895 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

...

I keep feeling the need to join this discussion, but I have to constantly remind myself that it is SO NOT WORTH IT.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem with the save import is that the developers have to take into consideration what choices will carry over to the next game or games in the series. The developers also have to concern themselves to the degree of impact any choice will have on the next game or future games in the series. That kind of planning has to be done at in the planning stages of the first game and mapped out for the entire series otherwise it does not work well.

What happens is you get minor side quests, cameo, mentions in a codex or a side comment from a npc nothing major. While this can be enough for some gamers to me it just shallow. I would rather have meaningful in-game choices that resolve themselves than trying to shoehorn choices into other games of the series. I rather see each game of the series acting a self contained unit.

For example if the gamer pick Anora or Alstair to be queen or king the next game in the series does not have to state them by name. The game can simply say the ruler of Ferelden. It does not have to reference Harrowmount or Bhelen. Simply say King of Orzammar. Unless there is a major reason for stating the name of actual king or queen why doe it matter especially if it has no bearing on the story being told.

Some would argue that it adds favor but is that worth it?

[robertthebard]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem with the save import is that the developers have to take into consideration what choices will carry over to the next game or games in the series. The developers also have to concern themselves to the degree of impact any choice will have on the next game or future games in the series. That kind of planning has to be done at in the planning stages of the first game and mapped out for the entire series otherwise it does not work well.

What happens is you get minor side quests, cameo, mentions in a codex or a side comment from a npc nothing major. While this can be enough for some gamers to me it just shallow. I would rather have meaningful in-game choices that resolve themselves than trying to shoehorn choices into other games of the series. I rather see each game of the series acting a self contained unit.

For example if the gamer pick Anora or Alstair to be queen or king the next game in the series does not have to state them by name. The game can simply say the ruler of Ferelden. It does not have to reference Harrowmount or Bhelen. Simply say King of Orzammar. Unless there is a major reason for stating the name of actual king or queen why doe it matter especially if it has no bearing on the story being told.

Some would argue that it adds favor but is that worth it?

This works, until you have to meet the King, or get a side quest from a Harrowmont.  So, they could cut the content because it's "just flavor".  It's one thing to write it one way from the ground up, it's another to be a couple of chapters into the story and decide to change it all up.  You either do it, or you don't, but you don't start out to do it, and then cut it.  That's worse than messing up an import flag here or there.

Sometimes those seemingly unimportant tidbits can change the nature of the story later:  Did you save Maelon's data?  If so, and you decide to cure the Genophage, you have a stronger foundation for the Krogan if anyone survives the end of ME 3.  Of course, now that I know that, if I plan to cure the genophage in 3, I save the data in 2.  But my first time through, I didn't know any better, and destroyed the data.  Eve dies, and things are worse than they could have been, even with Wrex at the helm.

[Realmzmaster]

robertthebard wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem with the save import is that the developers have to take into consideration what choices will carry over to the next game or games in the series. The developers also have to concern themselves to the degree of impact any choice will have on the next game or future games in the series. That kind of planning has to be done at in the planning stages of the first game and mapped out for the entire series otherwise it does not work well.

What happens is you get minor side quests, cameo, mentions in a codex or a side comment from a npc nothing major. While this can be enough for some gamers to me it just shallow. I would rather have meaningful in-game choices that resolve themselves than trying to shoehorn choices into other games of the series. I rather see each game of the series acting a self contained unit.

For example if the gamer pick Anora or Alstair to be queen or king the next game in the series does not have to state them by name. The game can simply say the ruler of Ferelden. It does not have to reference Harrowmount or Bhelen. Simply say King of Orzammar. Unless there is a major reason for stating the name of actual king or queen why doe it matter especially if it has no bearing on the story being told.

Some would argue that it adds favor but is that worth it?

This works, until you have to meet the King, or get a side quest from a Harrowmont.  So, they could cut the content because it's "just flavor".  It's one thing to write it one way from the ground up, it's another to be a couple of chapters into the story and decide to change it all up.  You either do it, or you don't, but you don't start out to do it, and then cut it.  That's worse than messing up an import flag here or there.

Sometimes those seemingly unimportant tidbits can change the nature of the story later:  Did you save Maelon's data?  If so, and you decide to cure the Genophage, you have a stronger foundation for the Krogan if anyone survives the end of ME 3.  Of course, now that I know that, if I plan to cure the genophage in 3, I save the data in 2.  But my first time through, I didn't know any better, and destroyed the data.  Eve dies, and things are worse than they could have been, even with Wrex at the helm.

But that is just it. You paint yourself into corners when you try to have choices continue over the series. Bioware has done just that with many of the choices that come with the save import. Also the quest (End of his line) from DA2 does not have to mention if the person is a Harrowmount  who is fleeing the new King. The person could have been a noble fleeing the wrath of the new king because he or she supported the other side. The meeting with King Alstair or Alstair appearing in the pub is nice favor but not essential to the story or any part of DA2.

There is no way of making the choice of Alstair or Anora any more meaningful in DA2's story or in the future games of the series epecially when one or the other could be dead.

[Fast Jimmy]

robertthebard wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem with the save import is that the developers have to take into consideration what choices will carry over to the next game or games in the series. The developers also have to concern themselves to the degree of impact any choice will have on the next game or future games in the series. That kind of planning has to be done at in the planning stages of the first game and mapped out for the entire series otherwise it does not work well.

What happens is you get minor side quests, cameo, mentions in a codex or a side comment from a npc nothing major. While this can be enough for some gamers to me it just shallow. I would rather have meaningful in-game choices that resolve themselves than trying to shoehorn choices into other games of the series. I rather see each game of the series acting a self contained unit.

For example if the gamer pick Anora or Alstair to be queen or king the next game in the series does not have to state them by name. The game can simply say the ruler of Ferelden. It does not have to reference Harrowmount or Bhelen. Simply say King of Orzammar. Unless there is a major reason for stating the name of actual king or queen why doe it matter especially if it has no bearing on the story being told.

Some would argue that it adds favor but is that worth it?

This works, until you have to meet the King, or get a side quest from a Harrowmont.  So, they could cut the content because it's "just flavor".  It's one thing to write it one way from the ground up, it's another to be a couple of chapters into the story and decide to change it all up.  You either do it, or you don't, but you don't start out to do it, and then cut it.  That's worse than messing up an import flag here or there.

Sometimes those seemingly unimportant tidbits can change the nature of the story later:  Did you save Maelon's data?  If so, and you decide to cure the Genophage, you have a stronger foundation for the Krogan if anyone survives the end of ME 3.  Of course, now that I know that, if I plan to cure the genophage in 3, I save the data in 2.  But my first time through, I didn't know any better, and destroyed the data.  Eve dies, and things are worse than they could have been, even with Wrex at the helm.

And I don't see how you could possibly think saving Maleon's cure for the genophage is a small, tidbit decision. Its pretty key and was framed as such during the game. If you had any intention of curing the Krogan (in ANY playthrough), why would you have destroyed it? I'm not trying to critique your choices, but from the viewpoint of many, this was a major choice, a choice to either work on giving the Krogan another chance or to keep them from growing to be a threat to the galaxy. 

Regardless, if the defense is "they've already started it, so it's too late now" why does this not apply to other features of the game? Multiple races? Playable Origins? Dialogue List? Etc.? 

I realize it would be a change, but DA fans have had the series change its roots already once. Based on the fact that we will be getting a new engine on (likely) a new console generation with a stated desire from the devs to completely revamp such systems as combat, encounter design and story-telling through such mediums as ambient dialogue, DA3 is likely going to be much different than either DA:O or DA2. Said differences will need to stand on their own two feet and be judged on their merits, but, at the same time, it is also a chance to unshackle any features that are dead weight. (For the record, we know there will be Imports for DA3 and that they are, according to devs in this very thread, looking at ways of handling them "differently" than in the past.)

I would prefer if Bioware were to drop the Imports, altogether. But, barring that, I wish they would have a way of "closing" imported decisions. Let me explain.

Say you imported a few decisions in DA:O. For instance, you killed Zevran, you saved the Anvil, you named Allistair king and you performed the Dark Ritual. When you import that save file into DA2, you would be shown which decisions carried over. Then, decisions that will be followed up on in either DA2 or future games would remain open. 

Let's say Zevran's cameo in DA2 is the last time we see him again in the series, ever. Therefore, if he is dead in your DA:O import, that choice is flagged now to "closed." Meaning there is no extra content for him being dead. Conversely, if you had spared him, the choice would reflect as still open in DA2. Then, when you have your encounter with him in DA2 and finish his quest. the choice would change to "closed."

Let's say that the writers have plans for who is the ruler of Ferelden, or what happesn with the Anvil, or what goes down regarding the Dark Ritual. Then these choices would remain "open" at the end of DA2 (implying that they will be addressed in DA3 or beyond).

This means that we, as players, can know when they are done with a given story line. Load up DA3 and notice that the choice about whether or not Anders is dead is marked as closed? That means that, since he's dead in your playthrough, there is no future content (in DA3 or beyond) where this choice will affect anything. Similarly, this means that Anders will not appear in DA4 or beyond. However, if the choice remains open, this means something can happen... even if nothing happens in DA3. They could keep it on hand, just in case they wanted to (or they have some plan for a dead Anders).

This gives players the sense of closure on certain plot ideas. Know we are never going to go back to Orzammar... or, if we do, events will have transpired that will pretty much negate who we named king anyway? Then go ahead and close the choice. It serves no purpose in being tracked and followed any further.

Yes, this requires the writers to say, in advance, that they will know which choices they will want to use later on. But at least it keeps them from becoming paralyzed as each game adds a dozen more choices that may need to be tracked or thought of when each game comes out.

Let them say, through the game, "we're done with this." If you make a reference in one game, you will only whet the appetite of many gamers, who want more in future games. If, instead, you show that "okay, here is what we are giving you, now this story arc is over" it will help out in terms of both writing as well a technical housekeeping.

[wright1978]

Personally i don't like the sound of that open/closed system. Seems artificially restrictive to close off characters/plotlines that could potentially come back into play at some point in the future. Personally I'm fine with references, simmering in the background to be picked up when they work for the individual story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

Again, if they had started out that way, great.  They didn't.  Not so great.  So, w/out carrying these "huge choices" forward, what do they matter?

They matter to the character.  That one character who makes that choice.  You're roleplaying your character - you're implementing the character concept and personality you designed; his ability to make choices is paramount.

Constraining those choices for a non-character releated reason seems wrong-headed.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And I don't see how you could possibly think saving Maleon's cure for the genophage is a small, tidbit decision. Its pretty key and was framed as such during the game. If you had any intention of curing the Krogan (in ANY playthrough), why would you have destroyed it? I'm not trying to critique your choices, but from the viewpoint of many, this was a major choice, a choice to either work on giving the Krogan another chance or to keep them from growing to be a threat to the galaxy. 

Regardless, if the defense is "they've already started it, so it's too late now" why does this not apply to other features of the game? Multiple races? Playable Origins? Dialogue List? Etc.? 

I realize it would be a change, but DA fans have had the series change its roots already once. Based on the fact that we will be getting a new engine on (likely) a new console generation with a stated desire from the devs to completely revamp such systems as combat, encounter design and story-telling through such mediums as ambient dialogue, DA3 is likely going to be much different than either DA:O or DA2. Said differences will need to stand on their own two feet and be judged on their merits, but, at the same time, it is also a chance to unshackle any features that are dead weight. (For the record, we know there will be Imports for DA3 and that they are, according to devs in this very thread, looking at ways of handling them "differently" than in the past.)

I would prefer if Bioware were to drop the Imports, altogether. But, barring that, I wish they would have a way of "closing" imported decisions. Let me explain.

Say you imported a few decisions in DA:O. For instance, you killed Zevran, you saved the Anvil, you named Allistair king and you performed the Dark Ritual. When you import that save file into DA2, you would be shown which decisions carried over. Then, decisions that will be followed up on in either DA2 or future games would remain open. 

Let's say Zevran's cameo in DA2 is the last time we see him again in the series, ever. Therefore, if he is dead in your DA:O import, that choice is flagged now to "closed." Meaning there is no extra content for him being dead. Conversely, if you had spared him, the choice would reflect as still open in DA2. Then, when you have your encounter with him in DA2 and finish his quest. the choice would change to "closed."

Let's say that the writers have plans for who is the ruler of Ferelden, or what happesn with the Anvil, or what goes down regarding the Dark Ritual. Then these choices would remain "open" at the end of DA2 (implying that they will be addressed in DA3 or beyond).

This means that we, as players, can know when they are done with a given story line. Load up DA3 and notice that the choice about whether or not Anders is dead is marked as closed? That means that, since he's dead in your playthrough, there is no future content (in DA3 or beyond) where this choice will affect anything. Similarly, this means that Anders will not appear in DA4 or beyond. However, if the choice remains open, this means something can happen... even if nothing happens in DA3. They could keep it on hand, just in case they wanted to (or they have some plan for a dead Anders).

This gives players the sense of closure on certain plot ideas. Know we are never going to go back to Orzammar... or, if we do, events will have transpired that will pretty much negate who we named king anyway? Then go ahead and close the choice. It serves no purpose in being tracked and followed any further.

Yes, this requires the writers to say, in advance, that they will know which choices they will want to use later on. But at least it keeps them from becoming paralyzed as each game adds a dozen more choices that may need to be tracked or thought of when each game comes out.

Let them say, through the game, "we're done with this." If you make a reference in one game, you will only whet the appetite of many gamers, who want more in future games. If, instead, you show that "okay, here is what we are giving you, now this story arc is over" it will help out in terms of both writing as well a technical housekeeping.

I had no clue what was coming in ME 3 when I played ME 2.  The decision, the first couple of times had nothing to do with curing the genophage in ME 3.  It had to do with what I thought would successfully complete Mordin's quest, which, as it turns out, for the importance you apply to it, is finished either way.  It's also completed whether you allow him to kill Maleon or not.  At the time, he even indicates that it would take years to build a successful cure off what's there.  Guess he worked on it on the side, eh?

All of that is what a save import is supposed to do.  So what are you rallying for?  Making each game a separate story?  Is Nate dead?  You get the dwarf quest to the Deep Roads, else, Howe's sister shows up.  Those are game states that are carried over for your import save.  You are advocating doing what they are already trying to do, while saying they should stop doing it.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Again, if they had started out that way, great.  They didn't.  Not so great.  So, w/out carrying these "huge choices" forward, what do they matter?

They matter to the character.  That one character who makes that choice.  You're roleplaying your character - you're implementing the character concept and personality you designed; his ability to make choices is paramount.

Constraining those choices for a non-character releated reason seems wrong-headed.

Yet the next character, or the next after that may be the one that deals with that choice.  Such as Jimmy's example of the Anvil.  So if you Destroy it as the Warden, and in DA 4, the darkspawn overrun Orzammar because they didn't have it to make golems, do we just pretend that it didn't exist at all?  What about the player that saved it?  Is it ignored in his game to, even though he didn't destroy it, to make it easy?

You know, the stuff I did in NWN's OC didn't really matter for NWN 2.  Totally separate games and stories, despite carrying the same title.  The stuff I did, or didn't do in Origins may yet play a part in the third installment, or the one after that.  Is Alistair being a drunk going to come back and bite me in the ass, or, alternatively, him being King?  These are separate games, but they are telling one story.  We can't write Chapter 1, and then completely disregard it to write Chapter 2.  Doing this, is the next game really going to be set in a Circle in Orlais, with no mention of what happened at Kirkwall, business as usual?  Events in the end tend to say no.  We aren't 100 years in the future in DA 2, in fact, both games start in roughly the same time frame, with Origins getting a bit of a preview to Ostagar, and 2 picking up right after the slaughter.  So they're what, at most a week apart, but the events in Origins don't matter to the events in DA 2?

[Fast Jimmy]

All of that is what a save import is supposed to do. So what are you rallying for? Making each game a separate story? Is Nate dead? You get the dwarf quest to the Deep Roads, else, Howe's sister shows up. Those are game states that are carried over for your import save. You are advocating doing what they are already trying to do, while saying they should stop doing it.

I was simply stating that if Bioware feels they need to continue the Save Imports, the opening/closing of the relevance of such imports over time would be helpful in weeding out the dead branches and allowing fans to properly set their expectations.

Yet the next character, or the next after that may be the one that deals with that choice. Such as Jimmy's example of the Anvil. So if you Destroy it as the Warden, and in DA 4, the darkspawn overrun Orzammar because they didn't have it to make golems, do we just pretend that it didn't exist at all? What about the player that saved it? Is it ignored in his game to, even though he didn't destroy it, to make it easy?

Not ignoring it. Saying it never happened.

If you imported the decision to preserve the Anvil into DA3 and there is a story about how Orzammar was overrun by darkspawn because, despite you saving it, the Anvil "just didn't work" and then the same set of events happen, regardless of the choice made in the previous game... then THAT is ignoring a choice.

But if DA3 was set up wiht a canon where the Anvil was destroyed by the Warden (not neccessarily YOUR Warden, but THE Warden), then that set of events/circumstances I outlined a few pages back would be the story.

With the Save Import, they couldn't really tell the story of Orzammar on the verge of collapse because the golem army was never made and the story of how the Dwarves were able to reclaim parts of the Deep Roads and push back the Darkspawn, making them one of the strongest military forces in Thedas, in the same game. It would be way too much custom content. So either they never go back to or mention Orzammar/the Anvil ever again, they produce some kind of alternate situation where, no matter your choice, it doesn't matter and the same circumstances are in place, regardless.

For us to go back to Orzammar with a Save Import, it involves saying "it doesn't matter what choice you made in the previous game; things still played out this way - your Warden's influence was inconsequential." To go back to Orzammar with a canon, it says "When the Warden was here, s/he chose to destroy the Anvil; now the world is vastly different because of it and here's how."

One says the choice doesn't matter. The other just says the choice didn't happen. There's a WORLD of difference between those two statements.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2013 - 11:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

Yet the next character, or the next after that may be the one that deals with that choice.

Just as the character in the next game has to deal with the other plot events in that game.  What makes plot events that stem from game 1 choices different from plot events that don't?

Such as Jimmy's example of the Anvil.  So if you Destroy it as the Warden, and in DA 4, the darkspawn overrun Orzammar because they didn't have it to make golems, do we just pretend that it didn't exist at all?

Why would we need to pretend that?  The new game's character deals with his reality as it exists.  In game 2, either Orzammar was destroyed because the Anvil was destroyed or Orzammar survived because the Anvil remains.  But every game 2 character gets the same starting point.

What about the player that saved it?  Is it ignored in his game to, even though he didn't destroy it, to make it easy?

We need never ignore the Anvil.  Game 2 simply chooses one state of reality and runs with it.  We're ignoring the choices from the first game, because accommodating them severely limits what sorts of choices we offer.

You know, the stuff I did in NWN's OC didn't really matter for NWN 2.  Totally separate games and stories, despite carrying the same title.

Except that's not true.  What if your NWN character wasn't able to complete the game beacuse he was built badly (a genuine risk in 3E D&D)?  Then, he never finished the game, and the big bad continues indefinitely.  But in NWN2, that's not what's happening - NWN2 assumes that the main quest of NWN was completed.

KotOR2 does the same thing with KotOR.  So what's wrong with doing that on a smaller scale?

The stuff I did, or didn't do in Origins may yet play a part in the third installment, or the one after that.

You didn't do anything in Origins.  Your characters did, and your characters might have done vastly different things.  I have characters who defeated the archdemon, and I have characters that didn't even live long enough to see Denerim.  But DA2 assumes the Blight was defeated (which it may well have been, but at least some of the time it wasn't defeated by my Warden).

Is Alistair being a drunk going to come back and bite me in the ass, or, alternatively, him being King?  These are separate games, but they are telling one story.

Each game tells uncountably many possible stories.  We can't accommodate all of them without railroading the character and the player both.

We can't write Chapter 1, and then completely disregard it to write Chapter 2.

Why do you assume they're telling on big story?  Why not look at each as self-contained?

Doing this, is the next game really going to be set in a Circle in Orlais, with no mention of what happened at Kirkwall, business as usual?

Why are you asking this?  DA3 can simply set some specific events from Kirkwall as true.  DA4 could even then decide that DA2 turned out differently.  DA5 could presume that the Archdemon from DAO wasn't defeated in Ferelden at all, and have the game exist entirely within a small but determined resistance movement, with the events of DA2 and DA3 having never occured (DA2 and DA3 obviously being unable to co-exist anyway).

Only because you're presupposing that one coherent story is being told across all of the games is this even an issue.  Stop doing that, and the problem you perceive goes away.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

All of that is what a save import is supposed to do. So what are you rallying for? Making each game a separate story? Is Nate dead? You get the dwarf quest to the Deep Roads, else, Howe's sister shows up. Those are game states that are carried over for your import save. You are advocating doing what they are already trying to do, while saying they should stop doing it.

I was simply stating that if Bioware feels they need to continue the Save Imports, the opening/closing of the relevance of such imports over time would be helpful in weeding out the dead branches and allowing fans to properly set their expectations.

Yet the next character, or the next after that may be the one that deals with that choice. Such as Jimmy's example of the Anvil. So if you Destroy it as the Warden, and in DA 4, the darkspawn overrun Orzammar because they didn't have it to make golems, do we just pretend that it didn't exist at all? What about the player that saved it? Is it ignored in his game to, even though he didn't destroy it, to make it easy?

Not ignoring it. Saying it never happened.

If you imported the decision to preserve the Anvil into DA3 and there is a story about how Orzammar was overrun by darkspawn because, despite you saving it, the Anvil "just didn't work" and then the same set of events happen, regardless of the choice made in the previous game... then THAT is ignoring a choice.

But if DA3 was set up wiht a canon where the Anvil was destroyed by the Warden (not neccessarily YOUR Warden, but THE Warden), then that set of events/circumstances I outlined a few pages back would be the story.

With the Save Import, they couldn't really tell the story of Orzammar on the verge of collapse because the golem army was never made and the story of how the Dwarves were able to reclaim parts of the Deep Roads and push back the Darkspawn, making them one of the strongest military forces in Thedas, in the same game. It would be way too much custom content. So either they never go back to or mention Orzammar/the Anvil ever again, they produce some kind of alternate situation where, no matter your choice, it doesn't matter and the same circumstances are in place, regardless.

For us to go back to Orzammar with a Save Import, it involves saying "it doesn't matter what choice you made in the previous game; things still played out this way - your Warden's influence was inconsequential." To go back to Orzammar with a canon, it says "When the Warden was here, s/he chose to destroy the Anvil; now the world is vastly different because of it and here's how."

One says the choice doesn't matter. The other just says the choice didn't happen. There's a WORLD of difference between those two statements.

It's not ignoring the choice though, if it didn't work, it means that it was there, and not destroyed, therefore the choice is acknowledged, but it wasn't enough.  It would be like doing the DR, but dying before you slayed the archdemon.  It didn't make you invulnerable, it just made you immune to death via soul transfer from the archdemon.  That doesn't ignore that you did the DR, it's just that the DR didn't save you from what killed you.  Of course, we know that can't happen, autosave/quicksaves FTW, but it's the same general idea.  Dying as a result of slaying the archdemon would ignore the choice, but dying on the way doesn't.  So if the Anvil can't save Orzammar because they didn't have enough gollems to do job, it means it was there to be used, so the choice to save it is registered.

The problem with the other is that it is OUR Warden that made the choice.  No, our character in this act may not even be aware that a choice was available, but the player is.  Story continuity isn't just for the character, it's what keeps us immersed in the story.  Which brings us full circle to the separate games, same story thing I started with.  Isn't that what this topic was started about anyway?  Some flag that didn't set properly, and broke the OP's immersion?  So instead of working to fix that, it's better to just throw immersion out the window?  If there were no choices to make, then surely.  If it can only come out one way, no matter what, then we don't need the imports because everyone's story is exactly the same.  But that's not how it works, except for here's Anders, and for some Leliana.  Either one or both can be available for some players, and some players may not have played Awakening, so Anders isn't all that deal breaking for them, but I'm fairly sure we got Anders so we could get a Spirit Healer Grey Warden for the sibling's sake, and to have a guaranteed healer in the group.  Not sure why they couldn't have just written a new one, but here we are.  The import system didn't fail, the writers chose to ignore those flags for the sake of their story.

[Fast Jimmy]

If it can only come out one way, no matter what, then we don't need the imports because everyone's story is exactly the same.

Just because a game doesn't have Save Imports does not mean everyone's story is exactly the same. Playing Fallout: New Vegas in different ways with different decisions can create very different stories. To say there is no different story just because there isn't direct choice carryover from game to game is not a very accurate statement.

It's not ignoring the choice though, if it didn't work, it means that it was there, and not destroyed, therefore the choice is acknowledged, but it wasn't enough.

It is still just an explanation of why the choice didn't matter. Just like Leliana dying near the Urn makes her death excusable, or how Anders being dead, except that he wasn't really (people apparently can tell a corpse is a Mage and nothing else about them, somehow?).

An explanation is almost always given for this type of thing... but it is an attempt to hide the fact that the choice previously presented is being negated.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If it can only come out one way, no matter what, then we don't need the imports because everyone's story is exactly the same.

Just because a game doesn't have Save Imports does not mean everyone's story is exactly the same. Playing Fallout: New Vegas in different ways with different decisions can create very different stories. To say there is no different story just because there isn't direct choice carryover from game to game is not a very accurate statement.

It's not ignoring the choice though, if it didn't work, it means that it was there, and not destroyed, therefore the choice is acknowledged, but it wasn't enough.

It is still just an explanation of why the choice didn't matter. Just like Leliana dying near the Urn makes her death excusable, or how Anders being dead, except that he wasn't really (people apparently can tell a corpse is a Mage and nothing else about them, somehow?).

An explanation is almost always given for this type of thing... but it is an attempt to hide the fact that the choice previously presented is being negated.

So what happens in the sequel to NV?  Do they already have the next one lined out so that no matter how you play it, it works for their sequel, or are they going to carry specific things forward if there is a sequel?  Because didn't Fallout in general do save imports?  I only ever played the first one, and I don't remember that I even finished it.

The difference being, if Orzammar is overrun because the anvil didn't make enough golems, and you destroyed the anvil.  Immersion breaker.  I can see that maybe they didn't have enough golems for the darkspawn if it played out that way.  There are, after all, a lot of darkspawn, less after the blight, but still a lot of them.  The latter wouldn't sever my connection to the game, the former certainly would.  I enjoy the story as much as the game, and sometimes more than the game.  If they break the story because reasons, it's an indication that I don't need to buy the game.  Yep, I'm just one person, and the gaming industry isn't going to go broke because of me, but they are going to lose my business, and if I like the game, I buy most of the DLC.  I didn't buy Omega, or a couple of the Origins DLCs because they didn't interest me, but I bought the rest of them, and got all the DA 2 DLCs.  I even bought Witch Hunt, even though I only planned to play it one time.  But I wanted to have that part of the story, because I had one Warden that it mattered to.  They've put a lot of work into this story, and I want to see how it plays out.  Ignoring previous games won't allow them the flexibility to do that.

[andrew252]

Ive always thought of recent bioware games as a "build your own story" as they provide the pieces, made it seem like i had a bit of control over what was happening

[Seboist]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Just because a game doesn't have Save Imports does not mean everyone's story is exactly the same. Playing Fallout: New Vegas in different ways with different decisions can create very different stories. To say there is no different story just because there isn't direct choice carryover from game to game is not a very accurate statement

New Vegas' second battle of Hooven dam wipes the floor with ME3's battle for earth with ease.

With the former everything from my starting location, who I fight and who fights with me is determined by the choices I make and it all makes a tangible impact on the gameplay ; with the latter however, what's supposed to be the final culmination of all choices from a trilogy of save import merely results in the same railroaded corrider shooter popamole sections whose only differentiation is some interchangable fluff cutscenes or dialogue and a color coded ending slideshow that's determined by arbitary numbers.

[Fast Jimmy]

So what happens in the sequel to NV? Do they already have the next one lined out so that no matter how you play it, it works for their sequel, or are they going to carry specific things forward if there is a sequel? Because didn't Fallout in general do save imports? I only ever played the first one, and I don't remember that I even finished it.

The next Fallout is rumored to be taking place in Boston, so I'm guessing decisions about things that happened in Vegas will... well, stay in Vegas.

The series has never had an import system. And choices that occurred in previous games have affected events in future games. For instance, in the first Fallout game, you had the ability to either save a town from Raiders or joining the Raiders and destroying the town. In the epilogue slides of the game, it said that the Raiders destroyed the town, while saving it leads to a slide that talks about how the town wound up becoming a huge metropolis, eventually becoming what is known as the Ndw California Republic.

The NCR is a major player in both Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas. The choice was offered in one game and then set in a canon for future games. And, yet, no one was outraged or felt like their games were destroyed or their immersion.

The difference being, if Orzammar is overrun because the anvil didn't make enough golems, and you destroyed the anvil. Immersion breaker. I can see that maybe they didn't have enough golems for the darkspawn if it played out that way. There are, after all, a lot of darkspawn, less after the blight, but still a lot of them. The latter wouldn't sever my connection to the game, the former certainly would.

If it was stated clearly going into the game that no Save Import was happening (most likely clearly indicated by the fact that the game would not be searching/pulling a file), then how would your immersion be affected? It would be pretty clear that your choices were not carried over. The game would not say "you did this in a previous game" but rather "The Hero of Ferelden did X, Y, Z" or "Hawke did 1, 2, 3." Such a setup would give Bioware control in how the events of previous games set up the world for the current one.

[Plaintiff]

Since I don't think players should be allowed to make "big" choices in the first place, and don't believe that any of the choices Bioware has ever given us were "big", it doesn't much matter if they continue imports or not, but I suppose I would prefer that they did.

Cameos and sidequests are perfectly satisfactory. Anyone who thought that boning Morrigan was going to send them spiralling down a completely different narrative path was always deluding themselves.

[Mikoto8472]

Personally I think removing the Save Import feature would be a huge mistake.

Things like who ended up as the ruler of Ferelden, the origin of the Warden, whether it was male or female, did the dark ritual are not aren't small things to be washed away. Similar with Hawke.

It I wanted a game where my choices didn't matter and forced me into a generic musclebound male character I'd go play a random shoot'em up.

[Palidane]

If your going to have canon choices, what's the point of giving us choice in the first place? If going to the Circle is the canon outcome of the Redcliffe quest, why would you ever kill Connor or Isolde? It's just going to be retconned in the next game, so why bother?

Besides that, an official canon is just a horrible awful idea. Let's say a casual player played through Origins once. He played a female dwarf commoner rogue who romanced Zevran, put Harrowmont on the throne, saved the anvil of the void, destroyed the Circle, abandoned Recliffe and then killed Connor, defiled the Ashes and killed Leliana when she objected, let the werewolves slaughter the elves, put Anora on the throne, exiled Alistair, and Warden-ed Loghain, then had Loghain do the dark ritual.

He loved the game and is super eager for Dragon Age 2. But lo and behold, when he plays the game, the Warden is now suddenly a white male Couseland warrior who romanced Leliana and saved the Mages, and put Bhelen on the throne, and destroyed the anvil etc etc. And what are you going to tell him when he tries to find an explanation for this inexplicable change? "Sorry, you made all the wrong decisions, you should have played a straight white noble male boy scout"?

There are only two options here. We either have a completely linear game with zero choice or input, or we stay the course. That's not even a question for me. If I want a linear story, I will watch a movie/tv show or read a book. Video games are special because of your ability to affect the outcome, and I'd hate to lose that because some people don't like cameos.

[beank]

I still remember finishing ME2 with a dead Shepard.... and being told that my choices were wrong for it....

So while the Import Save level that Bioware has given us is fascinating.... i just dont think that it can stand the weight of the game that is utilizing it....

Keep it.... get rid of it.... as long as there is a quality story with quality characters, gimmicks dont matter....

[milena87]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would we need to pretend that? The new game's character deals with his reality as it exists. 

I would like to highlight the point that Sylvius made here.
Our Warden and (on a much smaller scale) Hawke already dealt with their problems and their reality in different ways and our new protagonist will as well. DAIII will (hopefully) be an RPG: we'll have to play this new characther that doesn't know that his/her world is "wrong"; we the players are the only ones who know that things might be different, if different choices were made.

I'd just like to see our new protagonist make choices and see vastly different reactions/consequences in the same game, instead of not seeing anything meaningful ever because it might be difficult to keep the continuity in the next game.

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If it was stated clearly going into the game that no Save Import was happening (most likely clearly indicated by the fact that the game would not be searching/pulling a file), then how would your immersion be affected? It would be pretty clear that your choices were not carried over. The game would not say "you did this in a previous game" but rather "The Hero of Ferelden did X, Y, Z" or "Hawke did 1, 2, 3." Such a setup would give Bioware control in how the events of previous games set up the world for the current one.

The difference being we knew going in it wasn't happening?  It's not "Your choices matter", but "Do what ever you want, but this is how it turns out", no, it wouldn't break my immersion, I wouldn't be expecting my choices, if any, to matter.  I played AC1, AC2, Revelations and Brotherhood.  None of my choices mattered, as none were really offered, to gather feathers/flags or not.  Gathering the feathers in 2 did nothing for you in either expansion, but wasn't advertised to.  In fact, no matter what, Ezio's mom is all better in the sequel where she appears even if you didn't gather the feathers, which is what breaks her lethargy in 2.  I was disappointed that it didn't matter the first time, but it didn't break my immersion in that story, since it was historical, and what happens was all laid out before they ever released the game.

This is where this suggestion takes DA.  Which would be fine if:  You couldn't exile Alistair, because he's going to be king, no matter what, Loghain is going to die etc etc.  Why backslide to the illusion of choice, instead of honoring the flags?  If they had wanted the game to tell a specific story, they could have followed AC's model.  Instead, we're given choices; save the elves or the werewolves, save the mages or purge the tower, Bhelen or Harrowmont, etc etc.  So why go through all that just to say:  This is how it comes out.  Because it would be easier?  It would have been.  It would have also been easier to just not offer the choices.  Of course, that means that most people would play the game maybe once, and never look at it again.  This is the problem I have replaying AC, no matter what, it's going to come out exactly the same, every time.  For some people, that's fine, for others not so much, and for others, it's a deal breaker.  AC isn't for everyone, just as CoD isn't.  I have never purchased a single copy of any of the CoD games because the genre isn't my cup of tea.

So I guess the point is, if I'm looking to play AC, I'll play it.  If I want to play an RPG, then I load anything from BG forward in this genre.  While it certainly took a turn to the action game, DA is still an RPG, and I don't want to have the RPG element removed because somebody wants to play AC in Thedas, instead of Italy.  I can still paint a very different picture of Thedas than the writers envision in the books/comics.  Remember the uproar about them being considered canon, in spite of player agency in the games, and the responses?  The uproar was caused by people like me, people that are painting a very different picture of Thedas.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Only because you're presupposing that one coherent story is being told across all of the games is this even an issue.  Stop doing that, and the problem you perceive goes away.

Except that, this is exactly what's happening.  One story is being told over multiple games.  In all actuality though, wouldn't it be better for people that want to remove the save import to ignore it instead, using your own logic?  Instead, it's "well, I want the story to go this way, so they should change the game to suit me".  So one "faction's" opinion is more important than the other "faction's"?  I mean, quite literally, that you can assume that it's not one coherent story, and your problem goes away, right?  Or is it more a case of your issue is more important, so the story format should be changed to suit what you believe it should be, instead of what's intended, and everyone else should pretend it doesn't matter?

If this comes out as way snarky, it's not intended to.  My position is to simply maintain the status quo, and to improve on the system that's in place, instead of kicking it to the curb because some people don't like it, or think it doesn't matter.  We were told going in that this was the story of Thedas, hence we don't have the same protagonist every time.  So I can't quit presuming that this is one long story told over multiple games, because that's what I was led to believe it was.  If the concept bothers someone, why try to get the game changed to suit them, but instead have them follow your advice:  don't presume it's one story told over multiple games, then your problems with the system will go away.

[Fast Jimmy]

Things like who ended up as the ruler of Ferelden, the origin of the Warden, whether it was male or female, did the dark ritual are not aren't small things to be washed away. Similar with Hawke.

I agree... the ruler of Ferelden, the Dark Ritual, the choices of Hawke are not small things at all (the gender of either character is something that is rather inconsequential in my eyes, though). But with the Import system, these choices WON'T matter. The world will be the exact same, with a different cameo. 

Look at what is going on with some of the books/comics. Allistair is king and is leading expeditions to investigate rumors of his father being alive, he's neogtiating with the Qunari, who's military arm is now run by our old companion Sten, he is chasing down Tevinter Magisters who may very well be one of the antagonists in DA3... his story is continuing. That is because the writers can say that he was king and that those were the choices he made. 

But with the Imports? In DA2, he could be busy doing king stuff, or busy doing Warden stuff or busy gettng plowed in a bar for five years... and that's it. Yes, you get references that he is still king, or Warden, or a drunk bum by the cameos the game gives you... but that's it. If he is referenced again in DA3, this will be the same thing... jsut letting us know that he is still doing the same thing that we left him doing. That's not carrying a choice forward, its simply acknowledging that the choice you made was made. That's DIMINISHING said choice. Not enhancing it. The state of the narrative from when you made the choice has not progressed at all from when we last saw it. 

There are only two options here. We either have a completely linear game with zero choice or input, or we stay the course. That's not even a question for me. If I want a linear story, I will watch a movie/tv show or read a book. Video games are special because of your ability to affect the outcome, and I'd hate to lose that because some people don't like cameos.

I completely disagree.

ME1 and DA:O were both Bioware games of this generation that were very non-linear. They offered lots of choices and allowed you to complete objectives at your own pace. By contrast, each game that came after and had to utilize the Save Imports became more and more linear and had less "big" choices. 

ME3 had to be more linear to account for these decisions.

For instance, the Virmire Survivor had to be incapacitated for the first half of the game, since they had to make two sets of dialogue and interaction with the mutually exclusive companions. To fix this, they made the two companions essentially gone from the story for half the game. This was done by having a set event that knocks them guarding Udina and then being knocked unconscious until a given point in the game, where they became "normal" companions.

Again, as opposed to a game like Fallout: New Vegas, which allows for tons of choices throughout the game, accomodating many different playstyles and approaches to the story and which has endings which reflect very different states of your companions, the factions that were in play and the balance of power at the end of the game. 

Save Imports aren't preventing the games from becoming linear, no-choice games... that are MAKING the games more like that. The more references, cameos and interchangeable scenes you force the team to deal with, the more they need rigid, controlled events and outcomes in the next games to appropriately accomdate them. The Save Imports are making the games more linear, not the other way around.

The difference being we knew going in it wasn't happening?  It's not "Your choices matter", but "Do what ever you want, but this is how it turns out", no, it wouldn't break my immersion, I wouldn't be expecting my choices, if any, to matter.  I played AC1, AC2, Revelations and Brotherhood.  None of my choices mattered, as none were really offered, to gather feathers/flags or not.  Gathering the feathers in 2 did nothing for you in either expansion, but wasn't advertised to.  In fact, no matter what, Ezio's mom is all better in the sequel where she appears even if you didn't gather the feathers, which is what breaks her lethargy in 2.  I was disappointed that it didn't matter the first time, but it didn't break my immersion in that story, since it was historical, and what happens was all laid out before they ever released the game.

This is where this suggestion takes DA.  Which would be fine if:  You couldn't exile Alistair, because he's going to be king, no matter what, Loghain is going to die etc etc.  Why backslide to the illusion of choice, instead of honoring the flags?  If they had wanted the game to tell a specific story, they could have followed AC's model.  Instead, we're given choices; save the elves or the werewolves, save the mages or purge the tower, Bhelen or Harrowmont, etc etc.  So why go through all that just to say:  This is how it comes out.  Because it would be easier?  It would have been.  It would have also been easier to just not offer the choices.  Of course, that means that most people would play the game maybe once, and never look at it again.  This is the problem I have replaying AC, no matter what, it's going to come out exactly the same, every time.  For some people, that's fine, for others not so much, and for others, it's a deal breaker.  AC isn't for everyone, just as CoD isn't.  I have never purchased a single copy of any of the CoD games because the genre isn't my cup of tea.

So I guess the point is, if I'm looking to play AC, I'll play it.  If I want to play an RPG, then I load anything from BG forward in this genre.  While it certainly took a turn to the action game, DA is still an RPG, and I don't want to have the RPG element removed because somebody wants to play AC in Thedas, instead of Italy.  I can still paint a very different picture of Thedas than the writers envision in the books/comics.  Remember the uproar about them being considered canon, in spite of player agency in the games, and the responses?  The uproar was caused by people like me, people that are painting a very different picture of Thedas.

Your argument is a complete strawman. You are pointing to games that don't offer choices and saying "they don't offer choices because they don't use Save Imports." That's not the case at all. And, in fact, the most recent Call of Duty game, Black Ops 2, offered LOTS of choices, a good sight more than the three or four choices that actually affected the plot that DA2 gave us. And it had more endings than just "Hawke became Viscount/Hawke ran away" and everything being the same otherwise.

Yes, in DA:O you can offer to side with the Mages or the Templars. Yes, you can choose to have the werewolves cured or have them attack the Dalish. Yes, you can defile the Ashes, or leave them as is. And yes, you can pick who was king of the Dwarves. But what does this mean for future games?

Nothing. Nothing at all. Sure, there is a side quest about the werewolves that is different if you cured them or kept them the same. Right, you wind up getting into a fight with some bandits if you preserved the Ashes. And yes, you run into Harrowmont's great nephew, twice removed (or something) who is on the run because Bhelen wants to kill him. But would you call that a continuation of the story? Would you call that real development of the world? No, you shouldn't. Because its not. Its a simple acknowledgement.

Don't you think that having physical proof that what the Chantry teaches is true (the Urn of Sacred Ashes) would have a big role in what the Templars are fighitng for in the next game, allegedly involving the Mage/Templar conflict? Sure, the Templars aren't officially part of the Chantry anymore, but to the Templars, they are still fulfilling the Maker's will. Couldn't this evidence be a rallying cry that what the Chantry speaks is the truth, and therefore the doctrine of "magic is meant to serve man, not to rule him" would be in play? But it won't, because it would involve custom content, content that would likely result in more than a cameo, so it can't be accomodated.

Don't you think that the king of the dwarves, who are the primary dealers in lyrium, a substance both sides need in large supply (especially if gearing up for war) should play into the outcomes of the world? That a king who promotes outside trade (Bhelen) versus a king that wants the dwarves to always stay underground (Harrowmont) would affect how the world would handle this situation when a full-scale war is about to erupt between these two groups? But it won't, because now we are talking about dealing with goign back to Orzammar, or dealing with different groups that would result in lots of extra content based on these two decisions. So add it to the pile of story ideas that can't be followed up on.

Don't you think that a group of free-running elves that have their mages in control like the Dalish would have an obvious side to choose in the upcoming conflict? Similarly, don't you think the number of Mages who lived in a Circle might also affect one side's forces? We are given the option of wiping out a Dalish clan and annuling an entire Circle of Mages... TWICE! (DA:O and DA2) Don't you think that this drastic shift in numbers should have the Mages appear more reinforced in one end of the spectrum, while having diminished numbers at the other end? You'd think so... but it won't. Because the Save Import dictates that everyone must be at the same point, so, no matter if you added an extra hundred or so Mages or Dalish, the two sides will be in a stalemate. 



Am I saying that Bioware HAS to follow up on these choices in these exact ways? No, of course not. But the very fact that they CAN'T is a problem. Entire plot lines that make total sense to have as consequences of events in DA:O or DA2 are now unusable. The reason why? Its not because they gave the player the choice... its because they have to accomodate that choice in future games. You can give a player choice all day until the cows come home, but it only becomes a problem when you say "okay, the player made a big choice in the previous game... now how in the heck are we going to tell the story we want to with that in the way?" 

The Save Imports weaken both the choices that can be offered (to avoid "painting themselves in a corner" like you said about the Dark Ritual) as well as how those choices are followed up on. If giving a player the choice to do something is a bad idea because it would be hard to accomodate in future games (again, using the Dark Ritual as you pointed out), then guess what? They will just stop giving players choices at all. Sure, you can decide little things like how your companions interact with your character, or who you sleep with, or what gender you are. But in terms of directing the story? Making choices that may actually affect the world outside of your little group of companion NPCs? Forget it. Its too much of a headache. 

This is not me saying this, it is Bioware. The structure of their games has become increasingly more linear with every release since they first began using the Save Import. Every game has had more railroaded choices, more linear "because though must" moments, but less choices about our actions and less consequences that were elaborated and shown to have truly unique outcomes. 

I'll leave off with a quote from Brent Knowles, Lead Designer for DA:O. Someone I really respect in terms of understanding the player's perspective when making a game. Mostly because the endings of Bioware games since the Save Import has been introduced have been... questionable, at best.

 "Reward the player's choices throughout the series. The big stuff they did should be noted. They should *feel* like they had a unique impact on the world." ~Brent Knowles on video game endings.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 mai 2013 - 03:43 .