25 réponses à ce sujet

[NedPepper]

It's obvioiusly here to stay.  It's a marketing thing.  I  get it.  But I can tell you that there are ways to make it more palatable, and I'll tell you how.

Make the Day 1 DLC a companion that we know and love.  Play on the nostagia.

Maybe Shale (which would be kind of funny if you think about it.)  Or Sten.  Or Ohgren.  Or Isabela.  Or Varic.  Or Merrill.   You have a fanbase where a large percentage of that fanbase loves these characters.  It adds a sense of continuity.  I'll be honest.  If you promised me Merrill or Shale or Sten or Zevran, I'd be pre-ordering that collector's addition to get those characters.

I purposely left out some characters.  Morrigan.  She needs to be a part of the integral plot.  Same can be said for Allistar and Leliana. (And Anders.  If you let Anders live, we should totally get to see his reaction to what he started, whether you agree with his actions or not.) I have a feeling some of our beloved characters will be showing up and should show up, but someone like Varric or Sten or Shale don't have story arcs that feed into the mage-templar fight.  But by having them as companions drawn in...that would work.  (Although Shale IS a big part of it.  She was there with Wynne and has been part of two separate novels.  Seriously, just make it Shale.)

And even if you don't go that route...maybe an NPC we haven't played with as a companion.  Or a female Kossith.  Something people have been clamoring for.

What to you think?  Would you be more inclined to pre-order  to ge the Day One DLC if one of your favorite secondary characters are available?  And if so...who?

[KENNY4753]

I plan to pre-order anyway but that could change. If the incentive is good enough I will pre-order without a second thought. As for characters I would want form pre-ordering, any of the ones you listed would do.

And we will get a female Kossith about the same time as we get a female Turian, so I don't see it happening anytime soon

[Solmanian]

Shale, sten, Zevran and Anders are all charecters who could die in previous games... It will pointless to make a DLC around them if it's irrelevant to certain playthroughs...

[NedPepper]

scyphozoa wrote...

But not TOO worthwhile, because then it should be included in the base game! :|

That's why I left out Alistar or Morrigan or Leliana.  Again, a character like Shale or Merrill might not be as essential as some of the others.  Or even if it was a character like Nathanial Howe.  Or Hawke's cousin. Or Sten.

[Biotic Sage]

How about you win back some good faith and scrap the Day 1 DLC altogether? These days a game that DOESN'T do day 1 dlc is news, and publicity is a good thing for your game.  So...win win (win).

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:46 .

[dielveio]

I have a diferent opinion on this:
Don't make any character as day one dlc.

[NedPepper]

Solmanian wrote...

Shale, sten, Zevran and Anders are all charecters who could die in previous games... It will pointless to make a DLC around them if it's irrelevant to certain playthroughs...

Sten only "dies" if you leave him in that cage.  There's no onscreen death.  And Shale's a friggin' Golem who has appeared canonized in Gaider's novel Asunder.  As was Wynne.  She could die too.  I'm not much in the camp of people who believe that because they killed a companion on one of their playthroughs that that companion should be excluded from every other game.  I think that's silly.

And I didn't include Anders in that role.  If Anders is in the game, it should be more of a cameo.  How he's dealing with his "mage freedom."   A kind of broken man.  And I don't see Anders being a character that would move units if promised as Day One DLC. 

[Darth Death]

scyphozoa wrote...

But not TOO worthwhile, because then it should be included in the base game! :|

That's the point though. If it wasn't worthwhile then no one will buy it. 

[NedPepper]

Darth Death wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

But not TOO worthwhile, because then it should be included in the base game! :|

That's the point though. If it wasn't worthwhile then no one will buy it. 

Well, it should be worthwhile in that it's a well made character arc that has a point.  I don't want to say "throw in a previoius companion just for the sake of doing it" unless they make it worthwhile. 

But I honestly believe this would generate BETTER good will from the fanbase if Day One DLC is here to stay.  Make ordering that collector's edition worth the coin.

[Plaintiff]

I'm sure fans will respond really well to having to pay for a character that was previously available for...

No, sorry, I can't even finish that sentence.

[TheBlackAdder13]

And Shale's a friggin' Golem who has appeared canonized in Gaider's novel Asunder. As was Wynne. She could die too.

Book cannon =\\= game cannon. Gaider repeatedly stated that he needs fixed cannon on which to write his books -- obviously. That doesn't mean it's set cannon that's being forced on us in games (thank god).

I'm not much in the camp of people who believe that because they killed a companion on one of their playthroughs that that companion should be excluded from every other game. I think that's silly.

I don't think there's anyone in this camp, nor has bioware subscribed to it. For example, Alistair can be killed at the end of Origins (and was in my play through) but still appeared in DA2 depending on his differentiated circumstances from Origins. In my case, he didn't appear at all through my DA2 play through, as he died. This is how it should be handled and, after the Leliana and Anders ressurections, bioware has thankfully seemed to learn this lesson. Making them a full blown companion requires retconning for this play throughs, which is not fair for players who made choices to kill certain characters. One option would be to completely exclude a companion from a play through when they had died in a previous game, which I personally wouldn't mind as it's a good continuation of player choice and agency from previous games, but some players would doubtless complain they were getting "excluded" from content, despite the fact they had previously made that choice.

[Darth Death]

nedpepper wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

But not TOO worthwhile, because then it should be included in the base game! :|

That's the point though. If it wasn't worthwhile then no one will buy it. 

Well, it should be worthwhile in that it's a well made character arc that has a point.  I don't want to say "throw in a previoius companion just for the sake of doing it" unless they make it worthwhile. 

But I honestly believe this would generate BETTER good will from the fanbase if Day One DLC is here to stay.  Make ordering that collector's edition worth the coin.

Maybe if it's done like DA2 signature edition perhaps. Bonus content by merely pre-ordering. 

[NedPepper]

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

And Shale's a friggin' Golem who has appeared canonized in Gaider's novel Asunder. As was Wynne. She could die too.

Book cannon == game cannon. Gaider repeatedly stated that he needs fixed cannon on which to write his books -- obviously. That doesn't mean it's set cannon that's being forced on us in games (thank god).

I'm not much in the camp of people who believe that because they killed a companion on one of their playthroughs that that companion should be excluded from every other game. I think that's silly.

I don't think there's anyone in this camp, nor has bioware subscribed to it. For example, Alistair can be killed at the end of Origins (and was in my play through) but still appeared in DA2 depending on his differentiated circumstances from Origins. In my case, he didn't appear at all through my DA2 play through, as he died. This is how it should be handled and, after the Leliana and Anders ressurections, bioware has thankfully seemed to learn this lesson. Making them a full blown companion requires retconning for this play throughs, which is not fair for players who made choices to kill certain characters. One option would be to completely exclude a companion from a play through when they had died in a previous game, which I personally wouldn't mind as it's a good continuation of player choice and agency from previous games, but some players would doubtless complain they were getting "excluded" from content, despite the fact they had previously made that choice.

Mike Laidlaw actually said at that last convention where they showed off the Warden and Seeker armors that the it was likely that Alistar is not dead.  This was greeted with applause.  Why?  Because people genuinely like his character.  I don't mind canonizing certain elements.  Everything doesn't need to be taken from one game to another.  Certain choices, yes.  Popular character deaths?  Particularly if you have multiple playthroughs and you killed off different characters in each?  It becomes a giant headache.  And limiting to a good story. 

They didn't know which characters were going to be popuar when they made Origins.  Now they do.  I see no problem with canonizing certain decisions that help service the story.  Your solution is plausible, but people would probably be angrier at not having the same content as others.  Unless they use placeholders like they did in ME3 where you had a different character filling in for, say, Mordin or Legion.

If I'm not mistaken...can't Minsc die in Baldur's Gate?  And yet he was back in full swing in the sequel?  I think I'm remembering that right. Was there such a giant outcry then?

But enough derailing....

[NedPepper]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think soldiers, mercenaries, grunts, these are the type of characters that make for good Day 1 DLC followers. They are not hugely integrated into the game's lore or primary plot arc. They generally have a good character arc, but no one ever thinks a grunt soldier is going to be "required" to get the full experience. Zaeed is an easy example to point to, he is a tough-as-nails merc, but no one felt like he was a crux of the ME universe.

I also think player housing is a good bit of content for Day 1 DLC, same as a pet dog, but a pet dog is pretty inconsequential. Player housing is a nice perk, but not something people "need" to have the authentic game experience. Its usually just some fancy walls and a treasure chest to store all the junk you don't want to carry but aren't willing to sell.

The real issue is selling Day 1 DLC to more than just the "core" fans. I hate to use the word "core" since it is so overused, but the fans who will buy every piece of content aren't really the primary target. The fans who are interested enough to buy the game but on the fence about spending another 10 dollars are the primary target. These are the people who have to be excited and convinced to spend more money.

I dunno.  I kind of think there are Origins fans who didn't like DA 2 who are on the fence.  Heck, they post here enough, so in a sense that makes them a core fan.  Giving them a character from Origins might be enough to put a smile on their face.  For some, at least.  Others...smiling may not be something they're capable of.

[Fyurian2]

nedpepper wrote...

It's obvioiusly here to stay.  It's a marketing thing.  I  get it.  But I can tell you that there are ways to make it more palatable, and I'll tell you how.

Maybe Shale (which would be kind of funny if you think about it.)

Shale is a perfect example of Day 1 DLC, and more importantly, the right kind of Day 1 DLC.

Shale (and coresponding questline and expansion to Caridan dialogue) was free for everyone who bought the game new.
Didn't have to pay unless you bought a trade-in copy.
This is how Day 1 DLC should always be handled, regardless of whether or not it adds to the plot of the game or part of other side quests or conversations with NPCs and Party Members, or in the case of the stated reason for Shale being free, ability to release content that was originally cut from the game due to the extra time had for making the console versions.

[NedPepper]

scyphozoa wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
I don't mind canonizing certain elements.  Everything doesn't need to be taken from one game to another.  Certain choices, yes.  Popular character deaths?  Particularly if you have multiple playthroughs and you killed off different characters in each?  It becomes a giant headache.  And limiting to a good story.  

They didn't know which characters were going to be popuar when they made Origins.  Now they do.  I see no problem with canonizing certain decisions that help service the story.  Your solution is plausible, but people would probably be angrier at not having the same content as others.  Unless they use placeholders like they did in ME3 where you had a different character filling in for, say, Mordin or Legion.

I don't mean to jump into your convo, but I can't disagree with this more. It is okay for them to canonize certain elements(like the Arch Demon being slain, or Shep dying at the start of ME2), but it is not okay for them to canonize player choices. They are the designers, they are the gatekeepers and the content creators. It is literally their job to determine which content is going to be canonized and which content will be subject to player choice. When they design the option of a NPC death, they are knowingly considering the variety of outcomes, including that NPC living and dying. Once they give the player that choice, they can't in good faith contradict that choice in future titles without compromising the fundamental decision making mechanic of their game. If the developers willingly undermine the decision making mechanic of their own games, then they should not include those decisions. They should be designing decisions that they are willing to honor and uphold. As designers, they are responsible for all of the permutations they make available to the player. 

I agree on killing off companions.  It's just silly.  Especially if you have plans on using them again.  And as we've seen, they DO have plans for characters you can kill.  But, again, when you develop a game like Origins, and it becomes HUGE and characters become popular...

Anders death was one that really felt plot motivated.  So again, if he's alive, you make it cameo.  Every other companion?  Not so much.  It's usually random when you do kill them.  I don't even know why they do it.  Gaider obviously likes these characters, or he wouldn't write books about them.  I'm not saying take choices away.  I'm saying make sure the characters you kill off are done for solid plot reasons and there is no intention on bringing them back.  I really doubt we'll ever see Meredith again.  Nor should we.  Her story is over.

Alistar only becomes tricky if he died killing the Archdemon.  If Anora was to have him killed, it can be easily explained he got away.  But do people really never want to see Alistar again as King or a Grey Warden?  I do.  And I think it would make DA 3 that much better by having a sense of continuity in that we are seeing characters we know respond to what's happening to the world.

[Leoroc]

Extra companion DLC should come with game purchase like Shale. Wardens keep, side questy things are ok day 1 dlc

[TheBlackAdder13]

nedpepper wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
I don't mind canonizing certain elements.  Everything doesn't need to be taken from one game to another.  Certain choices, yes.  Popular character deaths?  Particularly if you have multiple playthroughs and you killed off different characters in each?  It becomes a giant headache.  And limiting to a good story.  

They didn't know which characters were going to be popuar when they made Origins.  Now they do.  I see no problem with canonizing certain decisions that help service the story.  Your solution is plausible, but people would probably be angrier at not having the same content as others.  Unless they use placeholders like they did in ME3 where you had a different character filling in for, say, Mordin or Legion.

I don't mean to jump into your convo, but I can't disagree with this more. It is okay for them to canonize certain elements(like the Arch Demon being slain, or Shep dying at the start of ME2), but it is not okay for them to canonize player choices. They are the designers, they are the gatekeepers and the content creators. It is literally their job to determine which content is going to be canonized and which content will be subject to player choice. When they design the option of a NPC death, they are knowingly considering the variety of outcomes, including that NPC living and dying. Once they give the player that choice, they can't in good faith contradict that choice in future titles without compromising the fundamental decision making mechanic of their game. If the developers willingly undermine the decision making mechanic of their own games, then they should not include those decisions. They should be designing decisions that they are willing to honor and uphold. As designers, they are responsible for all of the permutations they make available to the player. 

I agree on killing off companions.  It's just silly.  Especially if you have plans on using them again.  And as we've seen, they DO have plans for characters you can kill.  But, again, when you develop a game like Origins, and it becomes HUGE and characters become popular...

Anders death was one that really felt plot motivated.  So again, if he's alive, you make it cameo.  Every other companion?  Not so much.  It's usually random when you do kill them.  I don't even know why they do it.  Gaider obviously likes these characters, or he wouldn't write books about them.  I'm not saying take choices away.  I'm saying make sure the characters you kill off are done for solid plot reasons and there is no intention on bringing them back.  I really doubt we'll ever see Meredith again.  Nor should we.  Her story is over.

Alistar only becomes tricky if he died killing the Archdemon.  If Anora was to have him killed, it can be easily explained he got away.  But do people really never want to see Alistar again as King or a Grey Warden?  I do.  And I think it would make DA 3 that much better by having a sense of continuity in that we are seeing characters we know respond to what's happening to the world.

I would love to see Alistair again as king or gray warden. Like I said -- we saw it in DA2. That said, I don't want the decision forced on me. If I really feel a need to see Alistair, I'll do another, non-cannon, default play through of the new game. Alistair died killing the archdemon in my Origins play through. If he's mysteriously ressurected in DA3 from my save imports, who killed the archdemon? As the dark ritual wasn't done it certainly wasn't my warden. And, if he survivied, why didn't he become King? I had placed him on the throne after all, Anora only got it because of Alistair's sacrifice. I don't see how including him in futue games and respecting the decisions of players who killed him is incompatible, it's one of the biggest plot points in the series after all. Why is it neccesarry to force cannon on me when you could just omit him in my play throughs? 

[BouncyFrag]

No, I'm sick of Bioware having day 1 dlc companions that were clearly ripped out of the main game for extra $$$ so I'm not a fan of this in any form, nostalgia or not.

[Emzamination]

The warden & company played their part and now they're scattered to the four winds of Thedas.Get over it.

[Menagra]

Wasn't Shale already DLC? I think Shale being DLC again would be a great idea.