637 réponses à ce sujet

[Maclimes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If you give me a dozen choices, that's 24 different ways (if not more, this is assuming every choce is "Yes/No", "Black/White") that things could play out. A dozen isn't that many... I'd say you get that before Orzammar is done in DA:O. 

Bad math. Combination choices are exponential, not multiplicative.

Assuming a dozen binary choices (live/die, yes/no, mira/hanharr), you don't caluclate the total number of possible combinations as 2 x 12. You would instead use 2 raised to the 12th power.

So the total number is not 24 possible worlds, it's 4096 possible worlds.

I admit, though, that's not exactly an accurate way to describe the situation, since the worlds themselves can be broken up, reducing greatly the number of "events" that would need to be created. But it is, technically speaking, the mathematically correct answer.

*******

For example, assume there are three choices:
Alistair or Loghain (A/L)
Templar or Mage (T/M)
Bhelen or Harrowmont (B/H)

Your possible combinations are:
ATB, ATH, AMB, AMH, LTB, LTH, LMB, LMH

That's not 6 possible worlds (2x3), that's 8 possible worlds (2^3).

TYL

[mat21]

I don't trust anything they say implicitly, but its just a simple matter of consistency. What does it benefit Brent Knowles, someone not tied to Bioware at all anymore, to lie about something to make his old employer look good, especially when he has no problem painting them in a negative light about other things? What does it benefit Stan? Or Drew? Why keep that facade up?

And "trust" isn't what keeps the teams at Bioware from making the save import feature beneficial to their games. Its a fundamental design flaw. Choices make the world different. Whether that world is a different Warden Origin, a different monarch on the throne, a clan being alive or wiped out, a companion being romanced or not... these are all different worlds. The import feature creates those different worlds in gamers minds, but Bioware cannot, physically, create a game to match all of the worlds they have given the chance to create.

If you give me a dozen choices, that's 24 different ways (if not more, this is assuming every choce is "Yes/No", "Black/White") that things could play out. A dozen isn't that many... I'd say you get that before Orzammar is done in DA:O. 

For many choices, you can just ignore them. If I fed the prisoner at Ostagar, or stabbed him for his treasure, or left him alone in the cage... that's not going to play out into the story at large. But choices that DO affect the world or DO affect characters we are likely to see later in the series... the import flags can never live up to them. They can never have a world with an Anvil and one with not (I didn't get a chance to rebut your suggestion earlier about how "Caridin's work couldn't be replicated" but we know that's not true... we get an army of golems to fight against the Archdemon.") without making it seem like the choice, either way, didn't matter. You can't have a world with the Urn preserved and defiled without making it seem like the choice didn't matter. You can't have a world where the Hawke was female and in a relationship with Fenris or male and in a relationship with Anders (well, you TOTALLY could, but I'm throwing you an LI bone here, since that's your particular piece of pie). 

I trust the Bioware team to make good games. But I don't want them making their games today, in 2012, thinking about how they can't do this or that in the story, because it might be then hard to make a game in 2015... a game which may or may not even happen. That's stupid. I also would like Bioware to be able to use these great story ideas that had built back in 2008 and not worry about what choices players made back in 2008 and tie their hands in 2012.

Trust isn't the issue. Recognizing a broken design choice is.

Very good post sumurises my opinions on the matter almost exactly. Although the maths is wrong as you have 2^12 different outcomes from 12 yes no decisions this disn't affect the core of the argument

Also Draken Heart I don't quite understand what your saying something about imports effecting replayability could you perhaps clarify

Modifié par mat21, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:22 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AllThatJazz wrote...

*Warning some character spoilers for Mass Effect below*



Not necessarily true. Garrus and Tali could still be full-fledged companions (even with romance content) in ME3 even though they could be dead in ME2. Wrex, Legion and Mordin were all certainly more than cameos, and it's possible for the player to have killed Wrex off back in ME1. Jack, Miranda, Samara and Grunt weren't given major roles, this is true, but all had involvement in significantly sized sidequests. Thane had little more than a cameo, but we were given fair warning that this would be the case back in ME2 with the whole 'I'm dying' thing and his appearance was meaningful. The only appearances that, in my view, can legitimately be called 'one small cameo' were Zaeed and Kasumi (because they were dlc, presumably therefore lots of players would never have met them at all) and Jacob, who was arguably the least popular crewmember in the entire trilogy. And even those three were involved in quests.

If the devs are aware (and I'm pretty sure they are) of who the most popular characters are, they will, I'm sure, give them whatever role they want in the story - and if that character happens to be dead in a given playthrough, they will either be replaced in a main questline by Biff the Understudy/Urdnot Wreav/Padoc Wilks etc or simply won't be replaced at all (as with Garrus/Tali etc). If the character wasn't terribly popular then yeah, they might be relegated to a cameo, and while there might be a bit of fuss, not that many people should be overly bothered (as long as they don't pull an Emily Wong or Kal Reegar, I guess ). Not every decision has to be recognised in an amazingly meaningful way (the devs can pick and choose); and since DA isn't a trilogy but (potentially) a series, not everything has to be wrapped up in DA3.

Given that this has been done before, why is it now such an outrageous waste of resources to do it again? 


I don't really get the argument that money should not be spent on a particular feature just because it is content that x number of players will never see (Edit: Unless we're talking about some ridiculous ratio like 99% to 1% or something ). It's an argument that could be used to cut almost any feature. Metrics for games suggest that an awful lot of players never even finish games. Admittedly this is an extreme extension of the argument , but should games be produced without an ending because lots of people won't experience it?  If it's the case that most gamers play caucasian male warriors who hack/slash their way through the story, then what is the point of character customisation, different classes, alternative ways of solving quests? All this development money could be spent on more elaborate sword animations and bigger combat levels.

One of the most lauded 'OMG isn't this awesome???!!!11' features of The Witcher 2 was it's second act, totally different dependent on which decision you make in Act one. I have only experienced the Iorveth path; and this is likely to remain so since I've now moved on to other games. Had only one path been present, more zots could have been allocated to my game experience, which therefore would probably have been longer .. or at least had more wimmins in it for Geralt to shag or whatever.  Seems a bit mean-spirited for me to proclaim that the featureis a waste of money that shouldn't exist simply because I (and presumably many others who played TW2 once) never experienced.

The ME examples you gave are valid, but they have huge caveats.

For instance, Wrex could be dead in ME2 or ME3. As could Mordin or any other ME2 companion (other than Tali or Garrus, who I'll get to in a second). Problem is, if they were dead, they didn't write a world where these characters didn't exist... they just put an order in at the cloning factory and had a new NPC introduced that was exactly the same (but not as good, themeatically). Wrex became Wreav. Mordin became Wilks. Legion became the Geth VI. Jack became Ensign Prangley. Grunt became some other Krogan. 

These replacements aren't as satisfying as the former companions, but they accomplish the exact same things narratively as the dead companions. So there is no difference to the story aside from a few pieces of dialogue being different.

In the case of Garrus and Tali (and Miranda, too, to some degree), they had plot armor that was built into ME2's game design. They were one of the last possible people to die in the suicide mission. It would have been actively hard to have either of them die and still have enough companions for Shepherd not to die (and result in a Critical Fail ending). 

If you didn't upgrade the Normandy's shields, an explosion can happen that kills a companion... Tali and Garrus are not on this list. If you don't upgrade the Thanix cannon, it can result in damage that kills a companion... Tali and Garrus are not on this list. Tali and Garrus do not have biotics, so they cannot die from the section where a biotic companion is providing protection. If you put someone wrong as the leader of the other team, Tali and Garrus are the lowest on the list of possible "Random" deaths.

So bringing them back in ME3 in full companion/LI capacity made sense... because you would have to actually plan INCREDIBLY HARD to have either of them die in ME2 and NOT result in Shepherd dying. And I'm not sure of the actual numbers (anymore, I did once) but I think it is, in fact, impossible to have them both dead and still survive the mission.


They stacked the deck to keep them alive. So OF COURSE they can bring them back... less than 5% of players even have either of them killed. So they are generating content that the vast majority of fans will see and the vast majority of fans demanded. 


This isn't like Anders, who roughly half the people killed and half the people didn't. It seems very likely that I will have no chance of seeing Anders in my game, ever (I murder knifed him in both of my playthroughs, mage and Templar both). Bioware can't justify having his character being anything of note or value at all, since there is not a really good reason he would be working for the Inquisition (as opposed to Tali and Garrus, who have EVERY reason to stay with Shepherd). 

Mass Effect is, as depressing as this is to say, Bioware's best chance at making import choices matter in truly significant ways and ME3 was their best shot at doing it right. It followed one character, so returning companions made sense in the story. It was one large story arc, with clearly defined problems and bad guys right from the start. And they had announced that ME3 would be the end of the Shepherd story, so they weren't afraid of doing custom content and really making choices feel like they mattered.

But they didn't. No choice that was touted as being controversial or difficult to make was brought back, aside from romances/companions. Rachni Queen? Big choice - same outcome. Geth Rewrtie? Big choice - same outcome. Genophage Cure? Big choice- same outcome. Save the Council? Big choice - same outcome. The Collector Base? Big choice - same outcome. Anderson or Udina? Big choice - same outcome. Pledge to help Cereberus or tell them to f*ck off? Big choice - same outcome. Sell Legion for cash, or eject Grunt out of an airlock? Big choices - same outcomes. Your backgrounds from ME1? Medium choices... but still, same outcome.

They spent all the time making small choices, like if you had Kelly Chambers in your cabin to dance in a skin tight leotard in ME2, play out in some cameo fashion, but they set the game to the exact same story no matter what you did in any of the above scenarios. And I'm sure I'm missing more than a few in that list. 

Bioware seems to be able to do personal details just fine (who you were sleeping with, primarily). But when it comes to bigger decisions, decisions that define the franchise as being the ones you had to struggle and ponder and weigh out the greater good... those decision are done well in the games they are presented, and then TERRIBLE in future games. Because they can't write content for that big of a choice, that deep of a rabbit hole, without creating entirely different games. Which is not what they should do.



They should set a canon for these big choices. And they should tell these stories to the best of their ability. ME3 did that anyway, really. You might as well have said that the Collector Base was preserved, because Cereberus goes full on Indoctrinated in ME3 anyway. You might as well say you didn't do the Geth Rewrite, because the Geth are going to side with the Reapers anyway. You might as well say the genophage cure was saved, because its going to be complete to bargain with the Krogan anyway. You might as well say the Council was killed, because a new Council replaces everyone anyway. You might as well say Udina is the first human ambassador, because he takes that job over anyway.

Bioware is already setting canon left and right. They are just using flimsy work arounds to say they aren't. I'd rather they put a choice in DA3 that could change the face of Thedas forever, have ramifications for every being on the face of the planet (not in a Red/Green/Blue, ME3 endings fashion, but a BIG decision, nonetheless) and not worry about how they can make different outcomes converge in DA4. That shouldn't be their concern - their should be DA3, the game they are making now. It should be making the best product, the best game, the best story and the best moments that a player will never forget because it caused them to evaluate who their character was a human being and who the player is as an individual. And SCREW DA4. Consequences be d@mn3d. 

With the ability to ignore all previous choices (excpet to throw the romance/LI bone, because... sure, why not. It has no value but it has no real cost, either) and pick up on the story where they want it to start... not having to deal with different game states and what can or can't happen because some players didn't have it.

Bollocks to that. Give me choices, or give me death! (Well, they can't give me death, because that would be hard to import into DA4).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:36 .

[AllThatJazz]

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

[Fast Jimmy]

Maclimes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If you give me a dozen choices, that's 24 different ways (if not more, this is assuming every choce is "Yes/No", "Black/White") that things could play out. A dozen isn't that many... I'd say you get that before Orzammar is done in DA:O. 

Bad math. Combination choices are exponential, not multiplicative.

Assuming a dozen binary choices (live/die, yes/no, mira/hanharr), you don't caluclate the total number of possible combinations as 2 x 12. You would instead use 2 raised to the 12th power.

So the total number is not 24 possible worlds, it's 4096 possible worlds.

I admit, though, that's not exactly an accurate way to describe the situation, since the worlds themselves can be broken up, reducing greatly the number of "events" that would need to be created. But it is, technically speaking, the mathematically correct answer.

*******

For example, assume there are three choices:
Alistair or Loghain (A/L)
Templar or Mage (T/M)
Bhelen or Harrowmont (B/H)

Your possible combinations are:
ATB, ATH, AMB, AMH, LTB, LTH, LMB, LMH

That's not 6 possible worlds (2x3), that's 8 possible worlds (2^3).

TYL

The average American doesn't have above a 7th grade reading level and a 4th grade math comprehension. I decided to just stick with my multiplication tables for the sake of simplicity.

[Maclimes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The average American doesn't have above a 7th grade reading level and a 4th grade math comprehension. I decided to just stick with my multiplication tables for the sake of simplicity.

As an American, I would be upset if it wasn't true.

Also, relevant to the topic at hand, multiplication is actually probably a more accurate way to describe the situation. They don't have to make 4096 different worlds, obviously. While some choices affect each other, most of the choices are fairly self-contained. They just need to make the cameos/quests seperately, and combine them in ways to create those thousands of worlds.

In reality, the multiplication way is probably more accurate from the design standpoint.

[Fast Jimmy]

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Should Bioware put up a poll on the BSN saying "we're only going to keep five things about past DA games - including who is dead, who is romanced, what your background was, if your Warden is alive or not, if you did big chocies like the Dark Ritual or not - and you all vote to see which five are kept. These five will be given TONS of treatment to make it seem like they matter, the rest we will set canon for."

There would be PANDEMONIUM. LI'ers b!tching that their favorite romance wasn't being made canon, or wasn't being considered one of the sacred cows that the import flag is going to cover. Pro-mage fans will be outraged if they were forced to have Hawke or the Warden do anything Templar/Chantry sponsored, and vice versa. People who hate Morrigan would be ticked that the Dark Ritual was complete, people who really loved the idea of the OGB would be ticked that such a cool story isn't going to be carried over. People who have fetishes for killing certain characters like Anders and Leliana would be irate, saying "Bioware is playing favorites with their own characters!"

It becomes a slippery, nasty, messy slope. Who gets to be the Golden Children of Bioware who get their choices respected and who gets thrown into the mud with the Canon Crackdown?

A canon, across the board, is the most fair way of handling these things. Again, except for trite romance references, which Bioware can write and create in a weekend, with the amount of depth they would need.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

*Warning some character spoilers for Mass Effect below*



Not necessarily true. Garrus and Tali could still be full-fledged companions (even with romance content) in ME3 even though they could be dead in ME2. Wrex, Legion and Mordin were all certainly more than cameos, and it's possible for the player to have killed Wrex off back in ME1. Jack, Miranda, Samara and Grunt weren't given major roles, this is true, but all had involvement in significantly sized sidequests. Thane had little more than a cameo, but we were given fair warning that this would be the case back in ME2 with the whole 'I'm dying' thing and his appearance was meaningful. The only appearances that, in my view, can legitimately be called 'one small cameo' were Zaeed and Kasumi (because they were dlc, presumably therefore lots of players would never have met them at all) and Jacob, who was arguably the least popular crewmember in the entire trilogy. And even those three were involved in quests.

If the devs are aware (and I'm pretty sure they are) of who the most popular characters are, they will, I'm sure, give them whatever role they want in the story - and if that character happens to be dead in a given playthrough, they will either be replaced in a main questline by Biff the Understudy/Urdnot Wreav/Padoc Wilks etc or simply won't be replaced at all (as with Garrus/Tali etc). If the character wasn't terribly popular then yeah, they might be relegated to a cameo, and while there might be a bit of fuss, not that many people should be overly bothered (as long as they don't pull an Emily Wong or Kal Reegar, I guess ). Not every decision has to be recognised in an amazingly meaningful way (the devs can pick and choose); and since DA isn't a trilogy but (potentially) a series, not everything has to be wrapped up in DA3.

Given that this has been done before, why is it now such an outrageous waste of resources to do it again? 


I don't really get the argument that money should not be spent on a particular feature just because it is content that x number of players will never see (Edit: Unless we're talking about some ridiculous ratio like 99% to 1% or something ). It's an argument that could be used to cut almost any feature. Metrics for games suggest that an awful lot of players never even finish games. Admittedly this is an extreme extension of the argument , but should games be produced without an ending because lots of people won't experience it?  If it's the case that most gamers play caucasian male warriors who hack/slash their way through the story, then what is the point of character customisation, different classes, alternative ways of solving quests? All this development money could be spent on more elaborate sword animations and bigger combat levels.

One of the most lauded 'OMG isn't this awesome???!!!11' features of The Witcher 2 was it's second act, totally different dependent on which decision you make in Act one. I have only experienced the Iorveth path; and this is likely to remain so since I've now moved on to other games. Had only one path been present, more zots could have been allocated to my game experience, which therefore would probably have been longer .. or at least had more wimmins in it for Geralt to shag or whatever.  Seems a bit mean-spirited for me to proclaim that the featureis a waste of money that shouldn't exist simply because I (and presumably many others who played TW2 once) never experienced.

-snips-

I am not even going to bother reading all that, but the reason you choices did not have a huge impact was not from the import int ME3, but the fact that every choice made was reduced to a number by BIOWARE'S DESIGN.

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:58 .

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Snip

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

[milena87]

draken-heart wrote...

I am not even going to bother reading all that, but the reason you choices did not have a huge impact was not from the import int ME3, but the fact that every choice made was reduced to a number by BIOWARE'S DESIGN.

A pity, cause Fast Jimmy's post was great.

Anyway, of course it was Bioware's decision to render all the big choices meaningless in ME3. It's still a feature handed poorly in my opinion.

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Snip

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

Without a doubt. But that doesn't diminish fan backlash any less. 

If Bioware is picking and choosing which decisions get to have multiple outcomes respected and which decisions have a canon set, then its going to turn into a lot of yelling and name calling more quickly than not. Again, I don't mind Bioware setting canon, and I don't care what chocies they pick... but if they want to avoid a pure, all-out war amongst the fanbase with both Bioware and itself, then they need to apply this standard fairly - as in, across the board.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

milena87 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I am not even going to bother reading all that, but the reason you choices did not have a huge impact was not from the import int ME3, but the fact that every choice made was reduced to a number by BIOWARE'S DESIGN.

A pity, cause Fast Jimmy's post was great.

Its okay, I can tell from posts that draken-heart isn't reading all of what I'm writing, but I'm not really having this argument with him. I'm having an argument with anyone who is listening. And I'm making my points to them just as effectively as someone who is responding by not reading a word I say.

A scene from the fantastic movie "Thank You For Smoking" which has some of the best life lessons about how people and the world work.

[Nick Naylor and his son arguing about ice cream]

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?

Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.

Joey: But you can't always be right.

Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.

Joey: But what if you are wrong?

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …?

Joey: "No, chocolate is."

Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.

Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.

Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.

Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:05 .

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Snip

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

Without a doubt. But that doesn't diminish fan backlash any less. 

If Bioware is picking and choosing which decisions get to have multipel outcomes respected and which decisions have a canon set, then its going to turn into a lot of yelling and name calling more quickly than not. Again, I don't mind Bioware setting canon, and I don't care what chocies they pick... but if they want to avoid a pure, all-out war amongst the fanbase with both Bioware and itself, then they need to apply this standard fairly - as in, across the board.

I think the only Decisions that are worth importing from Origins into DA3 are the Ruler of Ferelden and the Ashes, and the only one from DA2 that would mean anything is whether or not Hawke was Viscount.

Dwarves: too busy fighting the Darkspawn for the old thaigs, no need to bother them about a war on the surface.
Circle: They all Rebelled so this is not needed
Dalish: They can leave if the war gets to close to them
Connor: Do we really need to know this
Loghain: Leave this up to Bioware, or tie it in to the ruler of Ferelden
Most Choices in DA2: Most companions (except LI, if any) leave hawke, and it is not like there are any other ones important enough to import.
Izzy+Arishok: Hawke kills the Arishok and Izzy leaves after act 3, simple.

Any thoughts?

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:06 .

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware is already setting canon left and right. They are just using flimsy work arounds to say they aren't. I'd rather they put a choice in DA3 that could change the face of Thedas forever, have ramifications for every being on the face of the planet (not in a Red/Green/Blue, ME3 endings fashion, but a BIG decision, nonetheless) and not worry about how they can make different outcomes converge in DA4. That shouldn't be their concern - their should be DA3, the game they are making now. It should be making the best product, the best game, the best story and the best moments that a player will never forget because it caused them to evaluate who their character was a human being and who the player is as an individual. And SCREW DA4. Consequences be d@mn3d. 

With the ability to ignore all previous choices (excpet to throw the romance/LI bone, because... sure, why not. It has no value but it has no real cost, either) and pick up on the story where they want it to start... not having to deal with different game states and what can or can't happen because some players didn't have it.

Bollocks to that. Give me choices, or give me death! (Well, they can't give me death, because that would be hard to import into DA4).

Very much this.  I don't think imports to DA3 are necessarily too much of a bad thing, but writing DA3 to avoid causing problems for DA4 certainly would be.

[AllThatJazz]

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Snip

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

This. And we, the players, have to learn to accommodate some of Bioware's choices even as they try to accommodate *some* of ours.  Players learn to manage expectations (seriously, half the time we are why we can't have nice things >.<), Bioware learns better planning and accepts their own limits across a series (w is flavour and can be written in a weekend, x decision is weightier but can be accommodated across games in a way that won't convolute events, y must be dealt with within the scope of one game and has little to no significance outside of that game, z is automatically canon and therefore not a choice the player makes because it is not something we can deal with the ramifications of)
 

It's a learning process for all concerned, and I am aware of the pitfalls in Bioware's current approach (and actually struggle not to agree with you much of the time, Jimmy ). But I believe there is a middle ground to be found, one that's worth pursuing rather than abandoning the whole idea.

Also, @Draken-heart. FastJimmy's posts are well written and really well argued. It's a shame not to read them, and if you're going to make a counter-argument, isn't it only fair to read the argument you're countering?

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:15 .

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

Without a doubt. But that doesn't diminish fan backlash any less. 

If Bioware is picking and choosing which decisions get to have multiple outcomes respected and which decisions have a canon set, then its going to turn into a lot of yelling and name calling more quickly than not. Again, I don't mind Bioware setting canon, and I don't care what chocies they pick... but if they want to avoid a pure, all-out war amongst the fanbase with both Bioware and itself, then they need to apply this standard fairly - as in, across the board.

I don't think it is a case of which decisions have a canon set. It is a case of which decisions get referenced to create the illusion of a personal universe. The game itself doesn't have to cannibalise every previous story to fuel its narrative. It can stand on its own feet. Some people may howl if Loghain doesn't appear in DA3. That doesn't mean they'll have created a canon that he is dead.

[wright1978]

Wulfram wrote...

Very much this.  I don't think imports to DA3 are necessarily too much of a bad thing, but writing DA3 to avoid causing problems for DA4 certainly would be.

Why does DA4 if it happens have to be set straight after DA3? It could be set much earlier or much later.

[draken-heart]

AllThatJazz wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

It's a matter of expectation, surely. If I prioritise 'my decisions' as being important almost to the exclusion of everything else - story, gameplay, characters - then sure, we could end up in a situation where devs are paralysed by overwhelming variables. But realism can prevail here, surely - isn't there a middle ground, where there is enough canon to tell a good story, but enough illusion of consequence offered to give my game a different flavour to yours?

Where does the middle ground lie? Who decides that?

Snip

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

This. And we, the players, have to learn to accommodate some of Bioware's choices even as they try to accommodate *some* of ours.  Players learn to manage expectations (seriously, half the time we are why we can't have nice things >.<), Bioware learns better planning and accepts their own limits across a series (w is flavour and can be written in a weekend, x decision is weightier but can be accommodated across games in a way that won't convolute events, y must be dealt with within the scope of one game and has little to no significance outside of that game, z is automatically canon and therefore not a choice the player makes because it is not something we can deal with the ramifications of)
 

It's a learning process for all concerned, and I am aware of the pitfalls in Bioware's current approach (and actually struggle not to agree with you much of the time, Jimmy ). But I believe there is a middle ground to be found, one that's worth pursuing rather than abandoning the whole idea.

Also, @Draken-heart. FastJimmy's posts are well written and really well argued. It's a shame not to read them, and if you're going to make a counter-argument, isn't it only fair to read the argument you're countering?

It might have been, but I stated that it was all because of the war assets thing  and that point is solid, non of your choices mattered because it all ended up being a number to determine the ending, no profound impact on the galaxy in-game, only after, which you never experience. so why bother saying this or that is canon when it wont matter till the end anyways?

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Wulfram]

wright1978 wrote...

Why does DA4 if it happens have to be set straight after DA3? It could be set much earlier or much later.

I'm not sure what your point is.

All I'm saying is that DA3 shouldn't be written to be easy to import into DA4.

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Bioware as the storytellers decides the middle ground by what they think will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of preserving the illusion of a personal player universe.

Without a doubt. But that doesn't diminish fan backlash any less. 

If Bioware is picking and choosing which decisions get to have multiple outcomes respected and which decisions have a canon set, then its going to turn into a lot of yelling and name calling more quickly than not. Again, I don't mind Bioware setting canon, and I don't care what chocies they pick... but if they want to avoid a pure, all-out war amongst the fanbase with both Bioware and itself, then they need to apply this standard fairly - as in, across the board.

I don't think it is a case of which decisions have a canon set. It is a case of which decisions get referenced to create the illusion of a personal universe. The game itself doesn't have to cannibalise every previous story to fuel its narrative. It can stand on its own feet. Some people may howl if Loghain doesn't appear in DA3. That doesn't mean they'll have created a canon that he is dead.

Having Loghain not show up again, ever, is setting a canon that he has no impact on the history of the Dragon Age franchise. Which is fine. But if David or Mary or Luke have an idea for a really cool way to bring Loghain back that plays into either the main story or a side story, but they can't justify the resources required to actually create the content because hardly anyone will actually see it because they don't have the correct import flag settings, then that is a problem.

Don't you want a cool story? Don't you want characters to show up that you've dealt with before, that you may love or hate, that are infinitely better than some no-name NPC? 

I'm not going to sit here and say I want to see Loghain in a future DA game. He was interesting as an antagonist but he'd be nearing his 60's but the time DA3 happens and, unlike Wynne, wielding a sword and shield and wearing plate mail isn't practical for his age.

But if the writers say "this would be an awesome story" and the budget team says "sorry bro, you can't make a story that involved for the small number of people who would actually see it" then that is a huge drawback.

I'm not saying every choice needs follow up. And I'm not saying that even big choices, like the Anvil, neccessarily have to come back and play a big role in every future game (the Anvil not coming up in DA2 was fine, because it made sense for it not to). But for the writers, who have a hard enough job not just writing stories, but writing video game stories that have to accomodate multiple play styles, personalities and demonstrate choices, should not have their good ideas shot down because only 1 out of 10 people would be able to see it. But until Bioware gets a blank check to create as much content as they want in however long of a development time frame they want, this is going to happen.

Unless they can set a canon, across the board. Then any good story is viable, you just have to set the canon. If two writers have ideas that conflict with the canon, you can have them duke it out to see which is the best story, not what the percentage of players who chose one choice vs. another has to say about it. 

And, most of all, the writers wouldn't need to worry about offering too volatile of a choice. We'll be hard pressed to see something like ME2's suicide mission again, because it could result in companions deaths left and right. But making those decisions, showing that your preparation paid off (or didn't), understanding what your companions did best and assigning them accordingly... it was a lot of fun. And something I'd love see expanded on it the future.

But the only way things like this can be used is if there is a consequence to choosing poorly, or not preparing. And if death is off the table (either of companions or of non-companion NPCs, because who knows? They may be companions or important for DA4... or 5... or 16...), then there isn't much that can really be done. When you start saying "just don't make decisions that can affect any other game" you are, essentially, saying "only give us weak, superficial choices."

And that, to me, is a deal breaker.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .

[wright1978]

Wulfram wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Why does DA4 if it happens have to be set straight after DA3? It could be set much earlier or much later.

I'm not sure what your point is.

All I'm saying is that DA3 shouldn't be written to be easy to import into DA4.

Setting well beforehand negates any need to import.
Setting far enough in the future allows them to have events of past slip into myth and legend. Therefore it is much easier to have vague import references as there won't be all the living characters who've been involved in the previous 3 games.

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Why does DA4 if it happens have to be set straight after DA3? It could be set much earlier or much later.

I'm not sure what your point is.

All I'm saying is that DA3 shouldn't be written to be easy to import into DA4.

Setting well beforehand negates any need to import.
Setting far enough in the future allows them to have events of past slip into myth and legend. Therefore it is much easier to have vague import references as there won't be all the living characters who've been involved in the previous 3 games.

They could also do "its all a dream" and "and aliens arrived from space and destoryed everything." 

Since we apparently are throwing out concepts that are the weakest ways in history  to deal with a narrative.

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Setting well beforehand negates any need to import.
Setting far enough in the future allows them to have events of past slip into myth and legend. Therefore it is much easier to have vague import references as there won't be all the living characters who've been involved in the previous 3 games.

They could also do "its all a dream" and "and aliens arrived from space and destoryed everything." 

Since we apparently are throwing out concepts that are the weakest ways in history  to deal with a narrative.

Why is moving the time period you set a future game in a weak way in which to tell stories within the universe.
Why does every game have to be set a couple of years after the previous one?
There's huge amounts of history in Dragon Age universe that could be fun to play in.
Equally the freedom to see the world  afresh several hundred years further forward could be fascinating to discover.

[Wulfram]

wright1978 wrote...

Setting well beforehand negates any need to import.
Setting far enough in the future allows them to have events of past slip into myth and legend. Therefore it is much easier to have vague import references as there won't be all the living characters who've been involved in the previous 3 games.

They could do that if they wanted to.  If they wanted to change the setting in a major way, then setting it in the far future would be a sensible way to do it.

But it would be a great shame if they were forced to set a game far into the future or back in the past just to avoid setting a canon.

Modifié par Wulfram, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:58 .