202 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly I think Dragon Age will paint itself into a corner if it either lets too many variables into imports or makes certain things become canon.

The best solution(IMO) would be to have big decisions matter in little ways. Take the OGB for example, that would need an extreme amount of hand-waving to make go away. However, Morrigan is thought to be pregnant if warden romanced her and did not do DR, not to mention that no one in Thedas has any idea what exactly happens when a Grey Warden kills an Archdemon, all they know is that The AD can't possess a darkspawn and recover. This combined with the fact that few, if any, know what happens to a soul when the body dies, could leave a path open to Morrigan to obtain an OGB without DR.

That wall of text being said, having some recognition of PC choices from previous games, like who the Warden was and what solution was taken with the Archdemon.

Just do not attempt to take in to account the sheer amount of variables that ME3 did. ME has the advantage of a fixed PC and there are still those who felt that ME3 didn't acknowledge PC choices enough.

[AndrahilAdrian]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


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

Pursue other avenues. They exist.

Quite. There are options other than screwing us out of significant content or providing no consequences to choices. The different choices can result in different outcomes, which are equal in value. For instance, leliana dies, but you get a new companion to replace her. Or a choice results in 2 different quest lines, like in the witcher 2.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 13 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[Ryzaki]

Seriously if OGB happens regardless that'll blow. My Warden is dead. I don't want him/her to have died for no reason.

I rather have a complete retcon with the default HNM who romanced Morrigan and gave her the OGB than have my PC sacrifice ignored like that.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

Pursue other avenues. They exist.

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

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


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

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

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

Pursue other avenues. They exist.

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

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


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

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

Killing off party members is fine IMO, but being denied content because of a choice sucks. Thane's death works well because little to no content was attached to him in ME3. However, Garrus dying in ME2 sucked because you were screwed out of a whole companion in ME3, with nothing in return. 

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 13 juin 2012 - 05:52 .

[Ryzaki]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

Pursue other avenues. They exist.

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

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


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

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

Becomes significantly less poignant though when you see them in a sequel and they're perfectly fine though.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Which I'll concede. It's true that for Leliana and IIRC Wynne it goes to their characters and does convey the conviction in what they believe in.

And it makes them better characters for it.

It's just.... killing the companions as the go-to consequence? I don't like it on principle, rather then because of Leliana.

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

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

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

The Warden at that time believes the Ashes are no longer functional as healing ashes. Whether that's true or not is unknown -- I see it as false, based on the unreliability of dragon cults. -- but the Warden believes they are, and so believes that Leliana is basically going to die.

And maybe she does die, but is brought back. But this way, bases are covered.

People would still be upset. That's the nature of gaming after all, but it's not like the Warden could've known the Ashes would still work -- assuming that's why Leliana's back, but we don't know -- because that's something he/she can't know.

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

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

Having not played the ME series, I can't really argue this point. But as I understand it, ME3 fell into this based on my reading in a thread in the DAII spoiler section.

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

So long as it's a death that is done because you're saying "We're done with this character if he does die", then I can get behind it.

But let's say Fenris turns out to be important, but he's dead. Is he going to be given life again by the Maker? Leliana has the very area she dies in to support why she's still alive.

Wynne has possession going towards her to help explain why she might've still been around, in a dead Wynne world-state -- should the events of Asunder actually require her presence.

I understand Asunder was written for a Wynne lives world-state, but I imagine that the events will be the same and Wynne's reason for being there will change accordingly, should it be mentioned in DAII.

Fenris on the other hand has no such reasoning, and going forward it would cheapen the notion of "These characters are unique. They have a part to play".

Because why then offer the option at all for future companions, if you will eventually say "They're perfect. Bring them back".

Used sparingly and accordingly, it's a notion I can get behind. Leliana is the prime example of this. But if it goes to 20 companions, then the concept loses some of its appeal and seems more like an excuse rather then a literary choice.

IMO. And hopefully I was somewhat coherent.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 juin 2012 - 06:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Agreed on everything.

While it's still plot armor, the choice is still there. The player chose to desecrate the Urn, believing it would be useless as a result. The consequence of that choice is that Leliana will fight the Warden for what she believes in -- though really, shouldn't she fight the Warden to keep it from happening rather then after it's happened?

Then as the Warden leaves, she's seen writhing in pain. The Warden looks back, sees her bleeding profusely and moving around, but leaves because really.... how is he to know that she will survive from a grievous wound?

That's just one of the reasons one may leave her like that.

Plot armor it may be called definitely. The nature of games means that not everyone will be satisfied by everything, but I certainly agree that it's one of the "pick your battles" scenarios.

But... this does open up one doorway. It allows Leliana to have a very different viewpoint of the Warden, based on his actions. Maybe her outlook on him is incredibly different -- he's a meaniehead! -- or she approaches situations differently as a result.

Which can still be done with her now, but I'm just illustratively speaking right now.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This is where I as a gamer start to get lenient with the "canon" card though. Which is my quirk I guess haha.

I suppose then the gamers would need to be told what's being considered canon someplace outside of the game itself.

Like the forums. Or interviews.

But that opens up its own can of deepstalkers. And it's a can I'd best leave somewhere far away, never to be opened.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'm pretty sure BG 2 didn't break continuity with BG1 (there weren't many divergant choices in BG1). And the choice everyone keeps bringing up, the dark ritual, wasn't an "extreme response" that can be written off as just a "cool game mechanic". If anything, doing the ritual was the extreme response. So canonizing the ritual is very different from just ignoring an outlandish option (like slavery) which few players probably went with. Canonizing the ritual would be ruining THE major choice of DAO, in a series that claims to be all about choices and seeing their consequences. It would spoil player agency in a way that "no you can't actually become a slaver" simply can't compare with.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 13 juin 2012 - 06:39 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your interest in my opinions. My preference is for story continuity, but retconning outlandish choices that most people wouldn't take (killing leliana, selling a guy into slavery) is much less heinous than rendering complex choices with multilayered potential consequences meaningless. So I would prefer you not to retcon anything, but little things (I didn't even notice the Leliana thing until you brought it up) won't bug me nearly as much as big things. For instance, I didn't mind that Anders was alive even if the epilogue to awakening said he died, because A. it wasn't a big deal and B. it came with a plausible explaination (justice possessed him). However, leliana saying the warden was missing even if he was dead at the end of the second game was annoying. Needless to say, it will be very annoying if he returns despite being dead. Its all a matter of degree.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 13 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

On that note I'm off to bed.

[TEWR]

it came with a plausible explaination (justice possessed him

I must nitpick .

See here

However, leliana saying the warden was missing even if he was dead at the end of the second game was annoying.

Actually, the term was gone. Gaider has said that the word used was gone, meaning out of the Seekers' reach.

Gaider also said that it doesn't mean they were gone in the same way. Just that the Seekers have neither one of them, for reasons that are dependant on choices.

So while Hawke is at large, if your Warden is dead he's dead. And thus gone, out of the Seekers' reach.

I still argue however that the OGB choice can be made canon without having the Warden be alive, despite David Gaider's statement saying they won't do anything of the sort. But that's my personal feeling on the matter, as is obvious.

Anyway, this is my last post for a few hours.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 juin 2012 - 07:27 .

[Urzon]

You really wouldn't need that much handwaving to write a story for the OGB, or around it if you didn't do the ritual. All Bioware would have to do is sacrifice one of the remaining Old Gods, or have said Old God take its place character wise.

~*If You Did the Ritual*~

The Hero (and party) stumble across a dieing Grey Warden scout. He warns them to run, as fast as they can, and as far as they can. When pressed for answers, he says he was a member of a group of Wardens taked with a suicide mission. They had to try and stop the next Blight by killing the sleeping Old God before it got corrupted.

They failed...

The earth starts to tremble at his final words.  The trembling turns to shakes in minutes, as the earth beneath your feet starts to give way. You and your party run to safe ground as the land itself breaks apart, revealing the hordes of darkspawn and the Archdemon leading them.

*Insert built to fail boss fight against the Archdemon*

The Archdemon is about to kill when it gets interrupted and attacked by smaller dragon. They fight to the death in a storm of claws, teeth, and psychedelic fire breaths, before the smaller dragon ripes apart the Archdemon's wings and snaps its neck.

The smaller dragon then procedes to turn into a young adult, Flemeth Style!

~*If You Didn't Do The Ritual*~

You and your party stumble across the same dieing Warden. He gives you the same warning, but this time it isn't about the Blight and Archdemon; it's about an Abomination. The fear in his voice is apparent. He says he was a member of group tasked with killing the Old God.

They failed... but this time, something else happened. The group's mage, in her dieing moments, connected with the Old God, and as a last ditch effort to stop the Blight; she let the Old God in. The resulting explosion destoryed the Old God's body, killed the darkspawn, and launched the dieing Grey Warden into an adjoining chamber. Where he escaped to the surface to try and report/warn his superiors.

The earth trembles and shakes, and it splits apart. This time though, it reveals the hordes of darkspawn fleeing, and flashes of fire and insane laughter dog their steps.

*Insert built to fail battle against waves and waves of darkspawn*

Your party is about to get trampled to death by darkspawn, when a wave of fire roars across the battlefield. It incinerates all the darkspawn, leaving only a field of ash. The source of the fire? The cackling Old God abomination.

[Urzon]

Though if they would be turned into companions, you would have to tone down the OP on both scenarios, but the Bethany/Carver method would work.

OGB would be a dry wit version of Alistair, because Morrigan having a child like Alistair would be too funny. She would have to love him.

Old God Abomination would be a mix between Melisandre(Games of Thrones) and Bellatrix Lestrange(HP). Mysterious, but prone to give into fits of insanity at times.

Modifié par Urzon, 13 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Well I strongly object to the B-list cast in ME3, but maybe that's not quite the same thing... 

The player character is there to serve the story, not rule over it. This is especially true when the story becomes episodic. 
I think you need to get it out of the way early, take your lumps and wait for people to either get over it, or move on.  

[Brockololly]

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

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

I think it likely ties into how close of a relationship the old NPC/companion had with the old PC too. So, bringing back an old love interest character with a new PC is likely to elicit the greatest level of player/PC disconnect whereas if you're just bringing back some more minor NPC who wasn't romanceable and wasn't even a companion, thats not as big of a deal in terms of disconnect.

So if for instance, if Morrigan popped up in DA3- when my Warden romanced her, fathered the Old God Baby with her and went into Eluvian Land with her- with no sign of the Warden and I'm playing with some new PC who doesn't know who she is and she fittingly gives the new PC the cold sholder, that would make for a very boring and rather disappointing reunion of sorts with Morrigan. As a player, I really liked Morrigan but being a new PC, you wouldn't have any of that past history or character development to draw on, like you could if you were your old Warden.

So bringing back old minor NPCs like Cullen is fine. Old PC's weren't able to get that closely attached to them. But it gets weird when you bring back old companions or love interest characters, from a metagaming POV.

Although, an interesting way to circumvent this would be to allow for multiple points of view within the game, allowing for multiple player characters within game, if even for short sequences.

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

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

True, yet death is powerful because its seen as final. There is no going back. Yet, with somebody like Leliana, apparently she got better?

Like you mentioned with BG2 canonizing things, I think that worked in part because it established that canonization at the very onset of the game and set that expectation from the start. Whereas with something like Leliana in DA2, you've established the import mechanic from the start and all the expectations that brings. So its confusing to the player to see Leliana show up when she was possibly very dead in DA:O. Again, thats a matter of metagaming knowledge versus PC knowledge. Hawke likely has no clue who she is, so he won't be able to bring up her dying at the Urn of Sacred Ashes. And Leliana isn't forthcoming with how she possibly survived. So then the player starts wondering whether her appearance is an import bug, since those have been known issues with DA. So by the end, the player is probably just confused more than anything and not in a "Oh! What a mystery!" sort of way but "Is the game broken?" kind of way.


Basically, death is powerful because its final. But its also interesting to see how things happen after that death has happened. What's next? Thats where death in BioWare games often feels shallow. You get things like Padok Wiks  being not Mordin. Or in ME2, Ash/Kaiden sharing lines. Death is interesting when you can see how that specific death ends up changing things, for better or worse. Yet, with death in most BioWare games nothing changes. The same stuff happens no matter what, 9 times out of 10.

Different medium, but again, I'll bring up A Song of Ice and Fire. Those books are built on shocking character deaths. But more importantly, those deaths are rarely ignored and they end up having big consequences.  And even when things get more overtly magical and certain characters are brought back from the dead, its a big deal and a big plot point and not something done without cost.

[nightscrawl]

brushyourteeth wrote...

AndrahilAdrian 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.

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.

You took that statement completely differently than I did. I thought he was saying that foreknowledge could alter our judgement while playing DAO. For example, if the OGB is an optional/secret companion for a future game (based on imports), people might purposely play DAO to have the DR happen solely for that reason. A judgement on our end, not on Bioware's.

Perhaps that's an incorrect reading?

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I've read the Ice and Fire novels. Arya especially is a favorite character. That said, those characters are tremendous exceptions. I like the children in the Jurassic Park and Lost World novels as well, but those are also exceptions. Most of the time children in stories are relegated to tired tropes that I would rather not deal with. It depends on the level of interaction though. If it's just a person you see occasionally it's not really a big deal then. For a companion on the level of importance and involvement as Alistair, I would prefer an adult.

[ElitePinecone]

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 think your point is really valid, and catering to huge Thedas-altering decisions would quickly become unmanagable, as world-state stacked onto world-state in a cascading cataclysm of choices. 

But.

The most powerful scenes in Mass Effect 3 weren't necessarily character deaths, or huge triumphant victories, or the set-piece battles. They were when characters referenced things that happened two games ago, dialogue choices I made, quests I solved, people I'd saved. Almost by necessity, they were extremely brief (and probably not zots-intensive). 

But having a joyously nonsensical encounter in the third game with Conrad Verner reference a bunch of tiny sidequests that I'd done in the first game, or playing a mission involving a former terrorist from two games ago who turned out to be the last leader of his people (and who wouldn't have shown up if I'd killed him) were hugely impressive achievements. For all its shortcomings (and for all the problems I have in decisions not meaning much, or having contrived outcomes) when it *did* get the save-importing impacts right, Mass Effect was incredible. It was a personal story in a way that almost nothing I've played has approached. 

What I'm trying to say is: the import system can be tremendously effective, when it's well done. Even when only dealing with tiny decisions, it can pepper the gameworld with enough minutiae to make it feel like the player's - letters/emails, character cameos, altered dialogue lines, in-jokes (the in-jokes!). 

I'm worried that if Bioware ever abandoned save-importing entirely because of its (readily apparent) costs of execution and complaints by players that their decisions were worthless, it'd lose an incredibly powerful storytelling tool. As far as I know no other studio tries this, in terms of maintaining a persistent world that varies based on player choice in *other* games. When that's combined with the strength of character writing in ME/DA, I think it can be hugely successful in telling a great story and engaging the player. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 13 juin 2012 - 04:21 .

[TEWR]

Brockololly wrote...

True, yet death is powerful because its seen as final. There is no going back. Yet, with somebody like Leliana, apparently she got better?

See, I'd argue this rationale for RPGs, at least depending on how often death and resurrection is used, especially for the same character.

I don't see her death as being undermined because she'll show up in DAII.

Now... if I kill her again in DA3 and see her appear in DA4, that's where it starts to get undermined since it's a video game.

But look at Wynne. She tells the Warden that she did die, but she was brought back. She has a good reason for why she was brought back, but she still died.

For other literary mediums, death and resurrection are generally used -- sometimes repeatedly. The death is still powerful in Supernatural personally speaking, even if it doesn't seem like it'll ever be final.

Although for Bobby, it was different. He came back as a Ghost.

I think the key here is

1) giving a plausible explanation as to how she's back -- which the very area she died in provides -- along with maybe something different about her (is she blessed by the Maker with more powerful abilities? Did her persona towards the Warden change significantly? What about her actions in the future?). 

People were I believe more upset not by the fact that she was there, but by the fact that she was there without really giving a good reason as to why she was there when she was killed. If this gets rectified -- which I hope it will, but personally have doubts about how well it's going -- then I imagine that'll change.

2) if she dies again by player choice, it's final. And if she dies again for the story but outside of the player's jurisdiction, it's final (The Wynne Paradigm)

Being an RPG, it's different from watching a TV show. But like I said, if we killed her again in DA3 only for her to show up in DA4, I'd actually start to take issue with it. For various reasons, both in and out of the game.

Although, an interesting way to circumvent this would be to allow for multiple points of view within the game, allowing for multiple player characters within game, if even for short sequences.

I want to echo how much I support this. It's basically the method used in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn if you guys at Bioware are interested, Allan.

Hawke likely has no clue who she is, so he won't be able to bring up her dying at the Urn of Sacred Ashes.

Well, rumors did spread about how she died up there.

Though you have to wonder.... how did rumors spread? The cult there keep to themselves and I doubt the Warden's party would just blab on and on about it to passersby.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 juin 2012 - 04:34 .

[Fallstar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

See, I'd argue this rationale, at least depending on how often death and resurrection is used, especially for the same character.

I don't see her death as being undermined because she'll show up in DAII.

Now... if I kill her again in DA3 and see her appear in DA4, that's where it starts to get undermined since it's a video game.

But look at Wynne. She tells the Warden that she did die, but she was brought back. She has a good reason for why she was brought back, but she still died.

I think the key here is

1) giving a plausible explanation as to how she's back -- which the very area she died in provides -- along with maybe something different about her (is she blessed by the Maker with more powerful abilities? Did her persona towards the Warden change significantly? What about her actions in the future?). 

People were I believe more upset not by the fact that she was there, but by the fact that she was there without really giving a good reason as to why she was there when she was killed. If this gets rectified -- which I hope it will, but personally have doubts about how well it's going -- then I imagine that'll change.

2) if she dies again by player choice, it's final. And if she dies again for the story but outside of the player's jurisdiction, it's final (The Wynne Paradigm)

Being an RPG, it's different from watching a TV show. If we killed her again in DA3 only for her to show up in DA4, I'd actually start to take issue with it. For various reasons, both in and out of the game.

Do we have a good reason why Leliana was brought back to life? Aside from some of the ashes somehow having escaped from the urn and lieing in wait for her at the spot she dies in, I don't see how her dieing in the room with them provides any kind of explanation for her being alive. It doesn't really affect me, but for players whose canon Wardens did kill Leliana, you can see why the lack of explanation is somewhat frustrating.

And besides, the ashes have remarkable healing properties. They can't resurrect someone who is completely dead. Or else why wouldn't your Warden just take the whole jar along with him. Zathrian worried about dieing if he ends the curse? Problem sorted. Need another Warden to take the Archdemon out? Just ressurrect Riordan till he succeeds.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 13 juin 2012 - 04:40 .

[TEWR]

DuskWarden wrote...

Do we have a good reason why Leliana was brought back to life? Aside from some of the ashes somehow having escaped from the urn and lieing in wait for her at the spot she dies in, I don't see how her dieing in the room with them provides any kind of explanation for her being alive. It doesn't really affect me, but for players whose canon Wardens did kill Leliana, you can see why the lack of explanation is somewhat frustrating.

None yet. Which is why I state that while we have things to go off of that might explain why she's there -- the Ashes, the magical aura of the Gauntlet, monkeys, etc. -- we don't actually have an official explanation.

All we have is Leliana saying "The Maker knew it was not my time" or some such drivel, which doesn't really do much to explain why she's there other then why she believes she's there.

Whether the Maker did in fact play a part in her being brought back is unknown.

Need another Warden to take the Archdemon out? Just ressurrect Riordan till he succeeds.

Riordan: I'll get him this time!
*Archdemon swats him away, Warden uses Ashes*
Riordan: Okay, here we go!
*Archdemon crushes him underfoot, Warden uses Ashes
Riordan: Alright! Now you die!"

and so on and so forth.

But on a more serious note, this is exactly how I feel on the matter. Death and resurrection, when used sparingly and accordingly, are fine and can even enhance a story.

But just using it as an excuse rather then a literary technique makes it seem cheap, for lack of a better word.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 juin 2012 - 04:46 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

This is a really interesting discussion, and it's where the choice to have a unique protagonist for each DA installment differs quite greatly from ME (probably not in its favour, I'd think). 

As in, Shepard can inexplicably and implausibly run into, say, Garrus again in ME3 and players go "YAAAY" because there's a whole history and connection there. The beauty of the consistent protagonist is that we see character growth through the prism of dialogue and interaction, through (for example) a certain turian's change from C-Sec renegade to Batman-esque vigilante to war-weary general. 

But when Hawke meets Alistair, there's no familiarity. We're a Ferelden refugee-turned-Champion meeting a monarch for the very first time, talking about matters of state and weighty geopolitics (and swooping). Players have all these questions (how is Ferelden recovering from the Blight, how is the Warden, how is Anora) that we're prevented from asking by the change in protagonist and perspective. We know, with meta-knowledge, so much about the character that the protagonist doesn't, which isn't something that comes up with Shepard. For Hawke, Alistair is an important figure, but there's a certain distance to the interaction. (Don't even get me started on Zevran's cameo)

I suppose the counter-argument to that is that a new protagonist can allow us to see a character in a whole new light, but I'd tend to think players would always carry their former impressions with them despite the 'reality' of later games. (Look at the dissonance people found with Anders' characterisation from DA:A to DA2 - I don't agree with their reasoning, but it's an opinion that pops up fairly often).