637 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

How can DA3 get better? by not mentioning Origins or DA2 choices at all. not even setting canon ones.

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:30 .

[Emzamination]

Realmzmaster 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.

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.

You're looking at this smallscale, realmzmaster.Not every or any decision the warden made has to revolve around the warden.For example, the warden could make Alistair king who sympathizes with the mages which would politically put the mages in a better starting position in Da3 with the king of ferelden as an ally, not because the warden put him there, but because he is sympathetic to the mage plight.

Alternatively Anora could be the polar opposite, supporting the chantry and templars in order to maintain order and the status quo, which would put templar sympathizers in a stronger position resource wise.

As far as awakening goes, what you ask for is unreasonable.If you wanted your warden to survive then you had options to you, but you chose to end their story so yeah, import into Da2 and move on.

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

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.

I'll say the same thing I said in response to draken heart's...


You can make it work, yes. You can fanangle a way to narratively explain why one thing isn't happening, or why the choice you made really doesn't matter.

But wouldn't it be much more enjoyable to see these things? Wouldn't it be easier for the writers if they didn't have to constantly build walls to prevent their previous creations from touching their new ones? 

Wouldn't it be better if previous choices offered in games weren't problems to be solved, but opportunities to be used?

That's what the import flag system is. A never-ending, constantly-generating source of narrative problems. Can they all be mitigated? Sure. If you want to do it, you can make a three legged dog stand on his d!ck and fart the national anthem. But what is the value? If its not to give real follow up to the multiple choices offered, I'd rather they at least follow up on one choice.

Since Bioware's greatest strength is story and characters, advocating a system where every game they have to forcibly remove the option to use any of those previously created stories and characters is... 

...its...



...you know, I don't even have a proper word for how nonsense that is. They are making narrative tools that they have to throw out the window as soon as they are done. They are writing themselves into corners trying to avoid writing something that could cross the line with something they've previously written. We see this problem with novels and books, which only have one or two writers. In a video game, which has dozens of writers, thousands of pages of content for every game, tons of permutations that can result in multiple stories happening and running over each other...


...again, I don't have a word for how nonsense that is. Its taking a monumentally difficult job and then saying you have to do that job while holding your breath. Its asking the impossible.

[AllThatJazz]

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.

Have to disagree. Bethesda games are fantastic at offering almost limitless choice, but absolutely hopeless at consequences. In Fallout 3, I nuked Megaton, to a 'wtf?!' face from my dad and a diss from Three-Dog on the airwaves, and otherwise no difference. Unless you count picking up the Wasteland Survival quests from Ghoul Moira instead of Normal Moira. In Skyrim, my Orc could become leader of the Stormcloaks despite all their 'Skyrim for the Nords' nonsense, and ... nothing. Not a single challenge to my authority or campaign of racial harassment. Bethesda could load their games with consequences precisely because they are so self-contained, but they don't, and that annoys me no end. Tenpenny Tower is the only exception I can think of, for which reason it is my favourite Bethesda quest ever.

I'm not arguing for Bioware to account for absolutely every possibility, no matter how minor the event, but they can prioritise, and allow some player choices to cross over. Otherwise, everytime they allow all these choices and consequences in a game, they then render those consequences obsolete as soon as the next game comes out by setting canon. 

Like I said in a earler post, good planning can allow for this. Categories of decisions -  certain 'trivial', flavour decisions (romance flags etc) that are easy enough to import and have no real consequences - no problem there. A couple more weighty decisions, very carefully thought out, a limited number of consequences, that can carry throughout games, but the variables are controlled and the consequences are drip fed, possibly across several sequels, so that things don't snowball for the devs. Then some decisions that are completely self-contained, the situations resolved in one game - those decisions are either not mentioned at all in subsequent games, or are glossed over in a line of dialogue. Finally, you have the establishment of canon. This stuff is out of the players control (for instance whether there is a Mage/Templar War) - we don't get to make this choice at all, although we might - as with Hawke - get to decide our PC's perpective on the matter.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

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.

I'll say the same thing I said in response to draken heart's...


You can make it work, yes. You can fanangle a way to narratively explain why one thing isn't happening, or why the choice you made really doesn't matter.

But wouldn't it be much more enjoyable to see these things? Wouldn't it be easier for the writers if they didn't have to constantly build walls to prevent their previous creations from touching their new ones? 

Wouldn't it be better if previous choices offered in games weren't problems to be solved, but opportunities to be used?

That's what the import flag system is. A never-ending, constantly-generating source of narrative problems. Can they all be mitigated? Sure. If you want to do it, you can make a three legged dog stand on his d!ck and fart the national anthem. But what is the value? If its not to give real follow up to the multiple choices offered, I'd rather they at least follow up on one choice.

Since Bioware's greatest strength is story and characters, advocating a system where every game they have to forcibly remove the option to use any of those previously created stories and characters is... 

...its...



...you know, I don't even have a proper word for how nonsense that is. They are making narrative tools that they have to throw out the window as soon as they are done. They are writing themselves into corners trying to avoid writing something that could cross the line with something they've previously written. We see this problem with novels and books, which only have one or two writers. In a video game, which has dozens of writers, thousands of pages of content for every game, tons of permutations that can result in multiple stories happening and running over each other...


...again, I don't have a word for how nonsense that is. Its taking a monumentally difficult job and then saying you have to do that job while holding your breath. Its asking the impossible.

If you think that was nonsense, check this thread out from the SWtoR boards: http://www.swtor.com...543#post5329543


Tell me you plan on reading through all 200+ pages of people asking about when Same Gender Romances are coming to that MMO. it is wacko.

OR this thread from Skyrimforums.org: http://skyrimforums....170#post-211333

170 pages of crazy. those fans make this thread and that post  specifically look sane.

Getitng off-topic. the best way to deal with this in my mind is to not deal with it.

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:43 .

[wright1978]

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? 

Of course war works like that. All over the world people buy arms from other countries to fight their wars.
So what if demand outstrips supply. Dwarves can just keep increasing the price.
No one's going to start a war with the dwarves in the middle of a civil war and risk losing what supplies they are buying and the risk of the dwarves joining the other side.
No way in a million years is the king of the dwarves going to get personally involved in discussions during a war.
Dwarven representatives might meet with them but not the king.

If there's other stories that desperately need dwarves & it has to be told in this immediate timeframe then that might be a reason to assess whether you destroy the illusion of the imported universe. However just to be uninspired and tell a story which is set just after the last story isn't one in my opinion.

[Emzamination]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Possibly because said gamers don't want to see the content.Alot of pro-templar gamers hated Anders for what he did so it isn't unthinkable that they wouldn't want to have anything to do with him or content containing him.

Setting anders as a canon after blowing up the temple just pushes him the face of everyone who didn't agree with his drastic action which does more harm than good as this line of action would make said gamers who didn't agree lose interest in the canon storyline.Again this is a choice in stipulations.

Anders doesn't really need anything other than a cameo or mention if alive because he served his purpose in Da2.Da3 isn't his game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

You're looking at this smallscale, realmzmaster.Not every or any decision the warden made has to revolve around the warden.For example, the warden could make Alistair king who sympathizes with the mages which would politically put the mages in a better starting position in Da3 with the king of ferelden as an ally, not because the warden put him there, but because he is sympathetic to the mage plight.

Alternatively Anora could be the polar opposite, supporting the chantry and templars in order to maintain order and the status quo, which would put templar sympathizers in a stronger position resource wise.

As far as awakening goes, what you ask for is unreasonable.If you wanted your warden to survive then you had options to you, but you chose to end their story so yeah, import into Da2 and move on.

But they won't do that. Bioware won't do that. They have said they are commited to not creating large amounts of custom content. You can't have scenes where Allistair is supporting the Mages, scenes where Anora is supporting the Templars and scenes where they are both married and bickering about which side to choose. Having one cameo conversation in DA2 was a big enough issue for the ruler of Ferelden. Now you're talking about interacting with various NPC's of different factions, different locations, different scene positioning for different characters... its a lot of custom content. For a choice you made back in 2008.

So we'll get a codex entry, side quest or cameo. That will be the extent of the influence of the ruler of Ferelden and the dwarves. 

The Mages will be just as powerful if the Warden and Hawke both annulled the Towers as they would be if the repsective characters fought to save them. Don't worry about the fact that even a dozen mages could be a huge factor in a war (we only had 20 in our charge against the Arch Demon), Circle annulment will not play into anything at all.

The Dalish won't play a role, because how could they? Two of their larger tribes could be wiped out if the Warden sided with the werewolves and Hawke completed Merril's mirror quest and did not talk them down. One clan was big enough to lead a war against the Darkspawn... so losing two has to hit their numbers hard, as far as a loose nation goes.

So we've lost Ferelden, Orzammar, the Dalish and two entire Circles from having the option to play into DA3, just because there are import flag options that would make certain people cry foul if they were ignored.

That's wasteful. That's everything except places we haven't visited and Kirkwall, one city. So DA3 will be set with all new allies, all new players and all new story lines. Which is fine, sure. But then in DA4, will we not be able to touch those nations? Will DA5 have any cultures left? This is the kind of thinking that leads to bizarre, weird, terrible writing to try and pull things out of the air to make sense. Why not just stop the madness before it becomes REALLY screwed up?

[Mark of the Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bioware should make the story work better with the import feature.

I certainly see it as an interesting and fun challenge!

Amen! I hope your up to that challenge

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

You're looking at this smallscale, realmzmaster.Not every or any decision the warden made has to revolve around the warden.For example, the warden could make Alistair king who sympathizes with the mages which would politically put the mages in a better starting position in Da3 with the king of ferelden as an ally, not because the warden put him there, but because he is sympathetic to the mage plight.

Alternatively Anora could be the polar opposite, supporting the chantry and templars in order to maintain order and the status quo, which would put templar sympathizers in a stronger position resource wise.

As far as awakening goes, what you ask for is unreasonable.If you wanted your warden to survive then you had options to you, but you chose to end their story so yeah, import into Da2 and move on.

But they won't do that. Bioware won't do that. They have said they are commited to not creating large amounts of custom content. You can't have scenes where Allistair is supporting the Mages, scenes where Anora is supporting the Templars and scenes where they are both married and bickering about which side to choose. Having one cameo conversation in DA2 was a big enough issue for the ruler of Ferelden. Now you're talking about interacting with various NPC's of different factions, different locations, different scene positioning for different characters... its a lot of custom content. For a choice you made back in 2008.

So we'll get a codex entry, side quest or cameo. That will be the extent of the influence of the ruler of Ferelden and the dwarves. 

The Mages will be just as powerful if the Warden and Hawke both annulled the Towers as they would be if the repsective characters fought to save them. Don't worry about the fact that even a dozen mages could be a huge factor in a war (we only had 20 in our charge against the Arch Demon), Circle annulment will not play into anything at all.

The Dalish won't play a role, because how could they? Two of their larger tribes could be wiped out if the Warden sided with the werewolves and Hawke completed Merril's mirror quest and did not talk them down. One clan was big enough to lead a war against the Darkspawn... so losing two has to hit their numbers hard, as far as a loose nation goes.

So we've lost Ferelden, Orzammar, the Dalish and two entire Circles from having the option to play into DA3, just because there are import flag options that would make certain people cry foul if they were ignored.

That's wasteful. That's everything except places we haven't visited and Kirkwall, one city. So DA3 will be set with all new allies, all new players and all new story lines. Which is fine, sure. But then in DA4, will we not be able to touch those nations? Will DA5 have any cultures left? This is the kind of thinking that leads to bizarre, weird, terrible writing to try and pull things out of the air to make sense. Why not just stop the madness before it becomes REALLY screwed up?

that would actually work, Start another CW where the inquisitor has to make a choice on who gets the throne, mages (Alistair) or templars (Anora) or the Qunari (Arishok)

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Of course war works like that. All over the world people buy arms from other countries to fight their wars.
So what if demand outstrips supply. Dwarves can just keep increasing the price.
No one's going to start a war with the dwarves in the middle of a civil war and risk losing what supplies they are buying and the risk of the dwarves joining the other side.
No way in a million years is the king of the dwarves going to get personally involved in discussions during a war.
Dwarven representatives might meet with them but not the king.

If there's other stories that desperately need dwarves & it has to be told in this immediate timeframe then that might be a reason to assess whether you destroy the illusion of the imported universe. However just to be uninspired and tell a story which is set just after the last story isn't one in my opinion.

The leader of the Templars marches up to Orzammar with a huge portion of their army. They do not invade, but they cut the dwarves off from all surface trade. The Mages cannot get access to lyrium any longer and do not have the strength to cut through the Templars main defenses. The Dwarves cannot keep their economy going or their people fed. The Dwarves cave in (pun intended) and agree to supply the Templars and only the Templars.

If I was leader of either force and the Dwarves tried to not sell anything to me, that's exactly what I would do. Pretending like that tactic wouldn't A) work or be the first thing that pops in the mind of not only the leader of either army, but also the Dwarven king himself, is suspending disbelief in my opinion. 

One does not need to invade Orzammar to pressure Orzammar to side with you. A good leader (on either of three sides in this conversation) would realize that and have negotiations going at all times.

[AllThatJazz]

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.

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer, they need a plan, and they need to avoid overstretching themselves like they did with some of ME3 (Rachni and Cerberus especially - they'd have needed a fair bit more dev time to pull those off satisfactorily) No disputing that.

With regards to hurting the story, established canon can hurt creative storytelling too. Say they enforced canon that Alistair is king, regardless of whether or not he has a major role to play in future games. Then they think of a terrific idea for a really nice little quest that would have to involve Alistair, but exiled. Well they can't do that, because Alistair is King. Except that if Alistair isn't Canon King, then they could do that, in the knowledge that some people (particularly their core base, who tend to replay these things over and over) will actually see it.

 

[Emzamination]

Au, gotta run jimmy but I'll reply to your post as soon as I return.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Of course war works like that. All over the world people buy arms from other countries to fight their wars.
So what if demand outstrips supply. Dwarves can just keep increasing the price.
No one's going to start a war with the dwarves in the middle of a civil war and risk losing what supplies they are buying and the risk of the dwarves joining the other side.
No way in a million years is the king of the dwarves going to get personally involved in discussions during a war.
Dwarven representatives might meet with them but not the king.

If there's other stories that desperately need dwarves & it has to be told in this immediate timeframe then that might be a reason to assess whether you destroy the illusion of the imported universe. However just to be uninspired and tell a story which is set just after the last story isn't one in my opinion.

The leader of the Templars marches up to Orzammar with a huge portion of their army. They do not invade, but they cut the dwarves off from all surface trade. The Mages cannot get access to lyrium any longer and do not have the strength to cut through the Templars main defenses. The Dwarves cannot keep their economy going or their people fed. The Dwarves cave in (pun intended) and agree to supply the Templars and only the Templars.

If I was leader of either force and the Dwarves tried to not sell anything to me, that's exactly what I would do. Pretending like that tactic wouldn't A) work or be the first thing that pops in the mind of not only the leader of either army, but also the Dwarven king himself, is suspending disbelief in my opinion. 

One does not need to invade Orzammar to pressure Orzammar to side with you. A good leader (on either of three sides in this conversation) would realize that and have negotiations going at all times.

that is why I suggest the dwarves not sell to either side, and have a representative from all three sides arguing in the commons, then the inquisitor comes along and picks a side: Dwarves(Surfacer war, Surfacer problems), Templars (mage representative and his allies attack) or Mages (templars draw swords and get killed by mages)

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Of course war works like that. All over the world people buy arms from other countries to fight their wars.
So what if demand outstrips supply. Dwarves can just keep increasing the price.
No one's going to start a war with the dwarves in the middle of a civil war and risk losing what supplies they are buying and the risk of the dwarves joining the other side.
No way in a million years is the king of the dwarves going to get personally involved in discussions during a war.
Dwarven representatives might meet with them but not the king.

If there's other stories that desperately need dwarves & it has to be told in this immediate timeframe then that might be a reason to assess whether you destroy the illusion of the imported universe. However just to be uninspired and tell a story which is set just after the last story isn't one in my opinion.

The leader of the Templars marches up to Orzammar with a huge portion of their army. They do not invade, but they cut the dwarves off from all surface trade. The Mages cannot get access to lyrium any longer and do not have the strength to cut through the Templars main defenses. The Dwarves cannot keep their economy going or their people fed. The Dwarves cave in (pun intended) and agree to supply the Templars and only the Templars.

If I was leader of either force and the Dwarves tried to not sell anything to me, that's exactly what I would do. Pretending like that tactic wouldn't A) work or be the first thing that pops in the mind of not only the leader of either army, but also the Dwarven king himself, is suspending disbelief in my opinion. 

One does not need to invade Orzammar to pressure Orzammar to side with you. A good leader (on either of three sides in this conversation) would realize that and have negotiations going at all times.

A) There's more than one way out of the deep roads to bring lyrium to mages
Dwarves hit the templars from the front, Mages from behind whilst templars are tired from marching and in unfamiliar territory heading towards orzammar

Making the dwarves your enemy is foolish. Look back at history, starting wars on multiple fronts is incredibly stupid. Making enemies of businessmen who want to stay neutral is incredibly stupid.

[draken-heart]

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Of course war works like that. All over the world people buy arms from other countries to fight their wars.
So what if demand outstrips supply. Dwarves can just keep increasing the price.
No one's going to start a war with the dwarves in the middle of a civil war and risk losing what supplies they are buying and the risk of the dwarves joining the other side.
No way in a million years is the king of the dwarves going to get personally involved in discussions during a war.
Dwarven representatives might meet with them but not the king.

If there's other stories that desperately need dwarves & it has to be told in this immediate timeframe then that might be a reason to assess whether you destroy the illusion of the imported universe. However just to be uninspired and tell a story which is set just after the last story isn't one in my opinion.

The leader of the Templars marches up to Orzammar with a huge portion of their army. They do not invade, but they cut the dwarves off from all surface trade. The Mages cannot get access to lyrium any longer and do not have the strength to cut through the Templars main defenses. The Dwarves cannot keep their economy going or their people fed. The Dwarves cave in (pun intended) and agree to supply the Templars and only the Templars.

If I was leader of either force and the Dwarves tried to not sell anything to me, that's exactly what I would do. Pretending like that tactic wouldn't A) work or be the first thing that pops in the mind of not only the leader of either army, but also the Dwarven king himself, is suspending disbelief in my opinion. 

One does not need to invade Orzammar to pressure Orzammar to side with you. A good leader (on either of three sides in this conversation) would realize that and have negotiations going at all times.

A) There's more than one way out of the deep roads to bring lyrium to mages
Dwarves hit the templars from the front, Mages from behind whilst templars are tired from marching and in unfamiliar territory heading towards orzammar

Making the dwarves your enemy is foolish. Look back at history, starting wars on multiple fronts is incredibly stupid. Making enemies of businessmen who want to stay neutral is incredibly stupid.

I can see how that will play out: a squad Templars charge into Orzamar weapons ready for war, a dwarven berserker rages and kills almost the whole squad, the two sides start fightng, and the dwarves drive the Templars into the arms of the mages (likely Maleficarum). Templars dead.

[wright1978]

draken-heart wrote...

that is why I suggest the dwarves not sell to either side, and have a representative from all three sides arguing in the commons, then the inquisitor comes along and picks a side: Dwarves(Surfacer war, Surfacer problems), Templars (mage representative and his allies attack) or Mages (templars draw swords and get killed by mages)

I like the idea. Player gets to influence who if anyone gets access to dwarven lyrium and the course of the conflict. 
Maybe expand it into a bigger involving the dawrven represntative that ends up with the choice you suggesst above.

[Wulfram]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer

No, that's the opposite of what they need to be.  That's the sort of thinking that got us DA2's choices.

[draken-heart]

Wulfram wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer

No, that's the opposite of what they need to be.  That's the sort of thinking that got us DA2's choices.

how aout one choice at endgame affecting the whole of Thedas. That can be imported, if it can (Nex-gen consoles my ruin any chance of save-file transfer for DA4).

[draken-heart]

AllThatJazz wrote...

With regards to hurting the story, established canon can hurt creative storytelling too. Say they enforced canon that Alistair is king, regardless of whether or not he has a major role to play in future games. Then they think of a terrific idea for a really nice little quest that would have to involve Alistair, but exiled. Well they can't do that, because Alistair is King. Except that if Alistair isn't Canon King, then they could do that, in the knowledge that some people (particularly their core base, who tend to replay these things over and over) will actually see it.

I....

Modifié par draken-heart, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer

No, that's the opposite of what they need to be.  That's the sort of thinking that got us DA2's choices.

Exactly. I'm not sure what type of "plan" they woudl have in place when making the story of DA3 that would tell them who would need to be alive, who would need to be king, who would need to be have choice X in place instead of choice Y for them to make DA4, 5 or beyond. 

Story needs change on a daily basis for these guys. They can't predict who the major or minor characters will be or what details will happen in the story of a game that isn't even in development yet. That's highly undoable. Unknowable. This isn't like an author, who can write one story for their books and have an idea what characters are going to matter for what reason. This is giving choices in games and having foresight to exactly how these choices might affect a game that you haven't even conceptualized, let alone story-boarded.

[AllThatJazz]

Wulfram wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer

No, that's the opposite of what they need to be.  That's the sort of thinking that got us DA2's choices.

What do you mean? I meant that they need to be careful in terms of controlling the number of variables that can result from a given choice, and planning properly for each one so that they aren't caught on the hop whenever they decide to reolve the issue. It was basically what I said a few posts earlier. Not so much in terms of whether the choices are 'big' or 'small'. From what I remember, the vast majority of choices in DA2 were very cosmetic, and mostly Hawke-perspective choices.

[Dave of Canada]

As someone who didn't do the Ritual on most playthroughs, I'd be upset if my Warden magically survived and I suffered consequences for a decision I didn't do. However, I cannot deny in seeing the strength of decisions becoming canon and what it would mean.

[AllThatJazz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Then they need to be very careful about which choices they offer

No, that's the opposite of what they need to be.  That's the sort of thinking that got us DA2's choices.

Exactly. I'm not sure what type of "plan" they woudl have in place when making the story of DA3 that would tell them who would need to be alive, who would need to be king, who would need to be have choice X in place instead of choice Y for them to make DA4, 5 or beyond. 

Story needs change on a daily basis for these guys. They can't predict who the major or minor characters will be or what details will happen in the story of a game that isn't even in development yet. That's highly undoable. Unknowable. This isn't like an author, who can write one story for their books and have an idea what characters are going to matter for what reason. This is giving choices in games and having foresight to exactly how these choices might affect a game that you haven't even conceptualized, let alone story-boarded.

Some elements of the story need to change, yeah, but not all. So there can be some canon, but not all. JK Rowling knew how the HP stories were going to end, there were certain things that were set in stone pretty much from the beginning of the writing process (well before she knew the books would be such a big hit anyway), but there were also changes made along the way. Why should one preclude the other?

[Fast Jimmy]

Emzamination wrote...

Au, gotta run jimmy but I'll reply to your post as soon as I return.

Same here.

I have a date with a gorgeous girl who is over half my age tonight!