202 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

hhh89 wrote...

Agreed. People will be pissed

Could have just left it there, since that's the reality of the BSN forums.

[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 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

In my opinion, its fine to offer a choice and not follow up on it if that choice doesn't have significant consequences for the future. The Connor decision is a good example of this. There's no need to follow up on that, because, while the moral dilemma was significant, there weren't any major potential ramifications for the world as a whole or for any major characters. It's small scale. However, world-changing choices like who to put on the throne, who you support in a civil war, or whether to create a god-child absolutely need to be properly followed up on. It stretches suspension of disbelief if we create something like the god-child and it has no effects on the world, and we never hear about it again. It stretches it even further if our decision is rendered meaningless in the sequel via canonization of a perticular choice, because it breaks the world's consistancy, and removes player agency and the ability to shape the world, which is a major selling point for the franchise. In short, its important to explore the potential ramifications of world-shaping decisions, and its especially important not to retroactively take those decisions away from the player. 

[Vormaerin]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

However, world-changing choices like who to put on the throne, who you support in a civil war, or whether to create a god-child absolutely need to be properly followed up on. It stretches suspension of disbelief if we create something like the god-child and it has no effects on the world, and we never hear about it again

Except that they aren't necessarily world changing.   The guy you can put on the throne might have an aneurysm tomorrow and die.   King Stephen of England fought a long civil war to ensure his son inherited, then his son choked on his lunch one day and died.  So his enemy's son became the next King.    Oops.

As of the god child, we have no idea if that works.   We know Morrigan gets pregnant and we know the PC doesn't die.  Does that mean the child is actually whatever Morrigan was trying to produce?   Nope.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 11 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[ElitePinecone]

Vormaerin wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

However, world-changing choices like who to put on the throne, who you support in a civil war, or whether to create a god-child absolutely need to be properly followed up on. It stretches suspension of disbelief if we create something like the god-child and it has no effects on the world, and we never hear about it again

Except that they aren't necessarily world changing.   The guy you can put on the throne might have an aneurysm tomorrow and die.   King Stephen of England fought a long civil war to ensure his son inherited, then his son choked on his lunch one day and died.  So his enemy's son became the next King.    Oops.

As of the god child, we have no idea if that works.   We know Morrigan gets pregnant and we know the PC doesn't die.  Does that mean the child is actually whatever Morrigan was trying to produce?   Nope.

They aren't necessarily world-changing, sure, but hand-waving the results of major decisions as "oh they turned out pretty much the same anyway because of [reason]" is incredibly contrived. The dissonance between the game presenting these as "politically significant, difficult choices which affect a large portion of Thedas" and then following this up with practically identical or railroaded outcomes because the devs didn't have the resources to make unique ones would be so jarring. 

It'd be even worse when it's patently obvious that the diminishment of the decision's importance is done retrospectively, because the team didn't plan out the consequences of certain paths, and/or don't have the resources to show them properly. 

(Mass Effect was notorious for this: if you kill the rachni queen, who tells you she's the last one, the Reapers conveniently find another one in space ready for ME3, if you sacrifice the galactic Council (the endgame choice for ME) there's another Council in ME3, if you destroy technology or hand it over to a traitorous ally (the endgame choice for ME2) the outcome is the same, and if you pick a certain person to be humanity's Councilor they resign off-screen because it was required for the story that the other choice be made. None of these decisions felt weighty, and there seemed to be more of a payoff for tiny sidequest decisions.)

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

How is this third option, of making every game insular, better than establishing a canon? Or, for that matter, how is it even different? 

If each game has no changes to import, that means that everything winds up ending the same, all choices lead to the same place, that the net effect of all choices is zero. Granted, there might be a slightly different journey, different conversaitons, maybe a different boss battle, sure. But if each game is totally insular, then you'd get no real choice.

For instance, if DA:O was insular, you'd save the mages, never agree to have the Tower Annulled.

Bhelen would be king, as even if you picked Harrowmont, there would be some hand waving where he'd revolt and take over the throne.

The Dalish would never be killed by the werewolves, you'd maybe have a choice whether Zathrien sacrifices himself, or you have to fight and kill him to end the curse.

You'd always save the Urn, kill the Dragon Cult. You'd have the option of fighting the High Dragon, I guess. 

Allistair would be king, Anora would be locked up, Loghain would be executed and even if you refused the Dark Ritual, Allistair would simply perform it secretly so that he could prevent you from dying.

Does this sound like a fun game? Or a game that offers choice? To me, it doesn't. It sounds like McGuffin City, ruled by the Bioware Railroad Company. 

So why not let them set a canon every game of what happened, and in each game give us a dozens of real, interesting, impactful choices? ANd endings that can be good, bad, strange or unique? And then wipe the slate clean?

Reqeusting that Bioware import choices, but then in the same breath ask that they keep all choices in-game insular is begging to have a railroaded story, where no choice is even remotely possible. That's what DA2 was and people called it stale and boring.

Just because your choices aren't acknowledged doesn't mean they didn't happen. There are things going on all over the world that we don't know about, but they're real to the people living there. If a tree falls in the forest it does indeed make a sound, even if no one is there to hear it.

If the next game took place in Tevinter, then pretty much no decision we have made will have any significance (excepting perhaps the OGB, but we don't know what their plans are for that). Tevinter won't care who rules Ferelden. Tevinter won't care who rules Orzammar. Tevinter doesn't care about the mage/templar war in the southern lands because they have their own Chantry, their own (Black) Divine, their own templars, and mage laws that are so far removed from anything in those lands as to hardly be recognizable. They probably even barely care about Hawke killing the Arishok, only insofar as it may benefit them in some future attempt to take back Seheron.

So if the next game takes place in Tevinter, the very location alone would help to establish an insular game. You played DAO and made various choices and you can go on believing that those choices are the reality of Thedas so long as they aren't mentioned by everyone.

The same would be the case if a game were to take place in Par Vollen. It is so far removed from anything we have done previously as to make almost all of our choices meaningless to that setting. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did, because you played them. They just aren't acknowledged in that particular time and place and by those (new) people.

So far the only true canon events that can be said to have been established are: (1) the events at Ostagar, requiring Ferelden to have a new ruler; (2) the death of Orzammar's King Endrin, requiring a new ruler; (3) conflict between elves and humans in the Brecillian forest; (4) a wave of demons being unleashed in the Circle in Ferelden; (5) Arl Eamon returning from the brink of death and a nearly averted Ferelden Civil War; (6) the death of the Archdemon at the hands of a Gray Warden; (7) the Qunari incident in Kirkwall and the death of her Viscount; (8) mage/templar conflict in Kirkwall resulting in an apostate destroying the Chantry, leading to open rebellion by mages across the southern White Divine lands.

It's certainly viable for Bioware to make allusions to one or all of those incidents without having the need to resort to individual player detail. We as players would know what is being referenced and would likely automatically think of events as we played them out.

That said, I adore the cameos, which wouldn't be possible without some sort of import or established player choice canon (ie Alistair is king from this point onward). But I don't know if it's worth the hassle just for a few minutes of fangirliness, especially if it has the potential to break (DA2 import issues) or railroad half the players' choices.

IMO having a choice not be acknowledged is better than having a reference to the choice that is preferred by Bioware (or a majority of their players) if it's different from the one I made.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 juin 2012 - 11:20 .

[nightscrawl]

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.

A choice with such potential story weight should not be implemented unless it's thought out.

On the other hand, if there was some plan in the works from the very beginning, only requiring us to wait for future content, then please ignore all of the previous statement and accept my applause for a job well done. Suspense achieved!

If we're going to have the OGB in a game I'd rather it be in game 4+ anyway. I don't want to deal with a child or a teenager. I'd much prefer that s/he be a fully formed adult, with his own morals and motivations already established, thereby making him a more interesting character. Could be good, could be evil, could be neither, who knows! I just don't want the "perfect innocence of a child that can't help what he is" kind of thing... bleh.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 juin 2012 - 11:37 .

[Jerrybnsn]

I think one of the more interesting Origins' dlc was the Darkspawn Chronicles which showed what would have happened if your Warden didn't survive the Joining (or one could assume what would have happened if your Warden choosed to ignore the Blight and flee to a place like, let's say, Kirkwall).

Alistair would have led the effort against the Blight anyway....and fail. Without the risk of giving away spoilers for Origins I'm just going to say that the god-baby option would have been done by Alistair. No place would have been safe. But to see how the companions and Alistair of Origin would have acted out without you was very interesting.

Of course playing the option of ignoring the Dark Spawn threat in Orignis would basically mean turning off the game after Ostegar. Which, considering the storyline for DA2, the only way of ignoring the Mage/Templar conflict would be to turn off the game before you go in the Deep Roads and imagine yourself remaining a poor mercenary/smugglar living out your life in Lowtown. Which a lot of fans probably wished they would have done after playing DA2.

[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.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

What's done is done. It's the easist solution this point.

[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.

[brushyourteeth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think that sounds like the best plan. Especially in the world of DA where there are so many power players (Flemeth, whatever the Maker is, maybe some elven gods, etc.) it's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone powerful has some kind of "plan" that made sure those events occurred somehow, some way. The Warden was a formidable figure, but he/she can't be counted on to control every world event - eventually some things will be outside player control. That's not handwaving to me - it fits perfectly with the lore.

Our smaller player decisions can still be reflected by import in future games in smaller, but still innovative ways. For instance I thought it was brilliant in DAII how you could run into Danyla's daughter or Sophia depending on your choices in Origins and Awakening. It was more than a cameo and less than a world-changer. I'd have even been thrilled just to receive King Alistair's letter in DAII without all the trouble you guys went to to reintroduce him. There are ways to convey that our choices still have meaning, but it's unrealistic for players to expect that those small ripples will become tidal waves that crash over into our gameplay for the rest of the franchise.

[Wulfram]

Wiks I felt could have done with being a bit more different. Being a slightly nuts Salarian scientist with ethics and a spiritual side made him a bit too much of a not-Mordin. While Wreav, on the other hand, managed to be different enough to not be a not-Wrex.

If you're going to stick with imports think it would be better if Morrigan was using other methods to achieve the same ends, rather than getting a God Baby through other means. Since it seems like the God Baby isn't her end in itself.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yet this is what people who rail against DA2 complain about! "Why should I have to help Patriece? Why can't I refuse Meredith? Why do I hang around Kirkwall when everyone is bat shirt crazy?" All of these things happen because Bioware needs to keep you on the plot rails. So why do people think that is the best way to handle the imports and choices going forward? I don't think Bioware is going to have hardly any trouble importing DA2's choice and endings... but they were also much less diverse and satisfying. Is that the way we want to go with whole series going forward? No thank you. 

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.

There is no clean way to do imports and the OGB. It's just not possible. The optiobs are A) setting a canon that the DR happened railroading everyone so that the OGB exists in everyone's game regardless or C) ignoring or minimizing the OGB to a side quest level impact. 

None are satisfying. But untying your hands by setting canon and doing away with import flags is the most sustainable and the option that allows for the telling of the best stories, not just for the OGB, but for the whole DA series. Do away with the imports altogether. 

[AndrahilAdrian]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yet this is what people who rail against DA2 complain about! "Why should I have to help Patriece? Why can't I refuse Meredith? Why do I hang around Kirkwall when everyone is bat shirt crazy?" All of these things happen because Bioware needs to keep you on the plot rails. So why do people think that is the best way to handle the imports and choices going forward? I don't think Bioware is going to have hardly any trouble importing DA2's choice and endings... but they were also much less diverse and satisfying. Is that the way we want to go with whole series going forward? No thank you. 

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.

There is no clean way to do imports and the OGB. It's just not possible. The optiobs are A) setting a canon that the DR happened railroading everyone so that the OGB exists in everyone's game regardless or C) ignoring or minimizing the OGB to a side quest level impact. 

That last option isn't so bad. Morrigan established that the child would just have the soul of the old god; she didn't say it would have special powers or anything like that. As a result, its probably just an ordinary kid with a special soul which might make him behave in unusual ways. 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. It would be easy and believable to create a side-quest chain around him (and something similar but distinct, for people who didn't make him) similar to the feynriel qeusts in DA2; the plot could be how the soul effects him as an individual. Basically, the OGB doesn't have to be as earth-shatteringy important as some seem to believe.

[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.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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 appear in the future. Not that that's necissarily a bad idea; it would preserve the ambiguity and mystery of the choice, and I think my last post about how the OGB need not play a big role shows that it wouldn't be a hanging plot thread; it would be believable for the OGB not to show up again.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 12 juin 2012 - 08:48 .

[Realmzmaster]

The OGB can accommodated. The OBG doe not have to figure in the story in a big way. If DA3 takes place right after DA2 then the OGB is at best ten years old. If in the save the DR was done then a small sidequest can happen. Much like the end of his Line or Finding Nathaniel. The new protagonist is sent to investigate the sighting of a child protecting the wilds by crushing darkspawn with his/her bare hands.

If the player did not do the DR the quest does not trigger.

[brushyourteeth]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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. 

It wouldn't actually be a judgement on the choice the player made, as the player has absolutely no control over how the child turns out. Sometimes the best laid plans turn out the worst possible conclusions. I'd see it more as the devs simply coming into the situation and writing the story they wanted to tell. The Warden's value judgements are kind of irrelevant to the baby's potential and Morrigan's true reasons for having it, IMO.

[Wulfram]

Well, you could have the OGB do things that are good by some peoples standards and not by others.

This is probably too dramatic to actually happen, but:
Say he becomes a true God again, causes the downfall of the Chantry and Orlais and allows the Dales to rise again. I think some people would think this was great, and some people would think this was terrible - Morrigan would approve, Leliana wouldn't.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The OGB can accommodated. The OBG doe not have to figure in the story in a big way. If DA3 takes place right after DA2 then the OGB is at best ten years old. If in the save the DR was done then a small sidequest can happen. Much like the end of his Line or Finding Nathaniel. The new protagonist is sent to investigate the sighting of a child protecting the wilds by crushing darkspawn with his/her bare hands.

If the player did not do the DR the quest does not trigger.

I don't like the idea of losing content because of a choice you made. There should be a corresponding quest for people who didn't do the ritual, just to be fair. Other than that, good idea.

[brushyourteeth]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, you could have the OGB do things that are good by some peoples standards and not by others.

This is probably too dramatic to actually happen, but:
Say he becomes a true God again, causes the downfall of the Chantry and Orlais and allows the Dales to rise again. I think some people would think this was great, and some people would think this was terrible - Morrigan would approve, Leliana wouldn't.

Good point.
And even if Morrigan raised him to be completely what most people would agree is absolutely *good* or absolutely *evil* (unlikely, but whatever). She still doesn't have full control over how her child will turn out. No parent ever does even under normal circumstances, much less in one where the soul of a god is involved. The fact that the Warden may trust Morrigan doesn't really mean anything. Higher powers are at play.

The kid is a complete wild card. Isn't that too much fun to pass up?

[Fast Jimmy]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The OGB can accommodated. The OBG doe not have to figure in the story in a big way. If DA3 takes place right after DA2 then the OGB is at best ten years old. If in the save the DR was done then a small sidequest can happen. Much like the end of his Line or Finding Nathaniel. The new protagonist is sent to investigate the sighting of a child protecting the wilds by crushing darkspawn with his/her bare hands.

If the player did not do the DR the quest does not trigger.

I don't like the idea of losing content because of a choice you made. There should be a corresponding quest for people who didn't do the ritual, just to be fair. Other than that, good idea.

I don't think this entirely important or even logical. Why must every choice have a corresponding side quest? Why can't a side quest exist for one choice and not another?

If I decide to buy a bike and it gets stolen, leading em to search for it, what would be the corresponding quest if I DIDN't Buy a bike? Having my legs stolen?

[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.

[AndrahilAdrian]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, you could have the OGB do things that are good by some peoples standards and not by others.

This is probably too dramatic to actually happen, but:
Say he becomes a true God again, causes the downfall of the Chantry and Orlais and allows the Dales to rise again. I think some people would think this was great, and some people would think this was terrible - Morrigan would approve, Leliana wouldn't.

Good point.
And even if Morrigan raised him to be completely what most people would agree is absolutely *good* or absolutely *evil* (unlikely, but whatever). She still doesn't have full control over how her child will turn out. No parent ever does even under normal circumstances, much less in one where the soul of a god is involved. The fact that the Warden may trust Morrigan doesn't really mean anything. Higher powers are at play.

The kid is a complete wild card. Isn't that too much fun to pass up?

But isn't it unfair to railroad the player into a choice s/he didn't make, breaking continuity? They shouldn't have made it a choice in the first place if they intend to only allow for one outcome. Making the OGB the canon focus of future games is essentially punishing the player if they made the "wrong" choice, even though they had no idea it was the wrong one at the time. 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. I think its important for all choices to be equally respected.