202 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If they offer us a ton of choices, but establish a canon (not a RAILROAD of previous choices, but a true CANON) and get rid of import flags, they will be able to tell a real story while at the same time giving us a lot of choices about how we want that story to play out. Granted, our control over the story spanning ALL the games would be somewhat diminished... but in the end it is going to be diminished anyway. So I say we go with the option that lets us play better games, rather than sacrifice game quality to account for imaginary games in the future.

I think establishing canon choices after the fact completely diminishes the impact of player decisions. It homogonises *all* player experiences into one developer-chosen truth. Why offer player choice in the first place if it's not used in the maintenance of a persistent, 'unique' story? How would developers decide which decision path is 'canon'? Moreover, how would they respond to the customers who wanted to see their choices refected in future games, if those choices aren't the 'canon' ones? How could players ever associate with a gameworld in sequels that wasn't 'their own'?

The dissonance between the player's chosen truth and the developer's would be, at least personally, hugely jarring. 

I'd rather a completely linear game, if there's no intention to transfer saves - and it'd be a lot simpler and cheaper. 

Even if the execution has been somewhat lacking, the save-file imports are (as far as I know) almost unique to Bioware's modern games, and are a huge drawcard. How much praise was heaped on ME3 for its (reasonable) effort to reflect past decisions and events? It's seen as an immense achievement in gaming, a trilogy that admirably maintains a level of consistency between games and offer unique responses to past player decisions. 

Player agency is rendered totally moot when developers decide canon, and for a studio all about choice I think it'd be a very strange path to go down. 

[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 .

[Wulfram]

I know how DA:O went, and that it's hero was an awesomely heroic City Elf.

If Bioware wants to set their stuff in an alternate universe where the hero was some human guy, then that's no skin of my nose any more than anyone else writing fanfiction about their Wardens is.

[ElitePinecone]

Perhaps that was awkwardly phrased, I meant that the player's constructed and defined 'canon' is ceded to the devs, who pick one and call it 'the real reality' - then use that reality to make future games. I know that technically doesn't diminish what the player can accomplish *inside* the confines of a single game (and KOTOR was excellent in this regard), but when sequels and series take place in a persistent universe, the inability to have choices reflected would lead to a lot of dissonance (at least for me).

I'd have a really hard time reconciling my own game experiences with what is decided as 'the truth', and I think it'd get even more difficult when future games are released with the imprimatur of Bioware's canon, if you ever decided it.

"Put [person x] on the throne? Sorry, that's too inconvenient, we picked the other person because it works better. Killed [person z] in an epic quest for revenge spanning a whole game? They'll appear in the sequel because we want an identifiable antagonist. Saved [party member] in the nick of time? We killed them off to give your character appropriate dramatic motivation."

Could you still tell a bunch of good stories? Certainly. But in my view, the strength of Bioware's storytelling (at least in the ME/DA series) is this consistency and persistence, the idea that the game will remember what the player has done and reflect it where appropriate or possible. The payoff, such as it is, is the illusion of uniqueness, the idea that we're not just playing a succession of disposable protagonists in a static world, and I don't think much else in the industry comes close in terms of immersion (buzzwords ahoy!).

@Wulfram Hah. Thing is, I can enjoy (and write-off) very easily the 'what-if' fictions that Bioware have used in Asunder or the Sacred Grove comic, 'cause... they're stated to be obviously speculative fiction thingies. But if Bioware said 'okay, next game will have canon', then... it's pretty authoritative.

[Wulfram]

ElitePinecone wrote...

"Put [person x] on the throne? Sorry, that's too inconvenient, we picked the other person because it works better. Killed [person z] in an epic quest for revenge spanning a whole game? They'll appear in the sequel because we want an identifiable antagonist. Saved [party member] in the nick of time? We killed them off to give your character appropriate dramatic motivation."
 

But is it better to only be able to put [person y] on the throne, to never be able to kill [person z] and for [party member] to always die no matter what you do?

[King Cousland]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

With respect Allan, it sounds like you're asking us to ignore mistakes or changes on the company's part and just focus on the positives in order to be less disappointed in a game. If my choices are ignored, I can't limit my disappointment any more than I could have limited my happiness when I heard they could be carried over. The point is that BioWare seems to be lacking in forethought lately, and you shoudln't try to pin disappointment on over-inflated expectations of fans when you guys ignore or change something you've promised and have been consistent about in the past. If the plan is or was always to establish a canon, they you should simply have A) Keep storylines for the most part contained to one game to avoid over-complications with imports Think ahead when presenting world-changing choices C) Think ahead before starting a story which could potentially have such diverse and earth-shattering conclusions and consequences based on our choices that you simply couldn't carry those choices over properly

[AkiKishi]

harkness72 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

With respect Allan, it sounds like you're asking us to ignore mistakes or changes on the company's part and just focus on the positives in order to be less disappointed in a game. If my choices are ignored, I can't limit my disappointment any more than I could have limited my happiness when I heard they could be carried over. The point is that BioWare seems to be lacking in forethought lately, and you shoudln't try to pin disappointment on over-inflated expectations of fans when you guys ignore or change something you've promised and have been consistent about in the past. If the plan is or was always to establish a canon, they you should simply have A) Keep storylines for the most part contained to one game to avoid over-complications with imports Think ahead when presenting world-changing choices C) Think ahead before starting a story which could potentially have such diverse and earth-shattering conclusions and consequences based on our choices that you simply couldn't carry those choices over properly

You have 2 choices.

1. Allow lot's of choices within a game, but don't carry them over. Witcher 2 did that , no one seemed overly bothered by it and the sales were still good.

2. Allow hardly any choice in the game, thus allowing those minor choices to be carried into the next game. Writing DA2 to be able to let you choose Mages, Templars or none of the above never happens because the game needs you to be at a fixed point for the next one (although the poor performance of DA2 probably changed those plans anyway).

Personally I'm more concerned about the game I'm playing rather than the game that comes next so I pick option 1.

[Realmzmaster]

arcelonious wrote...

Most games already utilize the "canon" approach, so I would much rather that Bioware stick with the import system and continue to refine it. I personally enjoyed hearing how I have affected the game's world in previous games (Dragon Age and Mass Effect), as it gives me the impression that I'm experiencing a personal, overarching story and evolving world.

On topic, I don't know if I would have liked a neutral option for the end of DA2, simply because it would have been the most appealing option for most players, and thus, it would dramatically decrease the difficulty of the choice. It's like the Connor dilemma in DA:O, which ultimately isn't much of a dilemma, when you could simply obtain the best result by simply enlisting the mages for help. In the end, I would rather prefer a choice between two difficult outcomes, rather than have more choices, but with a choice that is easily more preferable than the others.

The Connor's choice was not clear cut. If the party went to the tower first and the mages were anulled it was not even an option. It was dependent on how you did the treaties. The party could accidently annul the circle or if the party failed to pick up the litany would have to annull the circle. Only if you went to Reddcliffe first would you know about Conor's situation. So it depended on the actions and order (which is a choice) that the gamer did.

[CuriousArtemis]

I think the OP simply is not interested in the kind of game that DA is; DA IS about politics; it's about philosophical differences, not just about killing monsters. If that's what you want, I'm afraid you will probably have to look for a different game.

As for DA2, you can certainly be neutral throughout; the only time you're forced to pick a side is at the end. This makes sense, as you are Kirkwall's Champion, and both sides are seriously courting you for your support... wherein your support clearly makes the difference between winning and losing. If you want to just walk away, you could always just turn the game off at that point. Same result lol

[Realmzmaster]

Canon for the universe could have been established in the epilogue slides at the end of DAO. Example even if your warden destroyed the Anvil of the Void, it still exists because the dwarves were able to recreate it from research notes but when a spirit was infused into the golem's body it went crazy killing several shapers. This establishes the canon that the Anvil still exists.

The OGB cannot be canon unless Bioware decides to handwave it because it only one of three choices. If the Bioware had stated that Morrigan looked pregnant in all endings then it could be canon.

Bioware can make whatever it wants to be canon but it would have to ignore the choices made by gamers in the other games of the series. Bioware allowed to many variables and possibilities at the end of DAO and left a cliffhanger for DA2 especially with the Exile Prince DLC. In that Leliana firmly establishes that both the Warden and Hawke have disappeared.

It would have been better just to have the pre-set histories for DA2 than allowing the import of the warden's choices from DAO. Bioware could then establish canon taking off from those three histories.

I would rather see more in game choices and each game wrapping up loose ends near the end. If certain points are going to be carried over let it be from a set number of important decision. or not at all.

[Iosev]

Realmzmaster wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Most games already utilize the "canon" approach, so I would much rather that Bioware stick with the import system and continue to refine it. I personally enjoyed hearing how I have affected the game's world in previous games (Dragon Age and Mass Effect), as it gives me the impression that I'm experiencing a personal, overarching story and evolving world.

On topic, I don't know if I would have liked a neutral option for the end of DA2, simply because it would have been the most appealing option for most players, and thus, it would dramatically decrease the difficulty of the choice. It's like the Connor dilemma in DA:O, which ultimately isn't much of a dilemma, when you could simply obtain the best result by simply enlisting the mages for help. In the end, I would rather prefer a choice between two difficult outcomes, rather than have more choices, but with a choice that is easily more preferable than the others.

The Connor's choice was not clear cut. If the party went to the tower first and the mages were anulled it was not even an option. It was dependent on how you did the treaties. The party could accidently annul the circle or if the party failed to pick up the litany would have to annull the circle. Only if you went to Reddcliffe first would you know about Conor's situation. So it depended on the actions and order (which is a choice) that the gamer did.

While the choice to seek the Circle's aid for Connor is not available in all playthroughs, it is still largely the most desirable outcome when it is available, which was my point (i.e., I don't like choices where one is easily more desirable than the others, regardless of whether there are special conditions that make it accessible).

I understand others would prefer games where they're able to save as many people as possible with the right decisions, but unfortunately I do not share that desire.  I would much rather play a game where you're forced to choose between a set of outcomes that carry both positive and negative consequences, with no choice (including special, conditional outcomes) being easily more desirable than the others.  For example, in the Walking Dead adventure game, you're sometimes forced to choose between saving one person or another, and depending on your subjective view of each character, the choice can be difficult.

Modifié par arcelonious, 09 juin 2012 - 09:17 .

[MichaelStuart]

motomotogirl wrote...

I think the OP simply is not interested in the kind of game that DA is; DA IS about politics; it's about philosophical differences, not just about killing monsters. If that's what you want, I'm afraid you will probably have to look for a different game.

As for DA2, you can certainly be neutral throughout; the only time you're forced to pick a side is at the end. This makes sense, as you are Kirkwall's Champion, and both sides are seriously courting you for your support... wherein your support clearly makes the difference between winning and losing. If you want to just walk away, you could always just turn the game off at that point. Same result lol

I all for philosophical debate (with swords), but we have had this dabate already.
The last act of Dragon Age 2 told me everything there is to know about the Mage/Templer conflict and I just want the option to do something else, when the conflict shows up in Dragon Age 3.
The same reason I don't want to see another save the world form the evil horde of zomble orcs plot. They have done it already.
What does interest me is the Orlesian civil war. A dabate about who has the right to rule a country is something that they have not really had. Yes, it was discussed near the end of Dragon Age Origins, but not to a level that I felt it deserve. 
If the Orlesian civil war is featured, there should still be a option to be neutral. Even if it means killing both sides.

As for just turning the game off. I don't think it's wrong to want to see hawk walk away after telling both sides to go do something unpleasant to themselves, then hear Verric say how it made no difference.
Admittedly this wouldn't be much different than the other endings.  
 
       

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 14 février 2013 - 01:14 .

[TJX2045]

In DA2 I chose the options where it said both sides were at fault.  I hope they include that as well along with your neutral option.

I don't want to be Gung-ho to one side or the other.  If I was forced to I would choose Mage every time.  But I would like the option to get them both to see how screwed up they can be and work to prevent both sides from being that way.  It's not a dealbreaker for me though.

Modifié par TJX2045, 09 juin 2012 - 10:44 .

[Lord Gremlin]

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

Ah, I feel the same. The one thing I love in games with customization is no canon at all. No iconic look on the game's cover too. I haven't played Skyrim. You know why? I play Argonan in TES games and they really heavily featured human character in marketing. So it pissed me off and I've skipped this game.
To be more specific when it comes to player choice, if something is neglected I want detailed in-game explaination why. Dragon Age 2 never explained how Leliana got her severed head back and that alone pissed me to no end. If you do something like this at least make a 2D flashback cutscene that explains how head got reattached and why this hex is not a zombie.
I want detail and respect for player choice. Severed heads don't grow back unless lore explains how they do.

[AndrahilAdrian]

I will be very disappointed if a plot point in a future game directly contradicts a decision I made in a previous game, like the old god baby showing up even though I told morrigan where she could go. It breaks the game's continuity. I don't mind a decision not having a huge plot payoff, but railroading the player to a degree that it breaks the world's internal consistancy by contradicting their choices is enough to stop me from buying a game. I would rather leave a plot unfinished than have it contradict itself. The OGB should only appear if you made that decision, otherwise it renders your choice meaningless, destroys continuity, and insults players who didn't want it.

[Vormaerin]

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 would rather each game be self contained and have a options within the game.   Imports just cause headaches and they hinder rather than strengthen the story.

Look at ME.   Even with the imports, you can't keep the story consistent.   If Shepard in ME1 is a total jerk, why does everyone want to meet up with him in ME2?    In ME3, if you want to play the game differently, you often have to replay ME1 & 2, because most of your options in ME3 are constrained by your imports.

DIdn't do certain things in ME2?   Too bad... Tuchanka and Rannoch mission options are severely limited. 

I'd rather have more story and character options (and, ideally, Deus Ex style options to how ot "solve" quests) than character continuity.   Predator and Predator II type sequels rather than Alien and Aliens.  I just think the former allows for better storytelling in a game.

[mr_luga]

I do not need Dragon age to be like Mass effect at all. I find it rather annoying to save up a bunch of save filles all over the bloody place, then try to keep track of it all and what I did in all of them for the next game.

Was fine with mass effect since it was made to be like that with one main character, I hope it's dialed back in Dragon age though

[brushyourteeth]

Wulfram wrote...

I know how DA:O went, and that it's hero was an awesomely heroic City Elf.

If Bioware wants to set their stuff in an alternate universe where the hero was some human guy, then that's no skin of my nose any more than anyone else writing fanfiction about their Wardens is.

Well said.

[Ryzaki]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Agreed.

In all honesty I think the DAO import feature was a mistake. I don't mind an overarching plot as long as in each game I get alot of choices and consequences even if they're not "canon" at least I can highly enjoy playing the game while I'm playing with it.

CLSM Revan doesn't stop my enjoyment of my DSFRevan.

[MKDAWUSS]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Canon for the universe could have been established in the epilogue slides at the end of DAO. Example even if your warden destroyed the Anvil of the Void, it still exists because the dwarves were able to recreate it from research notes but when a spirit was infused into the golem's body it went crazy killing several shapers. This establishes the canon that the Anvil still exists.

The OGB cannot be canon unless Bioware decides to handwave it because it only one of three choices. If the Bioware had stated that Morrigan looked pregnant in all endings then it could be canon.

Bioware can make whatever it wants to be canon but it would have to ignore the choices made by gamers in the other games of the series. Bioware allowed to many variables and possibilities at the end of DAO and left a cliffhanger for DA2 especially with the Exile Prince DLC. In that Leliana firmly establishes that both the Warden and Hawke have disappeared.

It would have been better just to have the pre-set histories for DA2 than allowing the import of the warden's choices from DAO. Bioware could then establish canon taking off from those three histories.

I would rather see more in game choices and each game wrapping up loose ends near the end. If certain points are going to be carried over let it be from a set number of important decision. or not at all.

In regards to DAO, the only significant choices that don't get directly "plausibly reset" (for lack of a better term) in the epilogue slides are the choices of monarchs and the OGB. Redcliffe returns to normal and has a mage child no matter what; the Brecilian Forest is empty of werewolves and elves no matter what; (as you mentioned) the Anvil (or at least its remnants) is still being used; and so on.

I could see something similar with DA2 in regards to the concluding act of Act III, since technically one faction wins the day no matter what you do.

That said, I still think player choice should have some significance, even if may be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. For example (assuming this returns to the spotlight again), we see Eamon's mage child. I should be able to see the choice that I made come into play. Do I see his son Connor or his daughter Rowan? If we return to Highever and the Hero of Ferelden was the human noble, I would expect to hear some references to that, especially from big brother Teyrn Fergus Cousland. It's minor stuff, sure, but it gives you the feeling that you're shaping the Thedas you're experiencing.

And then on the more significant level, we have who we placed on the throne. If Alistair was executed at the Landsmeet, in no way am I interested in seeing him as King of Ferelden in a future DA installment. I know - there are the comics, and while I think that could have been handled differently, that's another issue.

And then you have the OGB at the highest level.

[thenemesis1]

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 hope to see the Warden at the very least seen as a major figure that makes things move in this world..even if I can't play the best character this side of Isaac Clarke..back in the game.  I like cannon charactaers and would love the Warden to be the PC for DA3..long shot in the dark but heck I always have hope.

[AstraDrakkar]

There were many times while playing DA2 i wanted to tell both sides to go jump, because their reasoning was utterly ridiculous. I would like to see an option in DA3 the take a neutral stance in at least some instances.

[Lord Gremlin]

AstraDrakkar wrote...

There were many times while playing DA2 i wanted to tell both sides to go jump, because their reasoning was utterly ridiculous. I would like to see an option in DA3 the take a neutral stance in at least some instances.

I felt it was more like the limit of your options in DA2 was ridiculously arbitrary. You can't kill a character because of plot shield or refuse to help either side for no good in game reason.

[Giant ambush beetle]

I agree with the OP, in DA2 I'm neither a templar nor a mage, I don't want to pick sides in a fight that doesn't concern me in the slightest, if there are two factions that want to bang their heads in - so be it, just leave me alone.
In fact, I didn't even want to get involved with act 2 and 3 either, I just wanted to leave Kirkwall after having gathered enough money in act 1, there was no reason to stay and risk Hawkes life in that city full of lunatics.
But thats a different story.

I really hope there is a neutral option in DA3.

[Vormaerin]

Walking away is siding with the Templars by default as far as the conflict goes. They clearly have the upper hand. The walk away option is actually the "support Meredith for dictator" plan.

Still, it should be an option to leave Avelline, Varric, and everyone else in Meredith's capable hands.