202 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

Isn't Morrigan pregnant in her epilogue card no matter what you choose?

Ah well. You can always try this:
Morrigan miscarries ---> hear the sad tale in DAIII.

[Wulfram]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Isn't Morrigan pregnant in her epilogue card no matter what you choose?

Ah well. You can always try this:
Morrigan miscarries ---> hear the sad tale in DAIII.

She's only pregnant if the Dark Ritual is done or the Warden slept with her at some point. 

edit:  I think Witch Hunt rules out any miscarriage.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 juin 2012 - 09:10 .

[brushyourteeth]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

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.

I think under most circumstances, yes - this could possibly be considered unfair to players who didn't make that choice. However, I find it more impossible to believe that Morrigan would just skulk away to have a pity party when you turned her proposal down than to believe that she was always going to find a way to make an OGB and this was just the easiest, or most generous way of doing it. The player should have always seen that coming. In that circumstance your Warden's choice was to be an accomplice or not be an accomplice, which is still, as far as roleplaying goes, an incredibly valuable choice.

It's like you get kidnapped into having dinner with Hitler. If you promise to eat a whole pizza with live grub worms on top he won't harm the Jews or invade the rest of Europe. You eat the pizza with grub worms on top. He's still going to persecute the Jews and invade Europe - he's Hitler.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

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

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

[brushyourteeth]

Wulfram wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Isn't Morrigan pregnant in her epilogue card no matter what you choose?

Ah well. You can always try this:
Morrigan miscarries ---> hear the sad tale in DAIII.

She's only pregnant if the Dark Ritual is done or the Warden slept with her at some point. 

edit:  I think Witch Hunt rules out any miscarriage.

Interesting. Thanks!

[ianvillan]

Dragon Age Origin spoilers below






It seems the OGB came about because Bioware didn't want to upset players at the end of the game by making players sacrifice themselves or sacrifice Alister or Logain, either way some players may be upset with the decision so they include the OGB so there are no deaths.

But now they have players upset that there decisions dont matter.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I completely agree that the focus for the choices should be be contained within that perticular game. To be frank, I think not abiding by this rule has been a problem for the franchise thus far. The ending of DA2 felt unsatisfactory because we didn't see any resolution to that games story. Act 3 felt like a prologue to DA3, rather than an individual experiance. The OGB is another example, and the witch hunt dlc is probably the worst offender. Also, DA is supposed to be about the world of Thedas as a whole, so I wouldn't be OK with something like that fallout example happening in a DA sequel. It takes away my ability to affect the world by railroading me into an arbitrary canon. Its ok in fallout, because fallout didn't have the world as its central character, abided by the "self contained game" rule, and didn't sell itself on the players ability to shape the world through their actions. Since DA3 isn't any of those 3 things, that rationalization wouldn't work for it. I think the best solution is to wrap up all plot points in each individual game, then have an import system just to shore up world consistency.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

It would absolutely lead me to choose alistair as king. It wouldn't make any sense, let alone "perfect sense", for Alistair to be king in DAO and suddenly not be king in DA2 without any explaination. Internal consistency across games is just as important as consistancy within games. How would you feel if, in the Empire Strikes Back, eveyone acted like Han Solo didn't come back to help Luke blow up the death star?

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 12 juin 2012 - 09:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

It would absolutely lead me to choose alistair as king.

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

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

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

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

[AndrahilAdrian]

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

Yes, it is because it would provide internal consistancy. Thats my point. I would be motivated to metagame and try and guess which choice the developers would follow up on, rather than choose the one I like best. You see, for me it is like a movie. If I chose not to do the Dark Ritual, then thats what happened in Thedas for me. Contradicting that in a future game would be like a movie franchise contradicting itself. A future game acting like the Ritual happened even if it didn't would be just as bad as a future game acting like Anders never blew up the chantry. The fact that a choice was offered doesn't make the option you chose any less true for Thedas as a whole (from your point of view as a player). So its important not to declare one choice canon, becuase that would break the internal consistancy of Thedas for the players who chose the other option. For me at least, thats a big deal.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 12 juin 2012 - 09:39 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

[Fast Jimmy]

^
The problem is... in order to respect choices, you need for them to be more than triggering a random cameo or a mini-quest. If Thedas is the real main character of the DA series, then your choices need to have impact and felt strongly throughout the world.

But Bioware won't... no, they CAN'T, create totally separate worlds and games for choices made in prior games. You'd end up having the equivalent of two, three, ten, twenty games to make down the line. And still only getting the revenue of building one game.

So, the options are either have none of your choices really matter or limiting the number of choices in each game down to two or three, or have Bioware ignore your choices so they can continue to offer dozens of choices in each game.

DA2 kept most of its choices self-contained. Help Fenreal, or don't? Solved in game, no ending or future game required. But with no ending that followed up on this choice and almost no difference in the outcomes because of that choice, it felt totally lifeless. I don't think this is the way future games should work. I like the concept of a Dreamer and am disheartened we will likely not see anything further with this because Fenrael could be dead, so the choice won't likely be considered.

Point being, players who are demanding Bioware respect their choice are ultimately going to kill all choice in the series and are going to frustrate Bioware, who can't tell a story without consulting sixteen different playthroughs options each game. And then no one is happy.

[Jonathan Seagull]

The way way that I'd like to see Morrigan's son (I try to avoid using the term OGB, because he'd presumably no longer be a baby if we actually see him and so it sounds weird to me) handled is by using Bethany/Carver as a template. I think I've mentioned it before, but the general idea would be:

In DA3/4/whatever, players who did the dark ritual would be able to recruit Morrigan's son as a companion. Players who did not would be able to recruit an alternate companion (in my head, a grey warden inspired by the sacrifice of the Warden/Alistair/Loghain). Each would be distinct characters with their own unique contributions to parts of the game.

I like this because it provides a genuine difference for players depending on their choice, but at a level that I'd think is manageable. The Bethany/Carver scenario shows precedent for having mutually exclusive companions for different playthroughs. And since I imagine part of the reason for having the sibling leave the party after Act 1 was to ease the burden on resources, they could similarly perhaps only have these companions join a little later in the game.  Of course I have no idea whether the devs consider Bethany/Carver to be a successful idea.

Back to the general topic, I wouldn't be a fan of retroactive continuity being established within the game. It's the developers right, of course, to do what they feel is best, but I'd be unhappy if a future game suddenly told me that the Warden made Alistair king or Hawke sided with the mages, etc.  Of course in an ideal world, I'd love for the choices to continue to have an impact throughout he series, but that's probably not feasible.

What I would be okay with is if new games were set up in such a way as to require minimal references to specific choices. For example, if DA4 were set 20 years in the future. Ferelden and Orzammar could have new rulers, and theoretically you wouldn't need to worry too much about having love interests or other familiar characters appear. References could largely be limited to codex entries. This is, however, somewhat dependent on feeling that characters and events from the previous installment(s) have been adequately resolved.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 12 juin 2012 - 10:29 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

[AndrahilAdrian]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

The way way that I'd like to see Morrigan's son (I try to avoid using the term OGB, because he'd presumably no longer be a baby if we actually see him and so it sounds weird to me) handled is by using Bethany/Carver as a template. I think I've mentioned it before, but the general idea would be:

In DA3/4/whatever, players who did the dark ritual would be able to recruit Morrigan's son as a companion. Players who did not would be able to recruit an alternate companion (in my head, a grey warden inspired by the sacrifice of the Warden/Alistair/Loghain). Each would be distinct characters with their own unique contributions to parts of the game.

I like this because it provides a genuine difference for players depending on their choice, but at a level that I'd think is manageable. The Bethany/Carver scenario shows precedent for having mutually exclusive companions for different playthroughs. And since I imagine part of the reason for having the sibling leave he party after Act 1 was to ease the burden on resources, they could similarly perhaps only have these companions join a little later in the game.

 

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 12 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
The problem is... in order to respect choices, you need for them to be more than triggering a random cameo or a mini-quest. If Thedas is the real main character of the DA series, then your choices need to have impact and felt strongly throughout the world.

But Bioware won't... no, they CAN'T, create totally separate worlds and games for choices made in prior games. You'd end up having the equivalent of two, three, ten, twenty games to make down the line. And still only getting the revenue of building one game.

So, the options are either have none of your choices really matter or limiting the number of choices in each game down to two or three, or have Bioware ignore your choices so they can continue to offer dozens of choices in each game.

DA2 kept most of its choices self-contained. Help Fenreal, or don't? Solved in game, no ending or future game required. But with no ending that followed up on this choice and almost no difference in the outcomes because of that choice, it felt totally lifeless. I don't think this is the way future games should work. I like the concept of a Dreamer and am disheartened we will likely not see anything further with this because Fenrael could be dead, so the choice won't likely be considered.

Point being, players who are demanding Bioware respect their choice are ultimately going to kill all choice in the series and are going to frustrate Bioware, who can't tell a story without consulting sixteen different playthroughs options each game. And then no one is happy.

You could resolve this by keeping the choices self contained (like DA2) but having an actual ending with an epilogue that shows the outcomes of you decisions (unlike DA2).

[Brockololly]

nightscrawl wrote...
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,

There is no reason a child/teen character need be boring. Hell, just look to A Song of Ice and Fire for mature, low fantasy where many of the characters are either teenagers or even under 10 years old. Then again, the last notable BioWare take on a kid was ME3's Star Child....so ....yeah.

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.

I think it mostly depends on when the potential follow up takes place and where. If you make some huge choice to blow up some city in game #1, then I'd think the easy way to naturally avoid that in game #2 would be to simply set the game in a different area of the world, such that you could still have rumors and chatter that does recognize that choice, but it wouldn't mean having to fully flesh it out. Then for game #3, you skip ahead in time to such an extent that the location that could have been blown up or saved in game #1 is basically at a common point, due to the passage of time, with maybe some flavor dialogue to reflect its past.

Moving events forward in time provides a bit more plausible excuse in terms of handwaving since you'd have old NPCs from the original game long dead and you'd only be seeing consequences several times removed from the initial choice from the player, at which point things can more feasibly go any which way.

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.

The problem with Wiks, is that from a metagame perspective, it sort of cheapens Mordin's special role in the world. "It had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong." No, Mordin, Wiks would have gotten it done just fine apparently. Sure, it doesn't take anything away from the experience your first time playing, but your second time through it feels a bit cookie cutter and at that point it feels a bit cheap- like, you could plug anybody into any story role and possibly get the same results. It takes away from the notion of the individual characters being special or important.

Thats my major issue with ME2 and 3. From a story perspective there isn't much value in replaying them. As opposed to something like New Vegas, Alpha Protocol or The Witcher 2 especially, where you cannot see all of the content in one playthrough. And the exclusive content being locked off adds a ton of value to the game since its totally new and can change the story in those games in significant ways. In The Witcher 2, its not just a character swap in deciding between Roche and Iorveth- it changes the whole path of the game; quests, locations, characters, everything.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

I think the OGB choice is colored by 2 main things:
1.) Do you want your Warden to survive? If so, you'll take it up. I wish that had more meaning, but the choice to import a dead Warden into Awakening was a huge mistake, I think.

2.) Do you trust Morrigan? However your PC felt about Morrigan likely decided whether you trusted her enough to go through with the Ritual. Either way, she doesn't give you very much information as to what she has planned and so you end up doing it with next to no clue what the possible consequences could be.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

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

I'm reminded of an interview with George RR Martin:

But I guess it's one of my trademarks as an author to always ask the question, "OK, what next?" We see a lot of books and movies and television shows, where you see some situation come up and then the resolution of it along pretty traditional -- or even stereotypical -- lines. That's great, but what happens next?

So with any big choice, I want to know whats next- ok, great, my Warden survived killing the Archdemon and fathered an Old God Baby with Morrigan and went off into Eluvian Land. What's next?Seeing ramifications from choices is what makes the choice interesting and feel meaningful.



As for the OGB, one thing I had thought of a while ago is to not necessarily make it canon that Morrigan found some way to have an OGB, but simply make it canon that she had a child. Could be normal, could be an Old God Baby. This takes into account the fact that Morrigan might have a normal child anyway in Origins. So come DA3 when you're playing as some new PC who doesn't know who Morrigan or the OGB are, maybe they're a Seeker and they're tasked to investigate rumors of some person supposedly preaching some new religion and performing miracles. Go full on Jesus/Messiah/Andraste here.
Your PC investigates and travels to wherever this person is located. Eventually you meet up with them and realize its a 10 or 12 year old kid supposedly performing these miracles and going around the countryside making converts of Andrastians, followers of the Qun and whatever religion you have. And this child is proclaiming that he's Urthemiel reborn, getting people to follow the Old Gods. So your task is to figure out whether he's the real deal or not. So, whether he's an actual Old God Baby or just maybe a powerful mage thats trying to make people think he is would be left to the player character's investigations and the player's metagame knowledge.

Modifié par Brockololly, 12 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[The Elder King]

Brockololly wrote...



As for the OGB, one thing I had thought of a while ago is to not necessarily make it canon that Morrigan found some way to have an OGB, but simply make it canon that she had a child. Could be normal, could be an Old God Baby. This takes into account the fact that Morrigan might have a normal child anyway in Origins. So come DA3 when you're playing as some new PC who doesn't know who Morrigan or the OGB are, maybe they're a Seeker and they're tasked to investigate rumors of some person supposedly preaching some new religion and performing miracles. Go full on Jesus/Messiah/Andraste here.
Your PC investigates and travels to wherever this person is located. Eventually you meet up with them and realize its a 10 or 12 year old kid supposedly performing these miracles and going around the countryside making converts of Andrastians, followers of the Qun and whatever religion you have. And this child is proclaiming that he's Urthemiel reborn, getting people to follow the Old Gods. So your task is to figure out whether he's the real deal or not. So, whether he's an actual Old God Baby or just maybe a powerful mage thats trying to make people think he is would be left to the player character's investigations and the player's metagame knowledge.

The problem, in my opinion, with Morrigan's child is that if he's the OGB, he could play a key role in the "war" between Morrigan and Flemeth. I doubt that Bioware is going to toss Morrigan and Flemeth aside. I think that they'll have major role in the future, and the OGB, if alive, could be important for the plot.
Considering that DA3 could have already two major plots, I think that they're going to leave the OGB, Flemeth and Morrigan in the background and decide later what to do.
Though your idea is interesting, and if they separate Morrigan from the OGB, it could work well to not force the OGB as canon.

[brushyourteeth]

hhh89 wrote...

The problem, in my opinion, with Morrigan's child is that if he's the OGB, he could play a key role in the "war" between Morrigan and Flemeth. I doubt that Bioware is going to toss Morrigan and Flemeth aside. I think that they'll have major role in the future, and the OGB, if alive, could be important for the plot.
Considering that DA3 could have already two major plots, I think that they're going to leave the OGB, Flemeth and Morrigan in the background and decide later what to do.
Though your idea is interesting, and if they separate Morrigan from the OGB, it could work well to not force the OGB as canon.

That brings up another question, though: how are we going to possibly handle Morrigan and Flemeth in future games without bringing up the OGB plan? Does scrapping the dark ritual mean we also scrap any development about/between those two characters? How could the devs possibly handle omitting the OGB possibility with those two in the future?

[AndrahilAdrian]

brushyourteeth wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

The problem, in my opinion, with Morrigan's child is that if he's the OGB, he could play a key role in the "war" between Morrigan and Flemeth. I doubt that Bioware is going to toss Morrigan and Flemeth aside. I think that they'll have major role in the future, and the OGB, if alive, could be important for the plot.
Considering that DA3 could have already two major plots, I think that they're going to leave the OGB, Flemeth and Morrigan in the background and decide later what to do.
Though your idea is interesting, and if they separate Morrigan from the OGB, it could work well to not force the OGB as canon.

That brings up another question, though: how are we going to possibly handle Morrigan and Flemeth in future games without bringing up the OGB plan? Does scrapping the dark ritual mean we also scrap any development about/between those two characters? How could the devs possibly handle omitting the OGB possibility with those two in the future?

I wonder if they thought about all these problems when they came up with the OGB in the first place? All I know is that I won't buy any future DA games which canonize it. I didn't do the dark ritual, and I play DA games for the story. If the dark ritual becomes canon, then those games would destroy the continuity of my version of the story, and the versions of everyone else who didn't do the ritual. A story which contradicts itself is not a story worth experiencing.

[Fast Jimmy]

^
The problem is... in order to respect choices, you need for them to be more than triggering a random cameo or a mini-quest. If Thedas is the real main character of the DA series, then your choices need to have impact and felt strongly throughout the world.

But Bioware won't... no, they CAN'T, create totally separate worlds and games for choices made in prior games. You'd end up having the equivalent of two, three, ten, twenty games to make down the line. And still only getting the revenue of building one game.

So, the options are either have none of your choices really matter or limiting the number of choices in each game down to two or three, or have Bioware ignore your choices so they can continue to offer dozens of choices in each game.

DA2 kept most of its choices self-contained. Help Fenreal, or don't? Solved in game, no ending or future game required. But with no ending that followed up on this choice and almost no difference in the outcomes because of that choice, it felt totally lifeless. I don't think this is the way future games should work. I like the concept of a Dreamer and am disheartened we will likely not see anything further with this because Fenrael could be dead, so the choice won't likely be considered.

Point being, players who are demanding Bioware respect their choice are ultimately going to kill all choice in the series and are going to frustrate Bioware, who can't tell a story without consulting sixteen different playthroughs options each game. And then no one is happy.

[brushyourteeth]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being, players who are demanding Bioware respect their choice are ultimately going to kill all choice in the series and are going to frustrate Bioware, who can't tell a story without consulting sixteen different playthroughs options each game. And then no one is happy.

I agree.

At least on the OGB issue. Bioware should pick a resolution and have done with it. Fans will be mad no matter what, but it isn't their story - it's Bioware's.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 12 juin 2012 - 11:19 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being, players who are demanding Bioware respect their choice are ultimately going to kill all choice in the series and are going to frustrate Bioware, who can't tell a story without consulting sixteen different playthroughs options each game. And then no one is happy.

I agree.

At least on the OGB issue. Bioware should pick a resolution and have done with it. Fans will be mad no matter what, but it isn't their story - it's Bioware's.

If they are going to do this (), the least they could do is inform us before hand, so we know which choices are invalid and won't pick them in games between now and the release of DA3.

[Jerrybnsn]

From what I understood, you couldn't import your save from Origins if you died in the Ultimate Sacrifice. At least, when you imported it you were an alive character that didn't make any sense.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 12 juin 2012 - 11:53 .