5 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonPogo]

I'm just wondering why devs and writers seem so hell bent on using this term as a negative.  Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  So what if people meta-game?  I for onr always play that way in games like this.  Like I know when I start a playthrough this time I will romance Merrill side with the Templars and be a jerk to everyone.  So knowing this I will meta-game to reach those ends and get my "perfect" save. If thats how someone wants to play it more power to them.  I just don't get the hate....

[Mary Kirby]

JasonPogo wrote...

Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  

This is actually a misconception. There was never, at any time in development, an ending to the quest All That Remains that allowed Leandra to survive. 

We considered adding an alternate ending because of our QA feedback. But we decided against it because the purpose the quest serves in the story is to give Hawke (regardless of their own class) a personal reason to fear the misuse of magic.

And actually, we never seriously considered any ending where Leandra survived. The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

Modifié par Mary Kirby, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:05 .

[Mary Kirby]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Thats what we were supposed to get out of that scene? I totally did not get that vibe at all.

No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!" and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

[Mary Kirby]

silentassassin264 wrote...

So why was there never a quest to give Hawke a "personal reason" to fear the misuse of power by the templars?

Because they already had one. Hawke's father was an apostate, their family lived in hiding from the Templars all Hawke's life. Either Hawke was an apostate, or had an apostate sister. The Templars were a constant, looming personal threat.

[David Gaider]

We don't "frown upon" meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is just something people will do. What we frown upon is when people make suggestions based on meta-gaming, as in things they do in-game which can only come about as a result of subsequent plays or by reading about the game before-hand... such as the "all companions are bisexual" complaint.

That's not how we make the game. We make it for your first playthrough, as if you're making decisions based on the moment. If that's not how you play the game, that's your call, but we're not going to make the game on the assumption that you're someone who's going to play the game repeatedly (in-game choices certainly help with repeated play, though I'll point out that's not really why we put them in there) or someone who's researched everything in the game prior to playing it.

But, again, if that's what you intend to do then knock yourself out. There are some folks who utterly panic at the idea they might play the game "wrong"... you'll see that evident before any game comes out, with people wanting spoilers and other information to make sure they have the most "perfect" playthrough possible, and why not if that's what's important to you? We are just not going to help you do it.

[David Gaider]

Apparently I posted without realizing this was a thread discussing what we did and didn't like about DA2's story. Which can really go in the DA2 forum. If this continues, I'll just close down this thread.