12 réponses à ce sujet

[Burnouts3s3]

 

I feel this point needs to be made: if there was an option to kill off a character or a companion, I feel it is best that said companion 'stay' dead and not be written back.

While I understand that the rules of life and death are a bit hazy in Dragon Age and allow for such things as demon possesion or corpse revivial, I think such revivials, such as Leliana's in DA2, seem to undermine and undercut the player's decision. I would point to Mass Effect for a better handling of this: dead characters were replaced by similar model stand-ins while alive characters were 'not' put into situations where they did die.

'Tis a simple suggestion.

[David Gaider]

I feel this point needs to be made: if there was an option to kill off a character or a companion, I feel it is best that said companion 'stay' dead and not be written back.

The point has been made-- numerous times. I understand there are some folks who fret a great deal when something they've done (such as killing a character) results in the decision being hand-waved... no matter how it's explained (or is yet to be explained). Understanding that, it is still going to happen from time to time when we deem it necessary.

[David Gaider]

JWvonGoethe wrote...
Can we take that as confirmation that a living Leliana in DA2 is, or will be shown to be, entirely consistent with an apparently dead Leliana in DA2?

Absolutely. Her being alive in DA2 even if she was killed in DAO was consistent, if largely unexplained, and the variable will remain present going into DA3. The explanation, once it's offered, doesn't negate the fact that some people are not getting the result they want (ie. Leliana is not there at all), but the choice will be recognized nevertheless and will have reactivity.

As we've said before, some choices carry forward between games and have big effects. Some will have small effects, such as simply being referred to. We will rarely just ignore them entirely unless we have no other choice (or if it's irrelevant in the current context). I resist the exaggeration that not having big reactivity for every choice is the same as having no reactivity for anything. I get that some people seem to think the entire purpose of putting a choice into a game is that so it can carry into the sequel, and that every choice should thus create complete divergence... but that's not really possible (and thus why the vast majority of games simply don't do it).

With regards to how we intend to do the import feature to avoid the GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) bugginess, that's something we'll talk about in the months to come.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 octobre 2012 - 05:37 .

[David Gaider]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Oh, come on. How many people killed Leliana? This isn't like Loghain's walking around trying to usurp Alistair even in games where Alistair beheaded Loghain in front of everyone. In fact of all the countless Origins runs I've done she died once with me. My first time... I never walked into that damn tavern and didn't recruit her.

There is a bit of exaggeration going on here-- everyone not only killed Leliana in their playthrough, when they killed her they lopped off her head (a part of combat VFX, but evidently this should also be recognized). Failing to recognize this as they expect is the same as not having any reactivity to anything. The point being, I imagine, is that they think that unless you have significant reactivity to everything you shouldn't have any reactivity to anything. I get it, but I thus also don't take offense at it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Nobody complains that a specific character can't be killed.

We read different forums!

[David Gaider]

andocrack wrote...
DG says the decision to kill them isn't gone, but they are alive despite that choice.

This is indeed the case. If this is inconsistent with someone's expectations of what they believe that decision should result in, than so be it. I imagine that will happen, depending on where your personal expectations lie. If someone prefers to believe a character like Leliana is only alive because I'm personally "obsessed" with them... well, again. So be it. There is only so much room for us to maneuver-- we cannot make a customized story completely to order like a drive-thru burger joint could make a burger. We shall honor choices as best we can, to varying degrees of importance to the overall narrative. And I shall leave it at that.

[Allan Schumacher]

As a third party observant:

Going around telling the writers (or really anyone) that they're obsessed about a character or anything like that (and then concluding that this is why we make the decisions that we do) is probably not going to be a very productive way of presenting your post.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 octobre 2012 - 11:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Mr. Gaider has stated Alistair is his favorite character, maybe thats why he's in the comic as the King?

The character's mentioned here are one's that exist in the comics & books and also character's that were first introduced in the Game. In the game their stories had various outcomes, which is why some people are upset that those outcomes are being presented as different from their game. What you have done is created an offical cannon as seen on Darkhorse.com's description of the dragon age comics. So yes, you guys do have favorites and make desicions accordingly.

Is that conclusion wrong? or should we change the word obsessed to *favorited*. seeing as how i do not want be counter-productive.

Obsession is most definitely not the correct word. It has a very different meaning than "favourite." While no doubt {b]I need to make sure I don't take things too personally[/b], it just comes across as a more aggressive word since obsession usually has unhealthy connotations associated with it, and you were not the only person using the term in this thread either.

[Allan Schumacher]

Any links to the Wong event? I didn't know the details.

[Allan Schumacher]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Any links to the Wong event? I didn't know the details.

Scroll down to March 5.

Wait...  What the heck was the reaction to this as it happened?!

[Allan Schumacher]

Most people were disapointed that a fan favorite was killed of on twitte

So they didn't enjoy reading it and actively refresh it to see what was going to happen next?

[Allan Schumacher]

Would you expect that people would be more or less interested in the updates if it was Diana Allers reporting (or anyone else)?

[David Gaider]

Rawgrim wrote...
Anders is actually in Kirkwall at the same time when he is in Amaranthine too. So Hawke meets him before he dies at Vigil`s Keep...go figure.

I've seen this supposition before, and I'm uncertain how someone arrives at it. With a year's jump after Hawke arrives at Kirkwall, how is that the same time period of Awakening, exactly?

Modifié par David Gaider, 19 octobre 2012 - 03:16 .