637 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

The writers have the freedom to do so, if they choose. I'd just hate for the reason they do that is to avoid plot choice import impacts. And not because they can tell a better story with brand new characters, settings and cultures in hundreds of years in the past or future. 

Also, it would cease to be the Dragon Age. For whatever that's worth.

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

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.

The writers have the freedom to do so, if they choose. I'd just hate for the reason they do that is to avoid plot choice import impacts. And not because they can tell a better story with brand new characters, settings and cultures in hundreds of years in the past or future. 

Also, it would cease to be the Dragon Age. For whatever that's worth.

Dragon age is the world just mass effect is the universe. It won't stop being the dragon age fantasy world if it is set within a different period in history

By your own reasoning i'd hate for them to have to create all your choices were a dream or a schismed parrallel universe in order to facilitate telling a story which takes place just after DA3. I'd much prefer time to pass before the next huge epic event in Thedas or to go back and play a part in one of the previous epic events beforehand.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

I heavily disagree for the simple fact that this would require an official canon or a complete ignorance of the prior two games.

I'm not to keen on the idea of official canon either. It would mean that there would be a canon Warden (probably Human noble male) and a canon Hawke, neither of which I'm comfortable with. It already soured my enjoyment of KOTOR when Revan and the Exile were given official genders and appearances and when the Light Side endings in 1&2 were both made official.

For this reason, among others, the removal of the save import feature is something I DO NOT WANT!!

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:23 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

X-Com_Psi_Amp wrote...

I believe one of the reasons why DAO was good, is because it was initially meant to be a stand alone, and the story is unshackled. 

As a result there are more options given to the players, because it does not have to worry about presevering narrative continuity with previous and  future games.

I believe DA3 should be more like DAO when it comes to decisions.

I would rather have the decisions made DURING DA3 have a more pronounced effect, rather than decisions made during previous games have a trivial effecs and cute cameos.

Now, some are probably wondering? Can't we have pronounced repurcussions of our choices for both past and present decision?

No, we can not. This because games have strict development cycles and they need to meet release dates.

So, I'm asking you to abandon importing saves. You are just wasting precious resources. I'm asking to make a choice and adopt DA3 as a stand alone game mindset.

Dragon Age was never meant to be a trilogy like Mass Effect, please don't bother. It does not have Shepard to die several diffent games together.

Marketing might force you to shoehorn to attract more potential buyers, but let them know there are people like me who realize that it will only make the game worse.

Please, do the right thing.

"Now, some are probably wondering?"

What I'm wondering is why yet another thread devoted to exactly the same gripe got started. Nobody is going to force you to use your save files in DA 3. Remember how you could start a game from scratch in DA 2? It's very likely a similar feature will be available in Inquisition.

[draken-heart]

Don't you want a perfect story with entirely new NPC's and where the old ones have little to no reason to show up and thus never do? at this point it would be better that having to deal with Alistair's jokes or evenAnders again.

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Dragon age is the world just mass effect is the universe. It won't stop being the dragon age fantasy world if it is set within a different period in history

I don't inherently disagree with you. It would feel a little silly if the Dragon Age ended in Thedas and they renamed it and the IP something else, but its all whatever anyway.

By your own reasoning i'd hate for them to have to create all your choices were a dream or a schismed parrallel universe in order to facilitate telling a story which takes place just after DA3. I'd much prefer time to pass before the next huge epic event in Thedas or to go back and play a part in one of the previous epic events beforehand.

Your choices wouldn't be a dream. They would have outcomes and closure, in the form of how they affect the story and the endings you received.

I love Crono Trigger. It is a great game. It has a ton of different endings. One of those endings involves human society being extinct and everyone becoming Repties, a form of sentient lizards.

Crono Cross was a sequel to Crono Trigger. It doesn't overlap a lot, but it does set a canon that the ending of Crono Trigger is NOT that humans were never created. It, instead, deals with what happens in the future when Lavos doesn't destory the Earth, where humans create a temporal disturbance that distorts the time flow in crazy ways. Not my favorite game because the story was all over the place and never became focused... but that's a different story.

Point being... Crono Trigger had different endings and choices. A future game comes along that only acknowledges on ending. Yet, somehow, the world did not fall apart. Just because a future game doesn't bend over backwards to not step on the toes of choices from previous games doesn't mean those choices didn't matter. If DA:O never had a sequel, would you feel like your choices didn't matter? If ME1 never was a trilogy, would you feel like your choices didn't matter? Do you feel like the choices you had in Jade Empire didn't matter?

No, of course not. Because a future game coming out that doesn't take every single choice possible into consideration doesn't make those choices any less fun, exciting or enjoyable. It just means that the story for the next game isn't using them.

If you feel betrayed, or wronged because of this... then I think you're missing the point of having choices. And you're missing the point of my argument.

I want to give you chocies in games. I want to give you more choices in games than you've ever seen. But I also want to allow the writing team to let go of choices which aren't helpful to them in future games. I want them to going back to neutral, by picking the choices that they want to tell the best story... where they can give us more chocies.

Silent HIll 2 had some great choices and had multiple endings that even changed the past (before you started playing the game) in really interesting ways. How you played your character actually affected how they behaved before you started playing, in a real meta-physical mind-warp way. And, in fact, you had the option to perform a ceremony which destroyed the planet. 

Yet, Silent Hill 3 still came out. As well as many other Silent Hill games. And they each told great stories and, weirdly enough, no one cared that the world wasn't destroyed.

Just because a future game in the series doesn't cater to every choice they offered doesn't mean they shouldn't offer choice. And choice is one of the most fundamentally awesome things about Bioware games: dialogue choices, moral choices, gameplay chocies, appearance choices, romance choices, resource chocies... choices are what drive most games and Bioware gives us some great choices.

Punishing them for giving us choices by saying "well, don't you dare pretend like I didn't make that choice in my game five years ago, I'll scream bloody murder" is counter-productive, plain and simple.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:35 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

X-Com_Psi_Amp wrote...

I believe one of the reasons why DAO was good, is because it was initially meant to be a stand alone, and the story is unshackled. 

As a result there are more options given to the players, because it does not have to worry about presevering narrative continuity with previous and  future games.

I believe DA3 should be more like DAO when it comes to decisions.

I would rather have the decisions made DURING DA3 have a more pronounced effect, rather than decisions made during previous games have a trivial effecs and cute cameos.

Now, some are probably wondering? Can't we have pronounced repurcussions of our choices for both past and present decision?

No, we can not. This because games have strict development cycles and they need to meet release dates.

So, I'm asking you to abandon importing saves. You are just wasting precious resources. I'm asking to make a choice and adopt DA3 as a stand alone game mindset.

Dragon Age was never meant to be a trilogy like Mass Effect, please don't bother. It does not have Shepard to die several diffent games together.

Marketing might force you to shoehorn to attract more potential buyers, but let them know there are people like me who realize that it will only make the game worse.

Please, do the right thing.

"Now, some are probably wondering?"

What I'm wondering is why yet another thread devoted to exactly the same gripe got started. Nobody is going to force you to use your save files in DA 3. Remember how you could start a game from scratch in DA 2? It's very likely a similar feature will be available in Inquisition.

Hi Teryn,

I realize its been a while since you've been a part of this discussion, but please read a little further into the thread before rehashing arguments that have been addressed. You will be fine to disagree with these arguments, but please realize that they have already been made.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:48 .

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I don't believe that these anti-import people's arguments are entirely altruistic. I suspect it may have something to do with a lack of expansions or Dl.c, since upon thread review, most of those championing this campaign are lacking either registration badges or completed characters.

Yes, Realmzmaster and I haven't been playing Bioware games and been a part of the Bioware forums since before it was the BSN or anything. Yeah, we're clearly new here just to be subversive. 

No, not subversive -- Just too old school to accept the evolution of gaming.

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I don't believe that these anti-import people's arguments are entirely altruistic. I suspect it may have something to do with a lack of expansions or Dl.c, since upon thread review, most of those championing this campaign are lacking either registration badges or completed characters.

Yes, Realmzmaster and I haven't been playing Bioware games and been a part of the Bioware forums since before it was the BSN or anything. Yeah, we're clearly new here just to be subversive. 

No, not subversive -- Just too old school to accept the evolution of gaming.

You must think I'm some old, crusty crumudgeon that wants the computer to actually show dice rolling on every action on screen.


I play games besides RPGs. I play sports games, and shooters, and Wii party games and Rock Band. I play mobile phone games and online MMOs, both big and small in scale. I am a gamer. 

But RPGs are my favorite genre. Because they usually tell the best stories and they offer the most choices (and have the most follow up on how those choices affected things in the game world).

Import flags are not progressive, they are crippling to both the story telling and the choice creation processes. That's why I hate them. And the people who champion them as the greatest thing ever and can't explain why.

[FDrage]

I always saw the "DA import" different to e.g. ME-series import. In ME I was expecting my decission to show its consequences, good or bad or indifferent, but show it and me being able to realize the "cause for this effect". Probably mainly because ME series was always about 1 persons journey / mission / etc. I wanted to see those consequences, I expected to see those consequences ... not necessary in an "earth shattering way", but at least a recognition or absence (e.g. Fist when playing ME2 with 2 different ME1 imports).


In DA universe it was different. I was very positive surprised when they announce a save game import for DA2 and excited. I didn't expect it as I expected a different protagonist anyway ... seeing different parts of Thedas through different eyes, seeing all the fascettes of different society from different point of views (that is actually why I enjoyed the origins the most and why they worked that well ... for me).

With the "save game" import I though .. COOL I can build my own history of Thedas now. And with the whole history of mankind, where we might be able to find out some of those consequences but overall for every single observer there are plenty of mysteries and unsolved / unsolvable questions that I not just didn't expect to have "every decision matter" or "every decision play out before my eyes in subsequent games".
I assumed that not everything I do in a specific DA game has not just "earth shattering" consequences but I might not see "played out at all", just maybe simple for the fact that my character could not have know or I as a player could not know every but of history of Thedas just as I can't know every bit of our own history .. neither as an "observer" or "someone who lives in those times". I would actually be a bit disappointed if I'd see every decision I mad in previous games have consequences in a future game .. .or at least consequences I could witness, even if in some circumstances I would "like to know" it personally.
The decision or "historic event" is still there, even if I can;t / didn;t witness the consequence, in "history books of Thedas" ... umm ... "save game files" ...


Ok that was partially before DA2/Bioware killed my 2 main wardens off ... ;( ... but set this aside, the possibility (even so it might never happen) of building a "history of Thedas" and not just "telling the stories of a few heroes" still excites me .. at least in principle.

Modifié par FDrage, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I don't believe that these anti-import people's arguments are entirely altruistic. I suspect it may have something to do with a lack of expansions or Dl.c, since upon thread review, most of those championing this campaign are lacking either registration badges or completed characters.

Yes, Realmzmaster and I haven't been playing Bioware games and been a part of the Bioware forums since before it was the BSN or anything. Yeah, we're clearly new here just to be subversive. 

No, not subversive -- Just too old school to accept the evolution of gaming.

You must think I'm some old, crusty crumudgeon that wants the computer to actually show dice rolling on every action on screen.


I play games besides RPGs. I play sports games, and shooters, and Wii party games and Rock Band. I play mobile phone games and online MMOs, both big and small in scale. I am a gamer. 

But RPGs are my favorite genre. Because they usually tell the best stories and they offer the most choices (and have the most follow up on how those choices affected things in the game world).

Import flags are not progressive, they are crippling to both the story telling and the choice creation processes. That's why I hate them. And the people who champion them as the greatest thing ever and can't explain why.

How are they crippling the story? All choice is an illusion, this has been said time and time again.All storys will end up more or less at the same end point with different bonuses and unlockables.

The choices we make through-out the series are never suppose to make world shaking impact.They do however offer the player the choice to substitute certain stipulations, which from a role playing perspective is quite refreshing.

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

[Realmzmaster]

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.

This is one point where Bethesda gets it right. The TES ganes are set hundreds of years apart. There are no save imports from game to game. TES games are self-contained. All choices and consequences happen in game. Each game is set in a period of time where the previous game has no effect except as history.

Bioware is going to make decisions on what will be canon eventually. The time line in Bioware games is more compressed. DA2 was going on at the same time as DAO for a year. The events of DA3 will happen soon after the events of DA2. Bioware does not have the luxury of time gaps that Bethesda's TES games have.

Bioware also does not have the luxury of working on a game until it is done. Even Bethesda does not have that luxury. A five development cycle is about as far as you can stretch a game without incurring crushing development costs.

Now before any one says Blizzard and Valve do it. Blizzard has a cash cow called WOW. They can afford to take their time with StarCraft or Diablo. Valve has STEAM as it cash cow. 

EA tried with SWTOR to establish a cash cow, but was late to the party (as far as MMOs are concerned) and Origins is not in a position to compete with STEAM. 

 EA has no cash cow. All EA games have a budget and release date. Releasing a game when it is done is a noble ideal, but if you let artists have their way the game may never be done.  The longer a game is in development the more scope and feature creep happen.

Someone has to crack the whip to get actions accomplished and say the game is good enough to go out the door.

Trying to account for every possibility in a save import feature is a losing endeavor and wastes resources. I would rather Bioware bite the bullet, set canon (even if it invalidates all the choices I made) and tell a great story (full of choice and consequence) with excellent characters and gameplay.
That would be enjoyable and I can live with it.

[draken-heart]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

This is one point where Bethesda gets it right. The TES ganes are set hundreds of years apart. There are no save imports from game to game. TES games are self-contained. All choices and consequences happen in game. Each game is set in a period of time where the previous game has no effect except as history.

Bioware is going to make decisions on what will be canon eventually. The time line in Bioware games is more compressed. DA2 was going on at the same time as DAO for a year. The events of DA3 will happen soon after the events of DA2. Bioware does not have the luxury of time gaps that Bethesda's TES games have.

Bioware also does not have the luxury of working on a game until it is done. Even Bethesda does not have that luxury. A five development cycle is about as far as you can stretch a game without incurring crushing development costs.

Now before any one says Blizzard and Valve do it. Blizzard has a cash cow called WOW. They can afford to take their time with StarCraft or Diablo. Valve has STEAM as it cash cow. 

EA tried with SWTOR to establish a cash cow, but was late to the party (as far as MMOs are concerned) and Origins is not in a position to compete with STEAM. 

 EA has no cash cow. All EA games have a budget and release date. Releasing a game when it is done is a noble ideal, but if you let artists have their way the game may never be done.  The longer a game is in development the more scope and feature creep happen.

Someone has to crack the whip to get actions accomplished and say the game is good enough to go out the door.

Trying to account for every possibility in a save import feature is a losing endeavor and wastes resources. I would rather Bioware bite the bullet, set canon (even if it invalidates all the choices I made) and tell a great story (full of choice and consequence) with excellent characters and gameplay.
That would be enjoyable and I can live with it.

If they choose it, it will go for future games as well, so it would be just a strong storytellingto establish what is going to be cannon by creating a linear storyline. That way, no one will have to worry about "will this choice even mean anything?" or "Why am I making a choice if Bioware is choosing what will be canon?" type questions.

If  they do a set canon for DA4, the it renders making a choice in DA3 meaningless as they have already chosen it. You do not even need to play Da3 if they have a set canon, and if Bioware chooses canon for all their games from here on out, there is not need to play as most likely, you choices will be non-canon and meaningless.

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

A) I don't expect this.

I agree that having choices is great for the story. Acting like those choices never happened in future stories is BAD for the story.

Example: Dwarves should have a huge stake in the upcoming Mage/Templar war. As a supplier of lyrium, they should be a highly prized ally, with both sides trying to win them (and hence the lyrium) over and the dwarves playing both sides to get the most out of the trade they can. Yet this is no difficult to do, since the king of Orzammar is an import that needs to be managed. As is if the Warden was a dwarf, that could easily play a factor into how things are discussed or if we get to visit Orzammar. In addition, the Dwarves could have the HUGE added bonus of having an army of golems to add to the war effort if the Anvil was preserved, but not so if the Anvil was destroyed. 

Likely possibility? Dwarves are hardly talked about or brought in at all (despite maybe one small cutscene) in DA3, despite the great story-telling opportunities there and the common-sense way they would play into the story.

A canon that Harrowmont was king, the Warden wasn't a dwarf and that the Anvil was saved fixes all of these hurdles. You can stroll right through the streets of Orzammar now, right up to the throne room, and there is nothing for Bioware to worry about making customized. Its all the same - because everyone is starting from the same history.

That's just one example. I can give you dozens. Most of them involve people being dead in some playthroughs, but others are more expansive in their nature. Point being - if the writers have a story to tell, but can't because of a previous or a future impact due to the choice imports, it is hurting the story. And if they want to write a choice, but can't because they feel it would be too hard to get everyone back to the same page in a future game, then it is hurting the choices. And both of those are TERRIBLY bad things to do.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

A) I don't expect this.

I agree that having choices is great for the story. Acting like those choices never happened in future stories is BAD for the story.

Example: Dwarves should have a huge stake in the upcoming Mage/Templar war. As a supplier of lyrium, they should be a highly prized ally, with both sides trying to win them (and hence the lyrium) over and the dwarves playing both sides to get the most out of the trade they can. Yet this is no difficult to do, since the king of Orzammar is an import that needs to be managed. As is if the Warden was a dwarf, that could easily play a factor into how things are discussed or if we get to visit Orzammar. In addition, the Dwarves could have the HUGE added bonus of having an army of golems to add to the war effort if the Anvil was preserved, but not so if the Anvil was destroyed. 

Likely possibility? Dwarves are hardly talked about or brought in at all (despite maybe one small cutscene) in DA3, despite the great story-telling opportunities there and the common-sense way they would play into the story.

A canon that Harrowmont was king, the Warden wasn't a dwarf and that the Anvil was saved fixes all of these hurdles. You can stroll right through the streets of Orzammar now, right up to the throne room, and there is nothing for Bioware to worry about making customized. Its all the same - because everyone is starting from the same history.

That's just one example. I can give you dozens. Most of them involve people being dead in some playthroughs, but others are more expansive in their nature. Point being - if the writers have a story to tell, but can't because of a previous or a future impact due to the choice imports, it is hurting the story. And if they want to write a choice, but can't because they feel it would be too hard to get everyone back to the same page in a future game, then it is hurting the choices. And both of those are TERRIBLY bad things to do.

Or you can just have a "canon" mentioned for everything and not have a king seen in-game (Steward for Ferelden and Orzamar).

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Realmzmaster]

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I don't believe that these anti-import people's arguments are entirely altruistic. I suspect it may have something to do with a lack of expansions or Dl.c, since upon thread review, most of those championing this campaign are lacking either registration badges or completed characters.

Yes, Realmzmaster and I haven't been playing Bioware games and been a part of the Bioware forums since before it was the BSN or anything. Yeah, we're clearly new here just to be subversive. 

No, not subversive -- Just too old school to accept the evolution of gaming.

Since when are save import files something new? Alternate Reality had them back in 1985. You could import your character from the City to the Dungeon. The import made sense because the character was the same and it was a seven part series. (Alas only the first two parts saw the light of day).

The import feature in DA games makes no sense because you are dealing with a different protagonist for each game who does not care what your Warden or Hawke did especially if it has no bearing on the task at hand. 

Why would Hawke care about the Warden? Hawke was in Kirkwall after fleeing the Blight. Why would the Warden care about Hawke? The import system in DA games is fan service.

The same action happened with DAO to DAA. If your warden did the US the flag was set so your warden was dead. Fans wanted to import their warden into Awakening so the flag has to be reset (or ignored) to allow the import. So Bioware handwaved the US which sets canon for the warden that the US never happened.

I am not against the evolution of gaming. I am against poorly implemented design choices.

[Fast Jimmy]

draken-heart wrote...

If they choose it, it will go for future games as well, so it would be just a strong storytellingto establish what is going to be cannon by creating a linear storyline. That way, no one will have to worry about "will this choice even mean anything?" or "Why am I making a choice if Bioware is choosing what will be canon?" type questions.

I'm not saying Bioware can't do this, but it is cheap narrative. 

Choosing who is on the throne doesn't really matter if the next time we get to see anything on the story at all happens hundreds of years later, where it has long since stopped mattering. Choosing to murder an entire Circle is inconsequential when a quarter of a millenia has passed.

I'd rather we get these huge choices, we make them and then the next game continues the story. Even if its not the choice/story I personally chose, I still want to see how things played out, how the world is progressing.

Huge leaps in time (either backwards or forwards) shifts the story-telling away, having no impact on anything at all. Its just another form of railroading, albeit more logical. Instead of two very disparate choices resulting in the same outcome in one year, its now two disparate choices resulting in the same outcome in two hundred years.

Yes, it prevents anyone's previous feelings from being hurt or their choices discounted... but its now telling a story for a new world. And if that's the case, you might as well just be starting a new IP. Or calling yourself Final Fantasy.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

draken-heart wrote...

Set canon that the dwarves do not have Golems and leave that choice in the past. Say you Preserve the Anvil and the king of Orzamar is Bhelen. The  anvil area becomes an inpenetrable fortess and the dwarves have no golems.

If you saved the Anvil in DA:O, you get golems for your army. We know Branka figures out how to make it work, we know she is successful and that she has access to the stronghold.

So we're either talking about a retcon or avoiding the choice altogether. Or, as I suggest, a canon.

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

A) I don't expect this.

I agree that having choices is great for the story. Acting like those choices never happened in future stories is BAD for the story.

Example: Dwarves should have a huge stake in the upcoming Mage/Templar war. As a supplier of lyrium, they should be a highly prized ally, with both sides trying to win them (and hence the lyrium) over and the dwarves playing both sides to get the most out of the trade they can. Yet this is no difficult to do, since the king of Orzammar is an import that needs to be managed. As is if the Warden was a dwarf, that could easily play a factor into how things are discussed or if we get to visit Orzammar. In addition, the Dwarves could have the HUGE added bonus of having an army of golems to add to the war effort if the Anvil was preserved, but not so if the Anvil was destroyed. 

Likely possibility? Dwarves are hardly talked about or brought in at all (despite maybe one small cutscene) in DA3, despite the great story-telling opportunities there and the common-sense way they would play into the story.

A canon that Harrowmont was king, the Warden wasn't a dwarf and that the Anvil was saved fixes all of these hurdles. You can stroll right through the streets of Orzammar now, right up to the throne room, and there is nothing for Bioware to worry about making customized. Its all the same - because everyone is starting from the same history.

Disagree with the bolded. If the story does resolve round mage/templar i don't see a single reason why the dwarves would be interested in getting involved. They  don't have any mages or any templars so why should they fight and die when they already have their hands full with darkspawn. It's not like it is a blight that actuals concerns them.This war is a surface problem. Why not just sell lyrium to both sides as there will still be a market for lyrium whoever wins.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Set canon that the dwarves do not have Golems and leave that choice in the past. Say you Preserve the Anvil and the king of Orzamar is Bhelen. The  anvil area becomes an inpenetrable fortess and the dwarves have no golems.

If you saved the Anvil in DA:O, you get golems for your army. We know Branka figures out how to make it work, we know she is successful and that she has access to the stronghold.

So we're either talking about a retcon or avoiding the choice altogether. Or, as I suggest, a canon.

you could even say that all golems are under Branka's command and the ones that were with the dwarves were destroyed by the ones controlled by Branka.

Why not just focus on making the game itself and avoid choices from the past (steward for the ruler of Ferelden, and king of Orzamar, who talk to the king, but we never see the king ourselves)?

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:20 .

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Disagree with the bolded. If the story does resolve round mage/templar i don't see a single reason why the dwarves would be interested in getting involved. They  don't have any mages or any templars so why should they fight and die when they already have their hands full with darkspawn. It's not like it is a blight that actuals concerns them.This war is a surface problem. Why not just sell lyrium to both sides as there will still be a market for lyrium whoever wins.

War doesn't work like this. You can't have a group provide a valuable commodity to both sides and not expect one side to try and influence the provider. Whether that influence be "we will give you more money if you stop supplying our enemy" or "if we win this war, we will burn your kingdom to the ground for helping our enemies" or some degree in-between.

Point being, its not strategic to just ignore it. Both sides should have an interest in securing a supply. And, since a war is going on, both mages and Templars will need more lyrium than they usually do. Which means more lyrium than the dwarven infrastructure is currently set up to mine/handle. So if you have a shortage in a war, you do anything possible to secure that source. Diplomatic talks with the leader/king of the Dwarves are not (at ALL) outside the realm of possibility. So even the dwarven king choice alone could have an impact.

And its not just about what stories the writers can get away with ignoring... its telling the writers "avoid the Dwarves and Orzammar, its too costly to address them." What if Luke had an awesome, dark story thread for how the Dwarves play into the war? What if it would have really lent a feel for how torn apart the world is becoming? What if it allowed your character to go through some gut-check moments that really could bring a lot of strength to the table? 

And then what if the idea was shut down because it would have been too much work to address choice flags?

That's the whole point. Its not about "you NEED to have the dwarves, plot flags are stupid." Its the fact that Bioware CAN'T use the Dwarves, or if they do, they have to tap dance or jury rig a reason to make it all work. 

That's what I mean about tying the hands of the writers. If each successive game doesn't let you reference anything story-wise about previous games, then that's just burning bridges. Before long, you realize you've burnt the last bridge and have nowhere else to go.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Disagree with the bolded. If the story does resolve round mage/templar i don't see a single reason why the dwarves would be interested in getting involved. They  don't have any mages or any templars so why should they fight and die when they already have their hands full with darkspawn. It's not like it is a blight that actuals concerns them.This war is a surface problem. Why not just sell lyrium to both sides as there will still be a market for lyrium whoever wins.

War doesn't work like this. You can't have a group provide a valuable commodity to both sides and not expect one side to try and influence the provider. Whether that influence be "we will give you more money if you stop supplying our enemy" or "if we win this war, we will burn your kingdom to the ground for helping our enemies" or some degree in-between.

Point being, its not strategic to just ignore it. Both sides should have an interest in securing a supply. And, since a war is going on, both mages and Templars will need more lyrium than they usually do. Which means more lyrium than the dwarven infrastructure is currently set up to mine/handle. So if you have a shortage in a war, you do anything possible to secure that source. Diplomatic talks with the leader/king of the Dwarves are not (at ALL) outside the realm of possibility. So even the dwarven king choice alone could have an impact.

And its not just about what stories the writers can get away with ignoring... its telling the writers "avoid the Dwarves and Orzammar, its too costly to address them." What if Luke had an awesome, dark story thread for how the Dwarves play into the war? What if it would have really lent a feel for how torn apart the world is becoming? What if it allowed your character to go through some gut-check moments that really could bring a lot of strength to the table? 

And then what if the idea was shut down because it would have been too much work to address choice flags?

That's the whole point. Its not about "you NEED to have the dwarves, plot flags are stupid." Its the fact that Bioware CAN'T use the Dwarves, or if they do, they have to tap dance or jury rig a reason to make it all work. 

That's what I mean about tying the hands of the writers. If each successive game doesn't let you reference anything story-wise about previous games, then that's just burning bridges. Before long, you realize you've burnt the last bridge and have nowhere else to go.

or the dwarves not sell to anyone and stay out of the war. There will still be surfacers to trade with after the war.

Plus we know another dwarven city survived. Kal Sharok (My have misspelled) the king could be too busy with them to acknowledge the war and thus made a statement that they are staying out of it?

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I don't believe that these anti-import people's arguments are entirely altruistic. I suspect it may have something to do with a lack of expansions or Dl.c, since upon thread review, most of those championing this campaign are lacking either registration badges or completed characters.

Yes, Realmzmaster and I haven't been playing Bioware games and been a part of the Bioware forums since before it was the BSN or anything. Yeah, we're clearly new here just to be subversive. 

No, not subversive -- Just too old school to accept the evolution of gaming.

You must think I'm some old, crusty crumudgeon that wants the computer to actually show dice rolling on every action on screen.


I play games besides RPGs. I play sports games, and shooters, and Wii party games and Rock Band. I play mobile phone games and online MMOs, both big and small in scale. I am a gamer. 

But RPGs are my favorite genre. Because they usually tell the best stories and they offer the most choices (and have the most follow up on how those choices affected things in the game world).

Import flags are not progressive, they are crippling to both the story telling and the choice creation processes. That's why I hate them. And the people who champion them as the greatest thing ever and can't explain why.

How are they crippling the story? All choice is an illusion, this has been said time and time again.All storys will end up more or less at the same end point with different bonuses and unlockables.

The choices we make through-out the series are never suppose to make world shaking impact.They do however offer the player the choice to substitute certain stipulations, which from a role playing perspective is quite refreshing.

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

The problem comes in maintaining the illusion across the different possibilities which can be resource intensive. For example (as Fast Jimmy has stated) Anders is either dead or alive. If Bioware says Anders is alive as canon then he can be part of the Mage Rebellion or even one of the leaders.
If Bioware does not set canon then Anders can be dead and cannot be a leader in the rebellion. Why would Bioware waste resources on content that many gamers would not see if they import a save with Anders dead.

As it is now  Anders get a footnote mention in a codex  or a small quest at best for those who kept him alive.

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

If you expect a game where every choice you make will eventually form its own alternate storyline then I'm sorry that's not going to happen.The sooner it's accepted that all choice is an illusion, the better it will feel.

A) I don't expect this.

I agree that having choices is great for the story. Acting like those choices never happened in future stories is BAD for the story.

Example: Dwarves should have a huge stake in the upcoming Mage/Templar war. As a supplier of lyrium, they should be a highly prized ally, with both sides trying to win them (and hence the lyrium) over and the dwarves playing both sides to get the most out of the trade they can. Yet this is no difficult to do, since the king of Orzammar is an import that needs to be managed. As is if the Warden was a dwarf, that could easily play a factor into how things are discussed or if we get to visit Orzammar. In addition, the Dwarves could have the HUGE added bonus of having an army of golems to add to the war effort if the Anvil was preserved, but not so if the Anvil was destroyed. 

Likely possibility? Dwarves are hardly talked about or brought in at all (despite maybe one small cutscene) in DA3, despite the great story-telling opportunities there and the common-sense way they would play into the story. [

A canon that Harrowmont was king, the Warden wasn't a dwarf and that the Anvil was saved fixes all of these hurdles. You can stroll right through the streets of Orzammar now, right up to the throne room, and there is nothing for Bioware to worry about making customized. Its all the same - because everyone is starting from the same history.

That's just one example. I can give you dozens. Most of them involve people being dead in some playthroughs, but others are more expansive in their nature. Point being - if the writers have a story to tell, but can't because of a previous or a future impact due to the choice imports, it is hurting the story. And if they want to write a choice, but can't because they feel it would be too hard to get everyone back to the same page in a future game, then it is hurting the choices. And both of those are TERRIBLY bad things to do.

Why do both sides need to attempt to gain control over the lyrium? I
understand trying to cut supply lines during a war and all, but
ultimately the decision on who to sale to rest with the Dwarves since it
is their lyrium.The dwarves are merchants and profiteers first and
foremost so it wouldn't be ooc for them to try to sale to both sides
like the selkath did in kotor.They could however be persuaded into
giving more lyrium or a discount to their favored faction and this would still give a meaningful choice.

I can't comment on the warden since we don't even know whats going on with that atm.

The golems however aren't really an issue.Sure it would be nice to have golems join our favored armies but the golems were promised to the warden as support, a contract in which they possibly fulfilled.The golems were never promised to every heroic figure fighting a war, especially wars that don't involve dwarfs primarily.In short, the golems and the anvil of the void don't have to be recognised because both have already fulfilled the terms of their service.

[Fast Jimmy]

draken-heart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Set canon that the dwarves do not have Golems and leave that choice in the past. Say you Preserve the Anvil and the king of Orzamar is Bhelen. The  anvil area becomes an inpenetrable fortess and the dwarves have no golems.

If you saved the Anvil in DA:O, you get golems for your army. We know Branka figures out how to make it work, we know she is successful and that she has access to the stronghold.

So we're either talking about a retcon or avoiding the choice altogether. Or, as I suggest, a canon.

you could even say that all golems are under Branka's command and the ones that were with the dwarves were destroyed by the ones controlled by Branka.

Why not just focus on making the game itself and avoid choices from the past (steward for the ruler of Ferelden, and king of Orzamar, who talk to the king, but we never see the king ourselves)?

That could work. Possibly. I'm not a writer.


But do we want to settle for "what could work?" Do we want the writers to settle for what square plot choices they can cram into a round plot? Do we want every single reference to the past to be a problem to be solved? Or should it be an opportunity to be explored?

I'd like it to be an opportunity. Something the writers would be excited about... not what magic trick out of a hat they can pull to make even talking about a place, culture, kingdom or person that was mentioned before in a prior game possible.