895 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

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*

It not a matter of "seeing references if you are the lucky one." That is not what I am advocating.

Maybe it would be best if I gave an example.

In nearly every playthrough I did in DA:O, I saved the Anvil. I saw it as a way to defeat the Darkspawn eventually, to offer a true way to stop the Blight and a way to prevent the Dwarven nation from becoming extinct by the slow erosion of Darkspawn forces.

But, most people did not choose that, since it is not a "good" option. So the writers decide not to make it canon. Cool, that's fine.

Instead, they tell the story of how, with the Anvil destroyed and the surface armies occupied with fighting each other, the Darkspawn have broken through. Orzammar faces true extinction, true annihilation. They must now face either certain death or forgoe the old ways and all become surfacers, losing all their heritage.

That would be a deep, gut wrenching elaboration of the choice. How an entire people had to deal with the loss of their world, the loss of their identity. How the world was changed by one decision.

Now... tell me, does that sound better than a cameo? I'd say it does, for what my opinion is worth. But it could never be told with the Save Import, because the game must accommodate both choices in their follow-ups. A cameo is easy... an entire culture disappearing for a certain group of players is not.

[archangel1996]

Nothing will be sacrificed, ff they are as good as we all, some more some less, hope
Let's be honest, if they are not they are screwed one way or the other
Bad game with import=buy the game and then goodbye
Good game(RPG different from Elder Scrolls) without import=many will not even bother
With ME3 i think we all learned something, people will keep a close eye on plot/games like ME2-DA2 until there is the "redemption" in the last chapter of the story, or anyway in the next game, then there is no reason to trust 'em again

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

I don't mind. I was satisfied with my Origins ending slides so reading codx entries wasn't much of a problem. But I will admit I was tired of reading them. I wish there was a balance. However, unless it's stated otherwise or shown, I take the slides as my "canon" and that is good enough with me. There are more Dragon Age games that would have the time to show us the consequences, like DA:I.

Also using Dragon Age II, a game in my opinion that was incredibly rushed and watered down to the point that it felt I was playing a different game, shouldn't be the reason for taking away the Save Import. When DA:I rolls around then we can decide for certain whether it should be removed or altered. Dragon Age isn't a trilogy.

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
In nearly every playthrough I did in DA:O, I saved the Anvil. I saw it as a way to defeat the Darkspawn eventually, to offer a true way to stop the Blight and a way to prevent the Dwarven nation from becoming extinct by the slow erosion of Darkspawn forces.
But, most people did not choose that, since it is not a "good" option. So the writers decide not to make it canon. Cool, that's fine.

Instead, they tell the story of how, with the Anvil destroyed and the surface armies occupied with fighting each other, the Darkspawn have broken through. Orzammar faces true extinction, true annihilation. They must now face either certain death or forgoe the old ways and all become surfacers, losing all their heritage.
That would be a deep, gut wrenching elaboration of the choice. How an entire people had to deal with the loss of their world, the loss of their identity. How the world was changed by one decision.

Now... tell me, does that sound better than a cameo? I'd say it does, for what my opinion is worth. But it could never be told with the Save Import, because the game must accommodate both choices in their follow-ups. A cameo is easy... an entire culture disappearing for a certain group of players is not.

Except in such a case, I would have a sense of futility whenever I choose otherwise in DAO, and would probably feel that Bioware's canon was the choice I was supposed to make.  That's how people would feel under this implementation.  I just can't see it going well now that the fan base has a taste for personalization.

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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*

It not a matter of "seeing references if you are the lucky one." That is not what I am advocating.

Maybe it would be best if I gave an example.

In nearly every playthrough I did in DA:O, I saved the Anvil. I saw it as a way to defeat the Darkspawn eventually, to offer a true way to stop the Blight and a way to prevent the Dwarven nation from becoming extinct by the slow erosion of Darkspawn forces.

But, most people did not choose that, since it is not a "good" option. So the writers decide not to make it canon. Cool, that's fine.

Instead, they tell the story of how, with the Anvil destroyed and the surface armies occupied with fighting each other, the Darkspawn have broken through. Orzammar faces true extinction, true annihilation. They must now face either certain death or forgoe the old ways and all become surfacers, losing all their heritage.

That would be a deep, gut wrenching elaboration of the choice. How an entire people had to deal with the loss of their world, the loss of their identity. How the world was changed by one decision.

Now... tell me, does that sound better than a cameo? I'd say it does, for what my opinion is worth. But it could never be told with the Save Import, because the game must accommodate both choices in their follow-ups. A cameo is easy... an entire culture disappearing for a certain group of players is not.

Hm....

You make a convincing argument. The only probelm I have with it  is that it's mostly the Dwarves fault that they are facing extinction. Well, the Assembly to be more precise. Yes, having the Anvil could have helped them but if the slides are anything to go by, most of the time, it doesn't do much. The Caste system, the Dwarven sense of supriority of not having much contact with the outside world and how they live (meaning their low fertility rates) is where it lies the true problem. Whether having Bhelen as King or not is, in my opinion, should have been the deciding difference, not whether the Anvil was preserved or not. And where did you get that Orzammar is facing true extinction? I'm curious. I never heard of that in my playthroughs.

And I doubt and entire culture would just "disappear". Like "poof!". We have to take into consideration the "major plot" of the story. The Dwarves situation is but one minor detail to an overall story.

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 23 avril 2013 - 09:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Nothing will be sacrificed, ff they are as good as we all, some more some less, hope

After three games of sequels (three and a half if you count Awakenings), I'm thinking that Bioware has shown that the import system isn't just a matter of "trying harder."

Allan has a great conversation starter in threads where people complain about things by saying "if you had to do the thing you are complaining about, how would you do it?" And, in all honesty, if I HAD to design a system that used the Import system, I'm not sure I would be able to suggest anything much better than what Bioware has done. It is too much work to completely create different scenarios, wholly separate locations, entirely retooled discussions... if this was an IE/2D game with all silent characters, then MAYBE... but a cinematic game, involving dozens of employees just to bring to life one conversation? It's too much. It can't be done. Not without breaking the bank in nearly every respect possible.

That's why I advocate just laying this bag of bricks down. Sure, there will be outrage... but the outrage will still be there, always boiling beneath the surface by players who feel slighted by their choices not getting enough content, or by those who wanted bigger impacts. After all, if people were leaping through the streets in jubilation about the imports, this conversation wouldn't be 30 pages long and 7 months old.

My suggestion is to be bold and just rip it off, like a band-aid. It will hurt like the dickens, yes... but then you put the aloe on of taking previous stories in truly awesome and satisfying directions and you will even have those who didn't win the canon lottery back in for what Bioware does best - story. Give them a good story, instead of a mediocre import, and they will love you for it.

You just have to be ballsy enough to give it a shot.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 09:20 .

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

It proves that Andraste was real and burned, perhaps divinely empowered, but nowhere does Andraste claim in the chant that mages should be put in towers aside from the ever vague "magic must serve man and never rule over him".  I'm sure many mages are still Andrastrian and simply interpret the phrase differently.  That's what Tervinter did.  If there are any theological debates to be had, it will be over the meaning of that phrase, not Andraste's existence.

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. 

 I made it because that was the decion my Warden considered best.  When I go to a new game, I like to see my choice maintained.  It keeps the next game feeling like my Thedas.  That's all I need.  When I read what some Thedosian scholar wrote about my previous character's decision, I feel glad that the choice was acknowledged and remembered in the history of Thedas.  I'd like more than a codex entry, but I love the personalization that comes with imports more than I desire a massive impact to my actions provided the reason for their exclusion makes sense.  The breadth of Thedas' geography and new protagonists make such a thing easier.

[RebelAgainstSin81]

I would rather they continue to try and make the save import work. It's an aspect of their games that is unique and makes them completely different from other RPGs in their market. Being unsuccessful in completely implementing the process doesn't mean they can't figure out to make it work better in the future.

[Fast Jimmy]

There are many instances in DA:O, such as the conversations with the Legion of the Dead, where it is stated that they lose more and more thaigs each year, where they are barely holding on by the skin of their teeth, how a Blight is good news for them, as they get a little breathing room while the Darkspawn are on the surface. Branka's entire argument for saving the Anvil isn't about power or fame, but about giving the Dwarves a fighting chance to start pushing the tide back as opposed to constantly losing ground. 

Cultures disappear all the time. Refugees and conquered nations practically hemorrhage traditions and customs. When people have no home and don't know how they will survive the next week, they lose a large part of who they were. When an entire nation of people do this, it destroys their sense of identity. A good example would be the City Elves, who now identify more as the country they live in rather than a part of any Elvish tribe or nation.

[Malanek]

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?

Alan, the real difference on whether Eve survives, based on whether or not the research data was saved, was dodged in ME3. The impact would be what happens afterwards and whether she can help guide the Krogan to a less warlike path assuming the genophage was cured.

Within ME3 there was the difference around Mordin, but that was still fairly minor. You couldn't talk to him at the end, you didn't interact with him in the citadel dlc. Because it was so unusual to keep him alive it wasn't worth it to devote that many resources to add additional content. Same story.

Out of interest Alan, do you think that a ME sequel could successfully use an ME3 import allowing for all the possible choices along with the choice of Destroy, Synthesis, Control, Refuse along with all the other world altering alternatives like no more quarians, genophage cured/not cured etc?

It seems pretty daunting to me.

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

After three games of sequels (three and a half if you count Awakenings), I'm thinking that Bioware has shown that the import system isn't just a matter of "trying harder."

Allan has a great conversation starter in threads where people complain about things by saying "if you had to do the thing you are complaining about, how would you do it?" And, in all honesty, if I HAD to design a system that used the Import system, I'm not sure I would be able to suggest anything much better than what Bioware has done. It is too much work to completely create different scenarios, wholly separate locations, entirely retooled discussions... if this was an IE/2D game with all silent characters, then MAYBE... but a cinematic game, involving dozens of employees just to bring to life one conversation? It's too much. It can't be done. Not without breaking the bank in nearly every respect possible.

That's why I advocate just laying this bag of bricks down. Sure, there will be outrage... but the outrage will still be there, always boiling beneath the surface by players who feel slighted by their choices not getting enough content, or by those who wanted bigger impacts. After all, if people were leaping through the streets in jubilation about the imports, this conversation wouldn't be 30 pages long and 7 months old.

My suggestion is to be bold and just rip it off, like a band-aid. It will hurt like the dickens, yes... but then you put the aloe on of taking previous stories in truly awesome and satisfying directions and you will even have those who didn't win the canon lottery back in for what Bioware does best - story. Give them a good story, instead of a mediocre import, and they will love you for it.

You just have to be ballsy enough to give it a shot.

Save import, in a grand scheme of things, is relatively new to video games, especialy in ones that are cinamatic in nature. How can it be refined if the devs just simply give it up? I've never had problems with the save imports. I'm the type of person who enjoy subtley. I think of "what is the major plot of the game?" and not "Oh! Are the dwarves going to die off?". The latter isn't actually relevant to the overall plot. To the world and lore, yes. For the goal of the game, no. The only times it would be relevant is if it was like the quarians/geth situation in ME3. But then again, it's only a war assest difference so perhaps it isn't the best example.

You say it should be like removing a band-aid. It may hurt at first but the pain would go away. Let me give you my point of view.

Yes, you get hurt and have to put a band-aid over the wound but because of the experience, you now know you shouldn't jump over the stairs to get to the bottom. You would instead either use a ramp, an elevator, a rope, a ladder, or the stairs itself to get to your destination. 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 23 avril 2013 - 09:44 .

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's why I advocate just laying this bag of bricks down. Sure, there will be outrage... but the outrage will still be there, always boiling beneath the surface by players who feel slighted by their choices not getting enough content, or by those who wanted bigger impacts. After all, if people were leaping through the streets in jubilation about the imports, this conversation wouldn't be 30 pages long and 7 months old.

My suggestion is to be bold and just rip it off, like a band-aid. It will hurt like the dickens, yes... but then you put the aloe on of taking previous stories in truly awesome and satisfying directions and you will even have those who didn't win the canon lottery back in for what Bioware does best - story. Give them a good story, instead of a mediocre import, and they will love you for it.

You just have to be ballsy enough to give it a shot.

 See, my answer to this issue is to make the stories of each individual game more self contained.  Each choice more local than world changing.  I love a good story, but a good story can stand on its own without needing prior plot lines.  Then we'd still have personalization.

[archangel1996]

But then waht does that become? A fake RPG? A semi-RPG? What?
If i want a linear plot, if i want to be a spectator i play a linear game
If i want to be in the game i play an RPG, what does something like that become?
Seriously, they didn't even try to make a slightly different personality for Garrus if SIdonis was killed or not, they didn't even change the epilogue of DA2 "Disappeared.... Just like the warden" Yeah Jack, my warden is dead
Leliana with missing head in DA:O? Whatever
Look at the rachni or at the precence, or completely absence, of Anora
Look at Awakening with the dead Warden...
BUT they put in the game the reference of the Leliana-Isabela-Zevran-Warden affair? I'm sorry, but until now they are not even trying, at least with the "important" things
If they knew they couldn't do it in a good way, they shouldn't have done it

Modifié par archangel1996, 23 avril 2013 - 09:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

RebelAgainstSin81 wrote...

I would rather they continue to try and make the save import work. It's an aspect of their games that is unique and makes them completely different from other RPGs in their market.

Except The Witcher series. They do an import feature as well. Not saying anything is good, bad or indifferent about it, but it is another major RPG in the market that does this exact same thing. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes, you get hurt and have to put a band-aid over the wound but because of the experience, you now know you shouldn't jump over the stairs to get to the bottom. You would instead either use a ramp, an elevator, a rope, a ladder, or the stairs itself to get to your destination. 

To continue this (admittedly, bad) metaphor I started, what then is the stair they are avoiding?

Is it giving players choice? That's not a good lesson to learn - choice is extremely important. Is it to keep every choice easily resolveable in the game it is made in? That is a fair lesson, but not easily done. If you can kill or spare Connor in DA:O, how is that resolved in game? By killing him regardless? That seems quite arbitrary. Is the lesson to just never talk about Connor ever again? Then that is right back to the point of the imports reducing choices to non-significance.

Is the lesson to not do the Save Import in future IPs, such as the one that they are rumored to be working on that isn't DA or ME related? I would hope so, at least in some respects... but that hardly helps anything going on with the DA series.

So what is the lesson? How can they do imports better without creating tons of custom content and not removing choice altogether from their games?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 09:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

I loved Harrowmont/Bhelen as well.  I'm curious if it's low-key enough.

Also, while at work I find myself skimming posts quickly, so apologies if I didn't really see your other examples.  (I actually wrote my wall of text up between doing other things, so I suspect it's just written poorly.

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.

At the same time, making the focus of the choice be the consequences because a player feels the need to actually see what happens is just the opposite side of the same coin.  In showing the consequence, you make the choice about the consequence.  In not showing the consequence, you make the choice about the motivations of the choice itself.

On some level I'm just devil's advocating here, as I like impactful choices a lot too.  Some of them are more obvious, like "If I side with this guy, it'd be more interesting if the plot diverged somewhat than if I chose his competitor."

I don't think we should not show choices simply to prevent ourselves from hurting people's feelings.  By the same token, I also don't think we should show choices simply to satisfy one's curiosity of "so what happens with that choice."  It depends on what we're looking to deliver with the choice.  I think sometimes it works one way, sometimes it works another way.

Saving someone thta will sitll end up dead could be seen as pointless.  Or it can just be a reflection of the type of character you want to play.  (i.e. Lee in TWD).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It not a matter of "seeing references if you are the lucky one." That is not what I am advocating.

Maybe it would be best if I gave an example.

In nearly every playthrough I did in DA:O, I saved the Anvil. I saw it as a way to defeat the Darkspawn eventually, to offer a true way to stop the Blight and a way to prevent the Dwarven nation from becoming extinct by the slow erosion of Darkspawn forces.

But, most people did not choose that, since it is not a "good" option. So the writers decide not to make it canon. Cool, that's fine.

Instead, they tell the story of how, with the Anvil destroyed and the surface armies occupied with fighting each other, the Darkspawn have broken through. Orzammar faces true extinction, true annihilation. They must now face either certain death or forgoe the old ways and all become surfacers, losing all their heritage.

That would be a deep, gut wrenching elaboration of the choice. How an entire people had to deal with the loss of their world, the loss of their identity. How the world was changed by one decision.

Now... tell me, does that sound better than a cameo? I'd say it does, for what my opinion is worth. But it could never be told with the Save Import, because the game must accommodate both choices in their follow-ups. A cameo is easy... an entire culture disappearing for a certain group of players is not.

I completely agree that having the game investigate the consequences of a past choice is better than accommodating many past choices, when those choices were made by a different character in a different game - a character with no relationship to the character in this game.

Within the game, those choices are important, but once the game is over I'd rather they focus on making the next game better, rather than continuing to accommdate all possible past choices from the earlier game.

[garrusfan1]

so you want it gone that is ridiculous

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

I loved Harrowmont/Bhelen as well.  I'm curious if it's low-key enough.

Also, while at work I find myself skimming posts quickly, so apologies if I didn't really see your other examples.  (I actually wrote my wall of text up between doing other things, so I suspect it's just written poorly.

 
No worries. I was having a day of "training" at work, so I had a lot of time to devote to the discussion.

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.

At the same time, making the focus of the choice be the consequences because a player feels the need to actually see what happens is just the opposite side of the same coin.  In showing the consequence, you make the choice about the consequence.  In not showing the consequence, you make the choice about the motivations of the choice itself.

On some level I'm just devil's advocating here, as I like impactful choices a lot too.  Some of them are more obvious, like "If I side with this guy, it'd be more interesting if the plot diverged somewhat than if I chose his competitor."

I don't think we should not show choices simply to prevent ourselves from hurting people's feelings.  By the same token, I also don't think we should show choices simply to satisfy one's curiosity of "so what happens with that choice."  It depends on what we're looking to deliver with the choice.  I think sometimes it works one way, sometimes it works another way.

Saving someone thta will sitll end up dead could be seen as pointless.  Or it can just be a reflection of the type of character you want to play.  (i.e. Lee in TWD).

I did love TWD and how choices played out there. 

To me, I think Save Imports work, from a logistical point of view, in episodic-type content better than in full-fledged games. The ability to have shorter feedback loops lets the devs get away with less chocies at a time that they can then go more in-depth with. In addition, few episodic games offer the type of "large world" impact choices that you see in AAA games. 

So maybe that is the key - keeping the number of choices that carry over as few as possible, but as deep as possible. The problem is, at this point, how do you make that distinction? Who gets to pick and choose the four or five choices that the next game has any content for? 

Or possibly the reverse? Tons and tons of references (much more than just one or two) so that the player can feel the illussion is stronger, even if the tricks are smaller? I don't know. 

As stated previously (months ago), my entire point in this thread is not to convince Bioware to stop doing the imports. It is to convince fellow BSNers that if Bioware wanted to drop them, it wouldn't be the absolute worst thing in the history of time. Because then, if Bioware can ask, objectively, "Do we really want to keep doing the imports?" and not have to worry about "but how big will the fan rage be?" then Bioware can evaluate it as a feature, cleanly and without prejudice. Otherwise, it becomes more of a gun being held to the head of Bioware than a game feature they want to promote.

archangel1996 wrote...
If they knew they couldn't do it in a good way, they shouldn't have done it

To be fair, I don't think there was any way they'd knew they would even have a guaranteed sequel when they thought up the concept. And I definitely don't think they knew how much effort it would take to live up to the high bar players set in their minds. So its really not fair to say "they shouldn't have done it." Because, at this point, that ship has kind of sailed. The only real question to ask now is "should they keep doing it?"

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 avril 2013 - 11:20 .

[Fast Jimmy]

garrusfan1 wrote...

so you want it gone that is ridiculous

Why?

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Instead, they tell the story of how, with the Anvil destroyed and the surface armies occupied with fighting each other, the Darkspawn have broken through. Orzammar faces true extinction, true annihilation. They must now face either certain death or forgoe the old ways and all become surfacers, losing all their heritage.  

Or it will be about how the dwarves, in virtue of their sheer moral fortitude and unity, defeated the darkspawn without compromising their moral core at all, going the totally opposite way with the moral message that they want to tell. 

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I don't think that just because the game has a cannon that they'd actually follow it up in any kind of interest or player-punishing way.

Especially since the one time Bioware really blindsided players was ME3s ending.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 avril 2013 - 11:27 .

[garrusfan1]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

so you want it gone that is ridiculous

Why?

I just thing it is a great thing. I had a response typed out that explained it but I got knocked off line and I am not typing the wall of text again

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I would like it if they kept it at least for DA3, for some continuity for a nice three games.

After that, I'd have no problem with them dropping it so long as they go the TES route and leave it vague rather than establishing a canon.

[garrusfan1]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

I would like it if they kept it at least for DA3, for some continuity for a nice three games.

After that, I'd have no problem with them dropping it so long as they go the TES route and leave it vague rather than establishing a canon.

exactly. I know they can't do it for 5 games straight since their would be way too many choices and such to factor in. three sounds about where it should stop and then they do what you were saying

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I'd also say the risk is if you have a not-immediately-apparant consequence to an action, you eventually have to deal with it if you keep coming back to that setting.  One can say that how one deals with the genophage is potentially good/bad.  Or making Alistair or Anora the ruler of Ferelden.  And so on.  The fallout form the choice may not be felt directly in the game.  But in sequels, the ripples are expected to be felt.  And the bigger the choice, the bigger the ripple, and thus the greater the expectation for the effect..  One only has to read speculoation about the OGB to see the evidence of that.

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?"

Heh, to this day, even knowing what it means for Orzammar, I have a harad time choosing Bhelen.  The guy is total slime 

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.

::looks at ME3 boards::  Hyppothetically speaking, right?