895 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

?

I assumed you were saying removing the Import was equivalent to removing choice. And I disagree with that.

The rest of your post about never making everyone happy wasn't really on topic, so I didn't really respond to it.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

?

I assumed you were saying removing the Import was equivalent to removing choice. And I disagree with that.

The rest of your post about never making everyone happy wasn't really on topic, so I didn't really respond to it.

It's context, rather than content.  No matter how they do the imports, someone is going to be mad.  I never killed Leliana, but some people did, and were mad when she shows up.  I didn't run into major bugs with imports, if Alistair wasn't supposed to show up talking to Meredith, he didn't, so as far as I can tell, the imports worked ok.  It tends to give continuity, and connection, which is important when they are connected.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't even have issues with import bugs - things don't get caught. I'm fine with that.

You are looking at it as "well, the imports work fine, they tell me what I did, so that's great." Which would be fine if they didnt have an inherent cost.

I'm not talking about budget costs (although I am sure there are some), but rather narrative costs. We will likely not hear anything more about the Anvil of the Void, one of the most powerful magical artifacts we've seen in Thedas, that could be used to repel back the Darkspawn and the Qunari alike and could conquer all the nations under one banner. But if you destroyed it, what possible alternative content could there be to such a powerful object still being in play? Ten thousand Shales, all obedient and resolute to the last, could allow someone to change the world. It being destroyed is a valid choice, but it hardly offers the same level of story telling.

So Bioware won't likely ever use it again. It is too difficult; too narratively charged. It will be tucked into a dark corner and hopefully forgotten. Or, if they do use it, it will either be magically repaired somehow (negating the choice of you destroying it) or it will be magically broken somehow (negating your decision to preserve it).

So, no Anvil, or a negation of the choice about the Anvil in a contrived way. Much like how the genophage cure was completed, regardless of your efforts, in a contrived way. Or how the Rachni were cloned, regardless of your efforts, in a contrived way. Or the Council decided to be completely changed from the Council you saved in ME1, regardless of your efforts, in a contrived way.

If they just bucked up and established a canon, they could tackle these storylines not as half-hearted compromises between imported choices, but as vast and sweeping events that could change the fate of the worlds they occur in.

Because the next step is obvious - if the writers have something they want to happen that they know they will want to deal with in a future game? They just won't offer a choice at all. Why would they? It just means it will result in a headache when they are working on it later, or it will mean they can't use that storyline anymore.

The imports are small little reminders that tell you what you did in a previous game. But the cost of having them can FAR outweigh the small benefit they bring. As I said earlier, I'd rather go deeper into a story of a choice I didn't make than only read a Codex entry about a choice I did.

[robertthebard]

I think the biggest place they're going to have a problem is the DR. Some absolutely refused, others didn't. I have saves that go either way. But, this isn't a problem with imports as much as writing themselves into a corner, because no matter how they deal with it, or even if they deal with it, it's going to have repercussions. So the message to carry forward isn't "don't continue with imports", but should be "don't write yourself into a corner". It's too late to fix that now, and discontinuing imports isn't going to fix it. If a future game has an OGB, there will be people that are upset.

[Wulfram]

robertthebard wrote...

I think the biggest place they're going to have a problem is the DR. Some absolutely refused, others didn't. I have saves that go either way. But, this isn't a problem with imports as much as writing themselves into a corner, because no matter how they deal with it, or even if they deal with it, it's going to have repercussions. So the message to carry forward isn't "don't continue with imports", but should be "don't write yourself into a corner". It's too late to fix that now, and discontinuing imports isn't going to fix it. If a future game has an OGB, there will be people that are upset.

If they'd kept the DR choice out to avoid writing themselves into a corner, DA:O would be IMO a lesser game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes, but how do they avoid writing themselves into a corner? The easiest solution is to limit the number of things you give a player a choice in. Something DA2 and ME3 were often criticized about.

If a writer has to constantly worry about writing themselves into a corner, does that not inherently limit the stories they can tell? The options they can provide? The outcomes that can occur? If you limit the writers like that, it can tie their hands in some ways.

Does the Import system provide such a huge benefit that it is worth this cost to narrative freedom? We, as players, essentially telling the writer how to do their job to make sure none of our previous game toes get stepped on. That's a pretty big hindrance, one that could be taking its toll in how much (or how little) choice we are given as players in future games.

That is why I advocate a canon. So the game can be all about offering us tons and tons of crazy, wildly variant choices, none of which a writer has to worry about them writing themselves into a corner for future stories. Choices without that guilty "morning after" feeling for the writers and dev team.

That's what I am advocating.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 06:25 .

[robertthebard]

Wulfram wrote...

If they'd kept the DR choice out to avoid writing themselves into a corner, DA:O would be IMO a lesser game.

The only thing it affects directly in Origins is survival of the Warden.  Then there's the Witch Hunt DLC.  The big issue is going forward, since they have, in essence, forced themselves to deal with it in one way or another, even if that means a codex or similar entry that says that Warden and Morrigan lived happily ever after in the Fade, or some such.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes, but how do they avoid writing themselves into a corner? The easiest solution is to limit the number of things you give a player a choice in. Something DA2 and ME3 were often criticized about.

If a writer has to constantly worry about writing themselves into a corner, does that not inherently limit the stories they can tell? The options they can provide? The outcomes that can occur? If you limit the writers like that, it can tie their hands in some ways.

Does the Import system provide such a huge benefit that it is worth this cost to narrative freedom? We, as players, essentially telling the writer how to do their job to make sure none of our previous game toes get stepped on. That's a pretty big hindrance, one that could be taking its toll in how much (or how little) choice we are given as players in future games.

That is why I advocate a canon. So the game can be all about offering us tons and tons of crazy, wildly variant choices, none of which a writer has to worry about them writing themselves into a corner for future stories. Choices without that guilty "morning after" feeling for the writers and dev team.

That's what I am advocating.

It's a lose/lose scenario though.  For every person that would be fine with a canon ending to each game, there would be at least one that wanted their choices carried forward, and there's no way to make everyone happy.  I'm no different.  I dislike Alistair with a passion that I can't believe possible, kudos to the writing for that, and having him retconned from drunk/death would be immersion breaking for me.  I could learn to deal with it, but I wouldn't like it much.  This is what's going to have to happen with things that are already done.  I see no clear way forward, and frankly, reading on the ME 3 forums, there's no way for BioWare to win.  The only thing they can do is weather the storm that is coming with some of the choices, such as the DR, and maybe have certain things be canon.  The advantage to doing that with the DA system to date is that we're not running the same protagonist every time.  So it won't matter that Hawke sided with one or the other, because Hawke is gone to where ever, and all we have are consequences from that.  As to what, I can't even begin to imagine.  It will come off as less awkward than, as with ME you're running Shepard in all three games, and finding out that something you didn't do in one game is biting you in the ass as if you'd done it.  Such as if you keep Maelon's cure, and find out it's been retconned to destroying it, for example, just off the top of my head.

Edit quote tags.

Modifié par robertthebard, 23 avril 2013 - 06:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

To put the discussion in the proper context, having Eve affects nothing in game, other than the speculation of what some characters think might happen.

So would you say that the inclusion of how Eve can play out does nothing for the game? And as such, its removal would have at worst not affected the overall quality of the game, while at best actually improved it?

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote... 

To put the discussion in the proper context, having Eve affects nothing in game, other than the speculation of what some characters think might happen.

So would you say that the inclusion of how Eve can play out does nothing for the game? And as such, its removal would have at worst not affected the overall quality of the game, while at best actually improved it?

No, I don't think the game would have been better without the character. Or even the fact that the existence of her character in ME3 is predicated on Maleon's cure.

But because of the ambiguity of the endings, the entire notion of her existence is made weaker. Therefore, the import that predicated her existence, by default, becomes weaker. If the endings had, instead, made clear exact consequences and outcomes of our decisions, this would have mattered more, since the choice of whether or not she died would have had some type of tangible relevance.

Did Eve affect that nature of events on Tuchanka? No, she was merely a rather quiet passenger. Did her influence make the Reapers any weaker in Priority Earth? Not from any signs we were given. Did she have any deep insights into the Crucible's construction? No, she doesn't appear to have any science bend that would be of use.

So,  aside from what we imagine to happen (which, as I said earlier, has as much credence as fan fic like the Indoctrination Theory), what are we shown as Eve doing? The answer is not much of anything. Instead, if the choice actually played into how things turned out or how the galaxy wound up once the final decision was made, then her character would have a value to the story, instead of just being fertilizer for head canon. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 07:15 .

[lil yonce]

If it wasn't for Eve I would've let the Krogan rot. Bunch of bloodthristy warmongers that blew their own planet into oblivion. I should help them repopulate so they can screw up the galaxy once again? No thanks. She changed my mind though. She humanized my decision. Eve was a needed voice.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 23 avril 2013 - 07:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Youth4Ever wrote...

If it wasn't for Eve I would've let the Krogan rot. Bunch of bloodthristy warmongers that blew their own planet into oblivion. I should help them repopulate so they can screw up the galaxy once again? No thanks. She changed my mind though. She humanized my decision. Eve was a needed voice.

And how do we know with Eve they wouldn't blow themselves up again? Or that withot her, the Krogan would achieve a peaceful balance, where if she did live, they would not?

We don't know these things. We can assume and infer, sure. But we have no idea that choosing to save Eve was good, bad or indifferent for the future of the Krogan. 

That is weak choice and consequence. It is a bit of a cop-out to leave it up to "speculations."

If the benefits of the Save Import system are predicated on the player using their imagination, then I'd say that's an even weaker form of follow up then cameos and Codex entries. 

[lil yonce]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And how do we know with Eve they wouldn't blow themselves up again? Or that withot her, the Krogan would achieve a peaceful balance, where if she did live, they would not? We don't know these things. We can assume and infer, sure. But we have no idea that choosing to save Eve was good, bad or indifferent for the future of the Krogan. 

I don't know but it wasn't about that. It was, "Am I going to be a cold-hearted b*tch and ignore the immense pain and suffering brought on by the genophage? I am I going to refuse them a second chance because of my opinion of the Krogan? Or am I going to do the decent thing after hearing Eve's story?" It really wasn't about, "How does it play out in my ending?"

That is weak choice and consequence. It is a bit of a cop-out to leave it up to "speculations."

It wasn't about future consequence for me. It was about the decision in the moment. Not about how Eve's death or leadership affects the Krogan ending.

If the benefits of the Save Import system are predicated on the player using their imagination, then I'd say that's an even weaker form of follow up then cameos and Codex entries. 

It wasn't imagination. I was presented two sides of a story and had to choose which one my Shepard could live with. If Eve wasn't there, the Krogan would have been history in my game.  She died in my game because I destroyed the Maelon's data but that doesn't take away from the decision she helped me reach. Could my first opinion of the Krogan be right? Yes. But that makes it interesting.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 23 avril 2013 - 07:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

If it wasn't for Eve I would've let the Krogan rot. Bunch of bloodthristy warmongers that blew their own planet into oblivion. I should help them repopulate so they can screw up the galaxy once again? No thanks.

I don't know but it wasn't about that. It was, "Am I going to be a cold-hearted b*tch and ignore the immense pain and suffering brought on by the genophage? I am I going to refuse them a second chance because of my opinion of the Krogan? Or am I going to do the decent thing after hearing Eve's story?"

I don't think anyone can argue that Eve's character isn't successful at making the suffering of the female Krogan in their attempts to be fertile, just like that same case was made by the Krogan females who willingly had themselves butchered in ME2. I think the writing team did a great job of writing the characters in the entire Tuchanka scene.

But this conversation isn't about how well characters are written. It's about choice and consequence, especially in terms to the Save Import. In light of consequences, the choice of having her alive or dead is rather weak (as there is no consequence, narratively speaking).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 07:59 .

[Iakus]

Another question about imports is, how long can it keep going on? How many games can chocies be tracked before the variables get to be too much? Three games? Four? Six?

What if we get to Dragon Age 8 and the game turns into nothing but cameos from everything that's come before? ME3 was already feeling that way. Moving around a lot and jumping from protagonist to protagonist slows the progress. But at some point, the writers are going to be tossing their hands in the air and go "I give up!"

[lil yonce]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But this conversation isn't about how well characters are written. It's about choice and consequence, especially in terms to the Save Import. In light of consequences, the choice of having her alive or dead is rather weak (as there is no consequence, narratively speaking).

I think my consequence is I basically screwed over the galaxy by wussing out at the last second-- especially considering Urdnot Wreav was the Krogan leader. Its not earth shatteringly definitive but I'm sure why it has to be. The ending mentions don't go that far into the future do they?

[Heimdall]

iakus wrote...

Another question about imports is, how long can it keep going on? How many games can chocies be tracked before the variables get to be too much? Three games? Four? Six?

What if we get to Dragon Age 8 and the game turns into nothing but cameos from everything that's come before? ME3 was already feeling that way. Moving around a lot and jumping from protagonist to protagonist slows the progress. But at some point, the writers are going to be tossing their hands in the air and go "I give up!"

I think once such a point is reached they would be obliged to simply drop the inclusion of things from the older games and only include characters from the most recent one or two.  Otherwise, simply dropping anything more than mentions of things from previous games would do the trick.

My most optimistic estimates for the Dragon Age series only have it at six main games + spin offs though.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 avril 2013 - 08:14 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

My real problem with it is that in games like DA2 and ME3, instead of getting something vastly different from other players, you would get "roughly similar filler character because you killed NPC X/let NPC X die".

Kinda takes the fun out of things, really.

[Allan Schumacher]

No, I don't think the game would have been better without the character. Or even the fact that the existence of her character in ME3 is predicated on Maleon's cure.

But because of the ambiguity of the endings, the entire notion of her existence is made weaker. Therefore, the import that predicated her existence, by default, becomes weaker. If the endings had, instead, made clear exact consequences and outcomes of our decisions, this would have mattered more, since the choice of whether or not she died would have had some type of tangible relevance.

Did Eve affect that nature of events on Tuchanka? No, she was merely a rather quiet passenger. Did her influence make the Reapers any weaker in Priority Earth? Not from any signs we were given. Did she have any deep insights into the Crucible's construction? No, she doesn't appear to have any science bend that would be of use.

So, aside from what we imagine to happen (which, as I said earlier, has as much credence as fan fic like the Indoctrination Theory), what are we shown as Eve doing? The answer is not much of anything. Instead, if the choice actually played into how things turned out or how the galaxy wound up once the final decision was made, then her character would have a value to the story, instead of just being fertilizer for head canon.

ME3 spoilers:

I ask because you seem to think it's all rather subpar, and that the idea that the game just ran with whatever would make for an inherently superior game experience.

I think you have a valid concern, but your example with Eve undermines your position. It very much plays an impact over how the situation on Tuchanka plays out, especially when combined with Wrex's status. Heck, you can straight up convince Mordin that curing the genophage is a ****** poor idea if the conditions are perfect, to which he agrees and moves on. The consequences? Sure, with some metagaming we can go "Ehhhhh, it doesn't really have much of an impact." I agree that impactful choices are still important, but as I've learned on this very board since I have started hanging out here, that's not the sole reason for choices existing. I have actually softened quite a bit on the idea that "a choice is not interesting if doesn't provide some level of observable reactivity to it."

On some level, simply allowing the choices to be made, despite not knowing the actual outcomes of it, places an emphasis on the choice itself rather than the results of said choice. You can dismiss this as me just "headcannoning" if you'd like, but I am reminded of Ravel's question to The Nameless One in Torment. Ultimately, there is no right answer to her question... she's only interesting in what your answer is.

Why I liked the ME3 ending, was that you got to know pretty much as much as Shepard got to know, and you had to make your choice at the end without knowing how things work out. In that sense, the emphasis shifted more to the idea of the ethical considerations of the choice itself, rather than any sort of validation from the game (Yay, the game agrees with me that my choice was bestest), or cognitive dissonance avoidance schemes (Pfft, stupid game... I don't think it'd play out like that at all).


The Tuchanka scene isn't even about the specifics of curing the genophage from my point of view. It's a look at the ethics of the genophage and how the player exercises Shepard's influence based on those ethical considerations. The best (and most traumatizing) sequence for that arc to play out is when Shepard and Mordin are at an impasse, and Shepard is holding his gun up threatening Mordin, and despite their past (which for most people is amicable), Mordin defies Shepard because he feels that strongly about atoning for what he has done. That whole scene is vapor if Wrex is dead and so is Eve. But it represents a distinctly different character arc while at the same time being entirely consistent with Mordin's character.


The risk with making choices impactful is that you make the consequence the important aspect. If curing the genophage results in a cutscene/slide of the Krogan going all militant and overrunning the galaxy, you're still going to get MANY (MANY!) very pissed off people. You also get the game telling the player "The best solution may not have been curing the genophage after all. You chose poorly." Nevermind the host of other accusations that people would then place on us (the content creators) for allowing such an act to take place. An advantage of not making it immediately obvious (especially given that, within the scope of ME3, the curing of the genophage is something that is going to have long term consequences, not so much short term ones) is that it can leave the player with the feeling of "I hope my choice was worth it in the end." Especially if the choice itself is presented in a way that it may or may not have good consequences.

This can work with something like Bhelen and Harrowmont, but even then there's some level of "What!?" For my I go "Cool!" For others, they go "Well that's not what I wanted. I'll have to make sure I pick Bhelen in future games then...." So it's still a tricky card to play, because the emphasis can shift on "what's the right solution?"

Of course, try to have equal costs/consequences, and you still end up getting "well what's the point?" as well as some chiming in that it sends a bad message that nothing good can happen or all sorts of other things.


TL;DR I think doing things your way presents a different set of challenges. Which is ultimately better is tough to say. Yes, I can agree that it is disappointing that such outcomes like darkside KOTOR (or pretty much most of the outright evil options in a lot of games) is no longer valid. But I think it's a balancing act, and in some cases simply allowing the choice is important for allowing the player to define their character (no matter how "pointless" the decision may be), while at the same time never having impactful choices can also lead to a sense of irrelevance and pointlessness to some.

I just don't feel that the Eve example is a great example of where you want to have "Choice and Consequence" (and gamers in many ways have made convincing arguments that they aren't too keen on consequence unless it's the consequence that they want, no matter how logically appropriate different consequences may be)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 avril 2013 - 08:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I think once such a point is reached they would be obliged to simply drop the inclusion of things from the older games and only include characters from the most recent one or two.  Otherwise, simply dropping anything more than mentions of things from previous games would do the trick.

But how could this be done? For instance, preserving the Urn of Sacred Ashes is a monumental event in the history of the Chantry. Preserving the Anvil, able to create armies of nigh-indestructible soldiers, is a tool of immeasurable power. Killing every Mage in all of Kirkwall and Ferelden's Circles are choices that affect the balance of power in the upcoming Mage/Templar conflict and the course of the magical groups in those countries forever. Not to mention having the possible OGB, a deities soul reincarnate, walking amongst the land as a possible choice.

There are some legitimate, huge choices made in these games. These aren't just a matter of "Zevran is too old now to adventure, so we can just forget about him." A choice that is made out to change the world shouldn't just affect the next game alone. I'm not even sure how you could get away with just having one game's worth of follow-up, honestly.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 08:25 .

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But how could this be done? For instance, preserving the Urn of Sacred Ashes is a monumental event in the history of the Chantry. Preserving the Anvil, able to create armies of nigh-indestructible soldiers, is a tool of immeasurable power. Killing every Mage in all of Kirkwall and Ferelden's Circles are choices that affect the balance of power in the upcoming Mage/Templar conflict and the course of the magical groups in those countries forever. Not to mention having the possible OGB, a deities soul reincarnate, walking amongst the land as a possible choice.

There are some legitimate, huge choices made in these games. These aren't just a matter of "Zevran is too old now to adventure, so we can just forget about him." A choice that is made out to change the world shouldn't just affect the next game alone. I'm not even sure how you could get away with just having one game's worth of follow-up, honestly.

Well, I will mention that if the Epilogue slides are to be believed, the dwarves don't get as much use out of the Anvil as they would like.  Doesn't Branka take it over and isolates herself in a new underground fortress?  I'd also argue that the Sacred Ashe's discovery, while making the Frostbacks the heart of Thedosian pilgrimage routes, would probably have minimal effect on the political state of Thedas.  I can imagine it being mentioned but it wouldn't have to be a big impact on whatever issues are the subject of later games (Provided they don't repeat the "We need a miracle cure" idea)

I'm not really calling for such large decisions to be entirely disregarded, more that they'll need to drop a lot of the fan service cameos.  That being said, such decisions would have to be small points in the new game's plot.  

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 avril 2013 - 08:36 .

[Stella-Arc]

I think the Save Import is in an almost similar situation as having Romance in Bioware games.

The real reason people want romance to be removed is because it's really popular to the point where it shows a sort of obsession to it despite the romance being optional and really short (8 minutes out of the 40-60 hours of gameplay and in reality, it's only slight dialogue changes).

With the Save Import, people are upset that big consequences are not shown, like what Fast Jimmy is saying with the Urn of Sacred Ashes or the Anvil of the Void. Legitimate concerns that should have a much wilder impact. However, those have nothing to do with the save import so to speak.

So, if I am reading this correctly, people want the Save Import removed because they don't see the consequences to their actions and instead have a "set canon"?

Isn't that the same thing? Instead of seeing subtle references to YOUR choices, regardless if it's minor, you instead get nothing unless you're one the lucky ones who did play in the way that is similar to the "set canon".

*scratches head*

What?

To me personally, I like the epilogue slides in Origins and was content with them even if I only saw cameos or subtle refrences in DAII. I take them as my "canon" unless it is shown or stated otherwise. For example, just because I don't see Bhelen sending out traders and such doesn't mean he isn't doing it. DAII should have something like the slides and I think that is where the problem lies. 

Besides, Dragon Age isn't a trilogy. We might see the consequcnes later on. Dragon Age II is like Las Vegas; what happens in DAII, stays in DAII. 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 23 avril 2013 - 08:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I just don't feel that the Eve example is a great example of where you want to have "Choice and Consequence" (and gamers in many ways have made convincing arguments that they aren't too keen on consequence unless it's the consequence that they want, no matter how logically appropriate different consequences may be)

Snipped to prevent Quote Walls of Doom.

To be fair, I had responded to a number of other (admittedly better) instances of poor choice imports for both DA and ME and you pulled the Eve one out of a list of four other Tuchanka examples.

But your overall point is valid - people make the choice because they feel it is the choice they want. And having the devs come back and say "you chose wrong" (or making the player feel that way, at least) is very dangerous and tricky.

I personally loved the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice. Mostly because neither one was good. Harrowmont was a prejudiced reactionary and Bhelen was a power-hungry opportunist. This is a vast departure from, say, Wrex and Wreav, where one is painted as definitively good, while the other as definitively bad. I could honestly see the Harrowmont/Bhelen endings applying quite easily to the Wrex/Wreav situation, where Wreav was able to unite the clans and preventing them from reveling, while Wrex had to constantly try and fail to unite them under a banner of peace if the cure is applied.

But not wanting to assign consequence because you are afraid of hurting the player's feelings is limiting, in my eyes. And, in terms of the imports, it further restricts what can and can't be followed up on and how... which, in turn, hampers writing to prevent the writers from painting themselves in a corner as someone said earlier.

It becomes a crazy, insane balancing act that is nearly impossible to keep up. Maybe setting a canon, like I suggest, isn't the best solution... but I can't see keeping the imports as a great long-term solution, myself. It just doesn't seem sustainable. And even if it was... what might have to be sacrificed just to keep it?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 08:49 .

[Heimdall]

Stella-Arc wrote...

To me personally, I like the epilogue slides in Origins and was content with them even if I only saw cameos or subtle refrences in DAII. I take them as my "canon" unless it is shown or stated otherwise. For example, just because I don't see Bhelen sending out traders and such doesn't mean he isn't doing it. DAII should have something like the slides and I think that is where the problem lies. 

I think that DA2 would have benefited from Epilogue slides between acts, so to speak, which gives a description of what they did during the three year time skip, depending on intentions given during the act.

[Fast Jimmy]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I'd also argue that the Sacred Ashe's discovery, while making the Frostbacks the heart of Thedosian pilgrimage routes, would probably have minimal effect on the political state of Thedas.  I can imagine it being mentioned but it wouldn't have to be a big impact on whatever issues are the subject of later games (Provided they don't repeat the "We need a miracle cure" idea)

You don't think the fact that there exists physical evidence of the divinity of the Chantry's teachings (the magical remains of their prophet) would come into play during a war where that same theology is the heart (Mages v. Templars)? It is proof (not definitive proof, but proof) that what the Chantry says is true. 

I'm not really calling for such large decisions to be entirely disregarded, more that they'll need to drop a lot of the fan service cameos.  That being said, such decisions would have to be small points in the new game's plot.  

Small points are not the reason any of us made the decisions we did, to be honest. I won't presume to say why anyone on the BSN made any choice they did, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't so that they could have a Codex entry read it out next game. 

[Stella-Arc]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

To me personally, I like the epilogue slides in Origins and was content with them even if I only saw cameos or subtle refrences in DAII. I take them as my "canon" unless it is shown or stated otherwise. For example, just because I don't see Bhelen sending out traders and such doesn't mean he isn't doing it. DAII should have something like the slides and I think that is where the problem lies. 

I think that DA2 would have benefited from Epilogue slides between acts, so to speak, which gives a description of what they did during the three year time skip, depending on intentions given during the act.

I agree. Completely. When  finished DAII for the first time, I was expecting to see the consequences to my actions but was really disappointed. 7 years in Kirkwall and nothing came out of it. Then again, there weren't any major things in DAII that would have a wide impact. These are the only ones I know that could have potential consequences down the line:

1. Mages/Templar
2. Merrill destroyed the mirror/Kept the mirror
3. Fought the Arishok/Didn't fight the Arishok
4. Helped Feynriel/Helped the Sloth/Made him Tranquil

Those are the only things I can think of. :/