male Cousland doesn't make my female Aeducan any less a legitimate hero of Ferelden, because that guy kicked the bucket in my Thedas - that's not the experience I had in my game. We use this argument often to explain why the DAII LI's can be gay or straight or bi depending on how you interpret them in each playthrough. Anders might have a canon sexuality but it's of no significance to my gameplay.

I say we roll with that and have both our cakes and eat them too - player choice and canon. You can't change history, but congrats - you can make a new one.

Just me, though. Can't speak for anyone else.
Really cool question, BTW.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 09 juin 2012 - 06:02 .

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


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?

Honestly I would like more in game choices, but have some impact from choices in previous games, paticularly when it comes to the bigger decisions. The Dark Ritual for instance is a major event that needs to be acknowledged, as are the actions taken in the main four DAO treaty quests.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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?

The latter. I'm fine with cannon. If the game is interesting enough, I'll play all in-game choices, anyway. I don't see how cannon could invalide any of my previous in game choices.  But that just me. Some people don't replay for  different in-game choces and outcomes. In this case, the canon should be the choices that most people take.

Just for the record, I like the idea of sacrifying PC for the greater good ending. I would like that option in all my games, if possible.  But please do not recycle DAO's ultimate sacrifice or Mass Effect 3. I'm sure there're more interesting reasons/scenarios as to why sacrifice is unavoidable.

Other than that, the idea of possibility to destroy the world in the end like the Darkspawn Chrronicles DLC as an alternative ending is also appealing to me. But I'm certain many people won't like it.  

Regarding PC's neutrality, I think the game should acknowlege that not all players would like to take a stand in conflict. Some people would rather  walk away than trying to be a mediator if the conflicting sides are uncompromised  and become hostile towards each other. In Skyrim I did side with both sides in several playthroughs just to know the different outcomes.  But beyond that I'd most likely to stay away from Skyrim's civil war  So I hope the world and NPCs could respect my character just as much as I respect their opinion or whatever they believe in.

If PC is forced to side or involved in some capacity, then I hope the plot would provide solid reason for doing so like the blight in DAO. PC doesn't have to be associated with any organization as long as the reason is clearly unavoidable and justified.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[Alessa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I'd prefer to have choices that have an impact on future games ... even if this means that the number of choices I am given is restricted.

If my choices are mostly without any influence on the future games, because you say "this is canon because it's the story we've been building up to" ... why should I make a decision anyway? Then I just can run through the game, never bothering myself with the possible outcome of any decision ... and just wait to see what you decide to be canon for the next game.

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

To be honest I would quit the series the moment that some standard warden/Hawke/future protagonist became canon, but I will also be fair and say that I don't expect more of the import than we got from da2. A few small nods there and here that the warden and the Hawke I created exist in the game world. Also these nods are allowed to be smaller as the years pass. I don't expect that the people of Thedas will remember all the small things the warden did 20-30 years after the blight, just that she stopped the blight. I expect da3 to take in Hawke's choices, but not so much the warden execpt perhaps who rules fereldan.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Variety within each game is more important than some sort of overarchhing plot that leads to being railroaded. If you want to do that, make the games JRPG style because they work a lot better if that is the goal.

[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.

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

It is because of the main characther. It is because if they begang to canonize, I as an  female player would never have my canon to be true as it 8 times out of 10 would be the standard white male human noble which I can relate to the least and I would lose interest since none of the choices I make is every going to be considered the 'right' choice and my characther would have vanished from the game world per the next game. For me the strong selling point of biuoware games are the characthers and that include the main character. If I feel like that my characther/head canon would get trampled over each and every time (and the chances are, I would) I would quit the series and pick up one with either pre-set protagonist or one where I would feel the level of irratation everytime I got back and saw 'Oh look the hero was really a white male who was in love with stanard heroine and who made all the boring decision' - I would simply feel dissapointed and angry and frustrated. And that is not something I play to feel.

As for expatation, I don't expect more than a nod to previous protagonist. As long as I feel that my warden and my Hawkes exist in the world that is enough. I understand limits and I was satisfied with the small nods and mini side quest that da2 gave from da:o. As fo I felt that the hero and the Fereldan I had icreated/influenced still was and that  was enough. 
The big thing like the dark ritual, I always felt it was a cheap third option so I don't really care. I expect some small nod and perhaps Morrigan cameo at some point so I can see that the chosen decision really stand, but it doesn't have to change the da3 or daX world considerabely. New players needs to enjoy the game too.

Edit. To make it clearer since emotions are hard to describe. I don't expect more than a codex entry and the occassional one liner from a characther. I will be happy and overjoyed if there is more and bigger conseqeunces, but I know it is unrealistic. I will feel angry and hurt if a codex entry or banter suggested something that doesn't fit with who my main characther was. Such as say the characthers in da3 somehow say my Hawke was vicount which she could never be because of events in da2. And since I have higher standers from bioware in that regard I would quit the series before sacrificing the warden and the Hawke whom I enjoyed to play.

Modifié par esper, 09 juin 2012 - 09:38 .

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I've said this in other threads, but I'd rather you establish a canon.  Or at least that you design each game for itself, and then when you're done you can decide what to do.

But if you do it, you should probably do it completely.  There would be no point in importing that the Warden was a City Elf who romanced Leliana, and then saying that they kept the Anvil of the Void when that would be totally out of character.

Of course, if you ever decide you want to continue on with the same protagonist, then you need to keep continuity.

edit:  I'd assume if Bioware did decide to establish a canon, they'd tone down the references, and avoid unnecessary specifics.  No reason to say "Hey, remember the Champion?  He was a white dude with a beard who was sleeping with that pirate girl"

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 juin 2012 - 09:49 .

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I hate it whenever an RPG tries to make a canon version of the story or the main character. That's the reason why I'm so against that Mass Effect movie that's been planned despite Mass Effect being one of my favourite game series. It's also why, back when I played TOR, I refused to run the dungeon that included Revan in it. There should never be a canon Shepard. There should never have been a canon Revan. 

If you want the story to go in a certain direction and you basically ignore players choices made in previous games, like how Udina is the human councillor in ME3 no matter what choice you made in the original ME, that's fine, as long as you can provide a good story reason for it. It's still incredibly annoying, but fine. You should never under any circumstance though straight out say "this is the official canon version, if you didn't play the game like this your story is wrong".

On the note of the Old God child I'm really, really hoping that doesn't become a major part of the Dragon Age universe. My Warden sacrificed herself to save the world of that sort of evil. To suddenly have it be, no, you're Warden was wrong, your story was wrong, the Old God child is a thing that happened, also, despite all that, your Warden is still going to be dead, would be enough to make me maybe consider thinking about not getting the game (I'm such a huge fan of BioWare RPGs I'll probably get it no matter what you do but still, I'd be rather upset).

If the writters are adamant about having the Old God child in the story no matter what though then I guess all I can do is request that you come up with a really, really good story reason for why that would be even if the Warden refused Morrigan's offer. Like Morrigan dug up the Warden's grave and performed blood magic to get the Old Gods soul or something and that if such a thing like that did happen then you get to call Morrigan out on it and make her pay for her desecration, or whatever it is she's done to get the Old God child. 

Modifié par Direwolf0294, 09 juin 2012 - 09:56 .