295 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

Herr Uhl wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Psychology? Sure. I say Sigmund Freud was just a pervert who liked hearing about people's mothers. Discuss!

Not in this forum, off with ye if you're going to badmouth Freud.

Freud was a hack.  King of all sampling biases.  Believed interviews with select middle aged Viennese women defined the whole breadth of human thought.

Modifié par Taleroth, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:35 .

[Popemaster123]

I dont even know who this "freud" is so i dont give a flying ats arse.

Next subject!

[Herr Uhl]

Taleroth wrote...
Freud was a hack.  King of all sampling biases.  Thought interviews with middle aged Viennese women yielded deep telling insights into the whole breadth of human thought.

I did not say I agree with him, but still, off with ye!

[Korva]

The transition from BG1 to BG2 only presumed you were travelling with certain NPCs. For some, especially Evil characters, that was probably jarring enough, but otherwise the game did not dictate anything about your character: not gender, not class, not race. And BG1 only had one ending with few options to change much of anything about the plot, as I recall (and I'm not saying that to diss the game, it was fantastic and will always have a fond place of honor in my collection). So a transition to a sequel using the same character was MUCH less of a hassle than it would be for DA.

David Gaider wrote...

Doesn't that presume that the player is using the same character?

No -- certainly not in my case, since my "canon" character is dead as a doornail. For which I want to thank you again, by the way, because I love the ultimate sacrifice ending to bits. It is perfect, couldn't have asked for a more fitting and satisfying fate for her.

Even so, the fact that it's "your story" doesn't really have to mean that it's "your story" for anything other than the one story.

Everyone has their own story. I would never want my "canon" character forced on anyone else, but I do want to keep it as my story.

Suggesting that you won't play a future story simply because you enjoyed THIS story so much, no matter how AWESOME a future story might be seems a bit short-sighted.

To each their own. I have tried to explain this before. For me, continuity matters a lot, and so does the impression that my choices matter. If there in fact isn't a choice about how this game "should" be played to ensure continuity, then I see no point in having gender choice, multiple origins, the option to turn Morrigan down, etc. in the first place.

It simply would be extremely hard for me to muster any interest in a sequel that essentially tells me I played this game "wrong" and all the things I enjoyed never actually happened. It doesn't matter how good the sequel would be, I would find it as good as impossible to invest anything into it because I would know none of it matters in the end.

Shady314 wrote...

The idea Bioware could somehow negate the enjoyment you got in the first game by saying what officially
happened in their game is laughable to me. That's like hating a good movie because the sequel sucks.

That isn't even apples and oranges, more like apples and horseshoes. A movie or a book is 100% passive entertainment. At no point does it ever give the impression that the viewer or reader has any say whatsoever about even the tiniest detail of what is happening. But in a game like this, the players have a lot of influence -- starting with the protagonist. Essentially having all that retconned out of existence would be disappointing and irritating to say the very least.

It isn't about "sucking", either. If the situation could be remotely compared to movies, it would be more like ...

The Fellowship of the Ring: Aragorn is a tall white guy with a small beard and messy brown hair. He is straight and pines for the daughter of Lord Elrond. He is also secretly the last true heir to the throne of of Gondor.
The Two Towers: Aragorn is a bald, totally asexual black peasant woman without a drop of noble blood. She sees Arwen as little more than a useless doll who never gets anything done.
The Return of the King: Aragorn is a metrosexual dwarf with a hobbit-fetish who plans to sacrifice the One Ring as well as his and Arwen's firstborn to Sauron to give him a new body to inhabit and conquer the whole world with.

That doesn't mean you can't make as good a movie about bald, asexual black peasant women or metrosexual evil dwarves as about the generic straight white male hero-guy. But it sure is jarring and irritating when a protagonist's very nature changes from movie to movie.


(Edited for sodding buggy linebreaks.)

Modifié par Korva, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:50 .

[David Gaider]

Korva wrote...
It isn't about "sucking", either. If the situation could be remotely compared to movies, it would be more like ...

The Fellowship of the Ring: Aragorn is a tall white guy with a small beard and messy brown hair. He is straight and pines for the daughter of Lord Elrond. He is also secretly the last true heir to the throne of of Gondor.
The Two Towers: Aragorn is a bald, totally asexual black peasant woman without a drop of noble blood. She sees Arwen as little more than a useless doll who never gets anything done.
Return of the King: Aragorn is a metrosexual dwarf with a hobbit-fetish who plans to sacrifice the One Ring as well as his and Arwen's firstborn to Sauron to give him a new body to inhabit and conquer the whole world with.

That doesn't mean you can't do as good a movie about bald, asexual black peasant women or metrosexual evil dwarves as about the generic straight white male hero-guy. But it sure is jarring and irritating when a protagonist's very nature changes from movie to movie.

All three of your examples assume that they are a continuation of the same tale, broken up into three parts, and all have Aragorn as a common protaganist. Naturally if the movies are all part of the same story arc and share the same protaganist, it would be pretty jarring to suddenly change who that protaganist is. Neither of those things need be the case.

Also, we tend to offer the player options of who their character is. Is that not part of the point of DAO? Settling on a canon history is one thing, but going from allowing the player to be female and/or selecting their choice of appearances and sexualities to saying "in the sequel you will be an asexual black peasant woman" is something else entirely. When would we do that? It's a bit of reductio ad absurdum going on there, I'm afraid.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:54 .

[Popemaster123]

The Fellowship of the Ring: Aragorn is a tall white guy with a small beard and messy brown hair. He is straight and pines for the daughter of Lord Elrond. He is also secretly the last true heir to the throne of of Gondor.
The Two Towers: Aragorn is a bald, totally asexual black peasant woman without a drop of noble blood. She sees Arwen as little more than a useless doll who never gets anything done.
Return of the King: Aragorn is a metrosexual dwarf with a hobbit-fetish who plans to sacrifice the One Ring as well as his and Arwen's firstborn to Sauron to give him a new body to inhabit and conquer the whole world with.

That doesn't mean you can't make as good a movie about bald, asexual black peasant women or metrosexual evil dwarves as about the generic straight white male hero-guy. But it sure is jarring and irritating when a protagonist's very nature changes from movie to movie.
(Edited for sodding buggy linebreaks.)

LOL Books arnt passive fun if u have a vivid imagination...

[Herr Uhl]

Popemaster123 wrote...

LOL Books arnt passive fun if u have a vivid imagination...

In the sense that the characters are the ones the author means them to be, and what happens is decided by someone else, it still is passive. You get told a story, you are not part in one.

[Gold Dragon]

Did Branka Live?

Did Bhelen Live?

Did Connor Live?

Did Eamon Live?

Did Irving Live?

Did Zarthain (or whomever) live?

Did the Ritual Happen?

Who took the final Blow? Loghain, PC, or Alistair?



As for the Crown/rulers of Ferelden, a simple plot twist of Assasination/Rebellion about 5 years afterwards can handle the fact that neither Anora nor Alistair is on the throne. Or maybe a couple years previous to the Start of Next Game.



The above must be figured out for any Canon. The rest of the choices (Zertan, Romance, Teagan's Marriage, etc) don't really effect the endgame of DAO.

[Popemaster123]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Popemaster123 wrote...

LOL Books arnt passive fun if u have a vivid imagination...

In the sense that the characters are the ones the author means them to be, and what happens is decided by someone else, it still is passive. You get told a story, you are not part in one.

I didnt FULLY explain that.
 Ahem: Yes.Stop every now and then to imagine what would happen if another char or you randomly changed something in the sotry e.g.
"Kirsty"
"yeh"?
"Your boyfriend raped me 3 years ago"
"WTF"?
"Kirsty"
"yeh"?
"he killed your borther"
"HOLY ****ING ****"!

Story gets a whole lot more interesting.

[Korva]

David Gaider wrote...

All three of your examples assume that they are a continuation of the same tale, broken up into three parts, and all have Aragorn as a common protaganist.

Hey, I'm not claiming it's a perfect example. Far from it. Alternatively, it could also be a totally minor sidekick person who changes from movie to movie. Or the name of Gondor. Or whatever. My point isn't, as the person I replied to wrote, "That's like hating a good movie because the sequel sucks." This has nothing to do with DA: Origins or DA: The Sequel "sucking". The point is simply that continuity is messed up and that the choices we thought were ours to make will be "wrong". Depending on what is important to a given person's enjoyment, that can be a pretty big deal.

Also, we tend to offer the player options of who their character is. Is that not part of the point of DAO? Settling on a canon history is one thing, but going from allowing the player to be female and/or selecting their choice of appearances and sexualities to saying "in the sequel you will be an asexual black peasant woman" is something else entirely.

The concern I and some others  have voiced is the other way round: "you can choose what you are and do in game #1, but in game #2 we assume the hero of game #1 was an asexual black peasant woman". I'd rather be told in advance that continuity in future products will assume the hero is an asexual black peasant woman so I don't get emotionally invested in my own character if the choices I make don't matter in the end.

[IlaraTam]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Did Branka Live?
Did Bhelen Live?
Did Connor Live?
Did Eamon Live?
Did Irving Live?
Did Zarthain (or whomever) live?
Did the Ritual Happen?
Who took the final Blow? Loghain, PC, or Alistair?

As for the Crown/rulers of Ferelden, a simple plot twist of Assasination/Rebellion about 5 years afterwards can handle the fact that neither Anora nor Alistair is on the throne. Or maybe a couple years previous to the Start of Next Game.

The above must be figured out for any Canon. The rest of the choices (Zertan, Romance, Teagan's Marriage, etc) don't really effect the endgame of DAO.

Good lord we can kill a lot of people, can't we? I believe "Who was put on the throne?" is one question that can be added to the list, if only to determine the fate of Alistair. If Anora was on the throne alone and someone besides Alistair took the final blow, he could very well still be alive, after all. Though that may not matter one bit in the grand scheme of things.

I propose we trust that whatever Bioware eventually decides, it will not be a complete disaster. It usually isn't, and hey, they were talented enough to give us this game. I think they know what they're doing.

[Gold Dragon]

True, that Alistair can Live with Anora on the THrone, but he's easier to assasinate away from the party, too.



If he didn't take the Throne, Anora has him quietly assasinated a couple years later. Still dead.

[Popemaster123]

Does she?even if he takes th oath? i tought he was a drunk.....

[Gold Dragon]

Even Drunks talk, and I was speaking from a viewpoint from DA2, not DAO.

[Popemaster123]

Oh gotcha.It does say that he tells people about you or something.

[oneshotgame]

I just want to know what becomes of my baby - well, and the mother. oh jeah, and what happens to shale.

[Varenus Luckmann]

Again: NO!

Also, STOP creating duplicate threads for the love of god!

[Popemaster123]

I didnt create this thread.....just been commenting on it

[Maria Caliban]

BioWare,

Feel free to totally violate my character and my game if doing so means DA: The Second Coming is a better game. I have DA:O; I've played my 60+ hours. I've had my story. My story shouldn't get in the way of DA:TSC's story.

There’s a cartoon series I love called Aeon Flux. In the second season, Aeon died at the end of every episode but one. And you know what? It didn’t bother me at all.


In Divine Divinity, I played the Divine One as a female warrior with a great deal of rogue skills. In Divinity 2, the Divine One is a blonde male named Lucian. You even interact with him in the game.

Know what? It fails to bother me.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
BioWare,

Feel free to totally violate my character and my game if doing so means DA: The Second Coming is a better game. I have DA:O; I've played my 60+ hours. I've had my story. My story shouldn't get in the way of DA:TSC's story.

There’s a cartoon series I love called Aeon Flux. In the second season, Aeon died at the end of every episode but one. And you know what? It didn’t bother me at all.


In Divine Divinity, I played the Divine One as a female warrior with a great deal of rogue skills. In Divinity 2, the Divine One is a blonde male named Lucian. You even interact with him in the game.

Know what? It fails to bother me.

True enough.

I'm not suggesting which way we will or won't go, but as has been pointed out there are advantages and disadvantages to using the same player character/using a new character or using a canonical story/carrying forward player choices and there are numerous examples of both sides in RPG's that managed to do it-- and while there's always going to be a few people put out by whatever choice we make and claim they were violated (or, perhaps less dramatically, that they would have preferred something else) the important part when it comes to a series is a feeling that there is some kind of continuity that ties the titles together. Right now there are a lot of people emotionally invested in THIS story, which is great, and I recognize that it's hard to imagine how this story might be left behind without it being dissatisfying... my only point is that conjuring a worst-case-scenario in one's head probably isn't how it's going to turn out no matter which way we go. There are definitely strengths we've established and we'd be a fool to disregard them completely, even if not everyone is going to completely agree on what those strengths are.

[Felene]

I would hope during DA:2's origins chapter PC can choose their ending at DA:O and the story goes on.

But of course this means there is a lot more work to do for Bioware team.

At least one thing we can say for sure is there will be a DA:2.

Modifié par Felene, 17 décembre 2009 - 12:56 .

[Malsumis]

Here is what I hope.



Bioware ignores all the fan rants/wants/desires and does what's best for the sequels story. Which is what they will do. Why? Because they are a professional company here to make money, not to provide fan service to the few hundred militant fans that post here.

[David Gaider]

Malsumis wrote...
Bioware ignores all the fan rants/wants/desires and does what's best for the sequels story. Which is what they will do. Why? Because they are a professional company here to make money, not to provide fan service to the few hundred militant fans that post here.

We enjoy fan service. Really, keeping the audience that we gained the first time invested in the series is a bit of a no-brainer, no? My only unease comes from the idea that some people seem to think that fan service entails taking their singular experience and making that the entire focus of whatever story is to come -- and that failing to do so is discounting their experience completely. That makes me nervous, but again I think it hearkens back to the emotional investment I spoke of earlier. It's like the people that were so invested in the BG series that they couldn't see past it when we started talking about DA initially.

That's what you get when you establish a benchmark, I suppose.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 décembre 2009 - 12:41 .

[SinYang]

Im pretty sure, David and rest of bioware team already know whats next, its planned out already.
but nothing will be *confirmed* this early

Why?

*They/bioware have made many games over the years, including sequels.

I assume they didnt put out Dragon age thinking it would be a failure.

*Dragon age took years to make, but the core story was probably done before it even got to modeling Duncan.

Story always comes first.


Anyhow to add my opinion on this, the thought of a series with same main character/party in vein of Baldur's gate series continuation is very exciting.. But at sametime I wonder exactly how can this character/party continue with Dragonbone items... at lvl 20+, thats without the RP choices made in Origin's.

Modifié par SinYang, 17 décembre 2009 - 12:48 .