184 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

^ That would be unfortunate. But if they're just going to have a timeskip to avoid invalidating choices (time has a tendency to erase most things) then I would be grudgingly okay with it.

I'm sure writing is easier when you have a set canon to go off of. You don't need to ask yourself the "what if" and think about the branching paths.

But isn't that a part of the fun of it all?

Fun for the player, maybe. A nightmare and constant source of creative stifling for the writers in charge, I would imagine. 

Not entirely Jimmy, part of the reason why I chose to study Games Design and Creative Writing was because I see a challenge to be mastered. There can be fun in struggle.

[BlueMagitek]

Are you going on this again? Really? I don't know about every writer, but as they have been writing for a descendant of descendants of tabletop gaming, I imagine they don't really like "on rails", as you would have it.

I imagine if they really had that much of a problem with it, they would either go the BG route of lampshading it constantly, or go the Star Wars route of canonizing one ending, but making the others so much more ridiculously awesome.

[MerinTB]

Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

[Knight of Dane]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Are you going on this again? Really? I don't know about every writer, but as they have been writing for a descendant of descendants of tabletop gaming, I imagine they don't really like "on rails", as you would have it.

I imagine if they really had that much of a problem with it, they would either go the BG route of lampshading it constantly, or go the Star Wars route of canonizing one ending, but making the others so much more ridiculously awesome.

I have to ask, are you answering me or Jimmy?

Anyway; If the writers actually had a problem with it, they would quit.

[Knight of Dane]

MerinTB wrote...

Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

Exactly, but you have to assume that a writer that is in employment, and not freelance, is willing to work within the constraints.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of Bioware fans have lived with the impression that the writers were much more flexible about the PC when writing than they actually were. 

For example, they gave each origin a personality and they wrote the dialogue with the same triad as DA2 in mind (diplomatic, snarky/neutral, agressive).

This is certainly true.  The increased definition of the PC's personality in DA2 compared to DAO, from the player's perspective, appears not to have been a difference at all from the writer's perspective.  The writers always thought they were writing a tone for each line, for example.  It was a non-writing element of the game's design (the voice, or lack thereof), though, that conveyed that (or didn't) to the player.'

So, I don't think this is particularly relevant to the question I'm asking.  The writers don't appear to have changed their approach at all, on this point, so whether there's a voice or not hasn't made any different to them in terms of how they write tone.  They always wrote tone - whether the players ever knew that, though, was beyond the writers' control.

But I can imagine the presence or lack of a save import would change the writers' approach quite a bit.  Particuarly when working on the second game, the need to allow for more tha one starting point in a number of different areas, rather than just the PC (and having the rest of the world be fixed), seems like it would be quite a bit more work in one respect (they can't just assume something is always true), but it might also make some of the work easier (several nearly identical scenes would have be written, which might be easier - but maybe less rewarding - than writing several completely unrelated scenes).

I don't know.  So I asked.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

Exactly, but you have to assume that a writer that is in employment, and not freelance, is willing to work within the constraints.

Willing, sure.  But presumably he can still have preferences.

[Knight of Dane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

Exactly, but you have to assume that a writer that is in employment, and not freelance, is willing to work within the constraints.

Willing, sure.  But presumably he can still have preferences.

I didn't say he couldn't, but my point is that the man is either willing to work with it or not. I'd certainly rather feel good with a worse job than miserable with a good one.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I honestly don't know.  It strikes me that not having to worry about them (or even perhaps not needing a consistent canon from one game to the next) would grant the writers greater freedom to write as they see fit, without worrying about accommodating the previous game's divergent paths.  It would also, I would think, amount to some savings in the word budget, thus allowing deeper plots (because there could be fewer plots).

But maybe I'm wrong about this.  Maybe the writers enjoy working within the restrictions save imports provide.  Maybe there's a difference of opinion among the writers.  I don't know.  I'm admittedly biased on this one, since I don't really see the value in save imports, but I'm curious whether the writers see value (or drawbacks) in them purely from a writing standpoint.

The fewer flags there are, the fewer things you have to account for and keep track of, and the easier it is to write without worrying about breaking something, getting it wrong, or pissing off fans.

On the other hand, I suspect there are loose threads the writers are interested in tying up or following on for their own satisfaction, not just the players'.

So I'd say it's a mixed bag. It's definitely easier to forget save imports and their mess of flags, but there are points from past games they might really want to write about or give closure on.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 31 mai 2013 - 02:39 .

[MerinTB]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

Exactly, but you have to assume that a writer that is in employment, and not freelance, is willing to work within the constraints.

Willing, sure.  But presumably he can still have preferences.

I didn't say he couldn't, but my point is that the man is either willing to work with it or not. I'd certainly rather feel good with a worse job than miserable with a good one.

If you want freedom to control your writing, working with a team of writers is NOT the way to go.

If you are looking for less restraint in where you can take your writing, being part of an established world is asking for headaches.

If you prefer to have more say on the overall plot and direction of your work, writing for a video game, especially a AAA one for a major developer, is sheer lunacy.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is certainly true.  The increased definition of the PC's personality in DA2 compared to DAO, from the player's perspective, appears not to have been a difference at all from the writer's perspective.  The writers always thought they were writing a tone for each line, for example.  It was a non-writing element of the game's design (the voice, or lack thereof), though, that conveyed that (or didn't) to the player.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm contesting that. I just wanted to point out that from the POV of writing, it's not flexibility that's changed (per se). It was a specific response to that one poster. 

But I can imagine the presence or lack of a save import would change the writers' approach quite a bit.  Particuarly when working on the second game, the need to allow for more tha one starting point in a number of different areas, rather than just the PC (and having the rest of the world be fixed), seems like it would be quite a bit more work in one respect (they can't just assume something is always true), but it might also make some of the work easier (several nearly identical scenes would have be written, which might be easier - but maybe less rewarding - than writing several completely unrelated scenes).

Oh, I completely agree with you here. I agree with Fast Jimmy on this point. 

The other big thing (that he didn't cover) is that the writers can have massive endgame divergences in each game without worrying about it carrying over. For example, DA2 could just have ended with Hawke stopping Anders, saving Kirkwall, and starting a mage utopia. That ending just becomes a "what if?" for the cannon. 

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...

From what I recall, they have said that writing for a voiced protagonist is certainly very different from writing for an unvoiced one. The way the lines have to be written needs to be more explicit with unvoiced because there are no other cues (body language, tone) they can use to convey meaning.

That's dialogue content versus "voice" though. 

[Firky]

I'd have thought it would be fun.

(Also, DA2 didn't have a lot of discrete content based on import, did it? Like, maybe a reference to a king here or there, or some variations on meeting Alistair, for example?)

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...

I'm usually not sure what you and Sylvius are arguing about, but I was just saying that from the writers' perspective, there is a difference. Unvoiced in a sense is more constraining because they have less tools to work with, assuming their goals are the same. (which they have said is the case, going back to the implied diplomatic, snarky or aggressive tones in origins)

We weren't really debating (this time).  

I understand what you mean, and I agree with you (that the writers have to write sentences differently to convey similar things). What I was talking about, though, was that the writers have a "voice" for the character in mind when they write that character - an example being that they had the threat of "sarcastic" comments in DA2/DA:O. 

[gangly369]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Instead of one choice being taken as canon and advancing the story of Ferelden, ALL choices are carried forward, meaning the world is roughly the exact same, regardless who is on the throne. Could a writer tell a really amazing story about Allistair being on the throne and supporting the Mages while Anora, locked in the tower of Fort Drakon, secretly plots to overthrow him by throwing her support with the Templars? Sure, it sounds like an intriguing enough plot. But the writers CAN'T tell that story. Because it depends on certain choices in DA:O to match up and any one given story can't deviate too much from the beaten path of the others.

I could give similar examples about the king of Orzammar, or the Urn of Ashes, or the rate of Feynriel, or the life of Anders... but they all paint a similar picture. The Save Import makes all choices given to the player inherently diminished in the scope of what can happen because of them and work to limit what the writers can do with any given plot. Once the player has touched it with a choice, the story becomes reduced to a situation of straddling a middle ground that either halts the development of that storyline completely or results in a retcon.
 

Somehow, I'm unsurprised that Jimmy is on here to discuss how much he dislikes the save import.

On to what you are discussing in the above, however. I find it interesting that, based off of two games, you are already making the assumption that the choices made previously (such as who is on the throne in Ferelden) are entirely irrelevant now. Why is that? Is it because DA2 had very little to do with these aspects of DA:O? Or perhaps you believe that, as it would require differen't lines, different voice actors, more cinnematics, etc. that it would simply be too much work for the devs to put in the game? These are, I suppose, logical assumptions, and it is perhaps a more pessimistic view on the import feature (i.e. not wrong, but rather negative).

I myself prefer to view this in a more positive light. An example of how this could work is something like this:
Assume for a second that our next hero for DA3 is indeed an Inquisitor, and that he/she is looking for support for either Mages or Templars from the Ferelden throne. Lets say that our Inquisitor is pro-mage, and asks Alistair for help. He could give us troops, safe harbour for mages, and, just by publically agreeing to help the mages, will bring support to our cause by rallying the common folk and other nobles behind us (assuming again that the people like Alistair and that they believe he is important enough to follow). This could help us if we went to villages in Ferelden looking for information as the people might be more willing to tell us certain things (ex: Alistair on our side would lead the villagers to telling us about a Templar ambush waiting in the center of town. Refusal would mean that we just end up walking right into it instead and get our asses beat down and thrown into a jail). 

Now, lets change it up a bit. Lets put Anora on the throne instead with our pro-mage Inquisitor. Anora is a lot more politically savy than Alistair, and is unlikely to commit to anything that isn't A) a guarantee (i.e. she wants to know something is going to succeed before throwing all the dice in) and will want something in exchange for her help. If, say we didn't do a bunch of side quests before-hand to help strengthen the mages position in the war, or perhaps flip-flopped continuously between supporting the Templars and the Mages, Anora will refuse (it's not a sure bet). Now without her support, we lose Ferelden as an ally to help against the Templars. No supplies, no shelter, no men, nothing. Furthermore, if we act like an ass towards her in the convo, she could actually start helping the Templars instead and make our job harder to convince others to support the Mages. This can affect what quests we get as a result, help play a factor in whether or not the mages will lose out in the war, and how our own personal stories progress.

Now see, I don't understand why something like this couldn't happen. It's not like we would need a million lines of dialogue for these two characters. They wouldn't need to comment on the Warden or Hawke, nor the choices they made previously (save perhaps if the Warden was a Mage and asked for that boon), and they can have a significant impact on us in the third game. It wouldn't be a groundbreaking impact, that is to say we could still recover if we were unable to get the monarch to side with us, but it would still be meaningful.

I don't know, it just seems like something that is both reasonable and doable by the Bioware team, and I don't see how we can judge the DA imports after only two games (especially since the story in DA2 had very little to do with anything in DA:O, hence why things like who the king of Orzammar didn't really have an impact in that game). 

I'd just like to further note that I'm not trying to bash Fast Jimmy or anything, his thoughts on the import system are reasonable, and I'm not suggesting that he is 'wrong'. I'm simply just viewing the import system in a more positive light, whereas he is more inclined to view it negatively.

Edit: edited our 'Jaded'. Would have done spelling corrections but I'm way too tired. Hopefully it's not all gibberish 

Modifié par gangly369, 30 mai 2013 - 07:31 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Firky wrote...

I'd have thought it would be fun.

(Also, DA2 didn't have a lot of discrete content based on import, did it? Like, maybe a reference to a king here or there, or some variations on meeting Alistair, for example?)

Off the top of my head, it imported these things:

DA:O Warden alive/dead
Warden Dalish, Mage, etc?
DA:O Warden married to Alistair or not
DA:O romanced Zevran, Alistair or Leliana
Zevran alive/dead
Alistair alive/dead
Nathaniel alive/dead
Architect alive/dead
Avernus alive/dead (Soldier's Peak)
Alistair king, Warden or drunk?
Bhelen or Harrowmont King?
Werewolves cured?
Urn of Sacred Ashes revealed to the world?

None of these had a huge impact on DA2, but there were some juicy sidequests, cameos and nods throughout the game. Alas, some were bugged (like Zevran's romance), some were half-baked (Nate's miniquest),  and some got people really angry (like Leliana being alive, or Cullen not being in line with certain epilogues), but it's cool to have choices recognised.

I think Zevran's miniquest remains my favourite of the lot, and not just because I like Zevran. The quest was a decent length, had a cool premise, tasty dialogue, and the Crows rather intelligently tried to trick the Champion into doing their dirty work. Too bad they end up being too stupid to live by the end >.<, but still! Finally a bit of clever manoeuvring from Antiva's famed assassins.

[Lotion Soronarr]

There is a reason both KOTORS, DA:O and DA2 end with the protagonist misteriously dissapearing, and every choice you made was either disregarded or boiled down to a cameo.

Because you can't make a branching game in which the PC does huge, world-changing choices, and then make a sequel to it.
Too many things, too many resources, too many combinations.

It's no wonder DA2 took place away from Ferelden. And it's no wonder DA:I will not take place in either of the places we visited. Because it's too much work.

Trying to "respect" everyones "canon" and making such stories is only going to backfire.

[Kidd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem is, instead, the fact that previous stories cannot be continued on with the Save Import. Ironic, I know, but it is true. Because a number of people could be on the throne of Ferelden, it will never matter who is on the throne. That is to say, it will not be different enough to tell a different story. Allistair on the throne means the same for the country as Anora or the Warden or any combination of the three.

I much agree with this being problematic. For instance, my canon Hawke took part in the event that spurred the mages to rebel, and the mage who committed the atrocity was her lover. It could be a truly game changing event should the inquisitor run into this Hawke and her partner, where so many facts are laid bare and new paths become available. After all, if the fabled Champion of Kirkwall (whose reputation may be greater than the actual person) and Anders himself were to say something, surely the entire world would listen? They may not agree, but they would listen. These are important people.

But that can't ever happen. In fact, Hawke can't really do anything any more at all, nor can Anders. I would much prefer even if it was made canon that Hawke was a white man who killed Anders after the supposed betrayal; who tried to save the city from the problem within with Isabela at his side. That's not how my canon game went and it doesn't even match any of my playthroughs of which I have several. But at least this way, Hawke's existence and Anders' death can have real consequence.

I didn't complain that BG2 took it for granted I had saved Dynaheir and helped Minsc, after all. If it makes for a better story in the sequel, feel free to trample my choices. My choices made a difference for me while I was making them even if they don't change the following game.

Knight of Dane wrote...

Anyway; If the writers actually had a problem with it, they would quit.

Not necessarily. I can almost assure you that every single person on staff has a problem with something. One of the programmers really wish the elf redesign looked different, a writer doesn't like a plot they have been handed from above, a producer wishes there were resources to spend on more QA and a cinematics designer doesn't like how a certain tool they use often is placed deep within menus in their toolset without an assigned keyboard shortcut. And maybe, just maybe, somebody wishes their boss was a little more lenient.

There's always something. You don't quit over something, you quit when the somethings grow too large for you to bear.

[Fast Jimmy]

Now see, I don't understand why something like this couldn't happen. It's not like we would need a million lines of dialogue for these two characters. They wouldn't need to comment on the Warden or Hawke, nor the choices they made previously (save perhaps if the Warden was a Mage and asked for that boon), and they can have a significant impact on us in the third game. It wouldn't be a groundbreaking impact, that is to say we could still recover if we were unable to get the monarch to side with us, but it would still be meaningful.

I don't know, it just seems like something that is both reasonable and doable by the Bioware team, and I don't see how we can judge the DA imports after only two games (especially since the story in DA2 had very little to do with anything in DA:O, hence why things like who the king of Orzammar didn't really have an impact in that game).

Well, firstly, I'd say there aren't ways for them to do the Save Import. But that's not the point. They could have the Save Import and have it acknowledged through a cameo or a dialogue difference. But I could list a whole SLEW of plot ideas that could work to tell a unique and interesting story, but are impossible with the Save Import. For instance, in an ending with Allistiar with the Wardens and Loghain alive with Anora on the throne, there could be a very interesting story line where Loghain's continued distrust of the Orlesian Empire makes him willing to do a backdoor deal to support Garspand to overthrow the Empress, while Anora is actively supporting Celene, which causes conflict and outright conflict between the two.

But with the Save Import, this is too specialized of an outcome to do. Not that this is some kind of requirement from me if this world state it imported, but rather that no story that touches on any of the choices in anything but the most broad of ways will be rife with narrative quicksand for the writers to navigate through constantly. I'd say it would be difficult to find a preference in a system where story ideas simply can't be done because some players don't have the right world state for it.


Also, I would say your suggestion is not something we will likely see. It seems like an inordinate amount of work. For instance, you say siding with the Mages and asking Allistair for help would result in Ferelden giving supplies and troops... but approaching Anora as Pro-Mage would result in a large amount of side-quests in order to gain her support or else Ferelden wouldn't support the Inquisition.

Having an entire country on your side or against you is going to be a BIG change in the game (or, at least, it should be). We are talking about how cutscenes, conversations and battles play out on a large scale... assuming Ferelden can side against you, so could, theoretically, many other allies. Can you lose if you don't have enough allies? Can you win soundly if you have enough of them?

Not to mention all the dialogue involved with tasking the player to do things like side quests or avoiding the ambush you mentioned. It may directly involve Anora/Allistair's VA or it may not... but the point is, it is custom-created content for a choice made back in 2008. I doubt it is something that is going to have NEARLY the budget enough to handle what you outlined. Add onto the fact that you only cover two scenarios - Anora on the throne and Allistair on the throne. What if they are married to each other? What if each respective one is married to the Warden? What if they are married together with the Warden as their concubine? These are all choices available in DA:O that could color how things play out. Suddenly, it is not just one outcome but three, four, five... etc.

And this is just one choice. One of the larger ones, granted, but still... one choice out of dozens. How much can you apply to this one divergent piece of the story? Especially in light of the demand for more choices and divergence than what we saw in DA2 from many fans? Do prior game choices take precedent over giving the player more choices? Should the imported choices result in MORE choices as well, further delineating the plot threads to handle? Will DA4, 5 or 6 eventually just become a game that does nothing but react to previous game choices? Hyperbole, of course, but the effect can easily stack up at an alarming rate.


I can only see how the Import gunks up and mires the creative process for the writers, not how it would enhance it.

[RedArmyShogun]

Yes, yes they would. And your save ports are gone forever more, with a forced cannon for the thrid game, or a comic book in which only the major choices stay and those characters you made can never be imported but via stock apperance every again as you weep in bitter sorrow praying for a god that will never speak back, or leaning on friends.

Friends are nothing more than the people who you spend the fun yet meaningless times with. When painful times come, they won't be your ally.

Then you'll still buy the game and play it, and when you are all alone, then you will die and no one will ever know.

Modifié par RedArmyShogun, 30 mai 2013 - 11:52 .

[wright1978]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I honestly don't know.  It strikes me that not having to worry about them (or even perhaps not needing a consistent canon from one game to the next) would grant the writers greater freedom to write as they see fit, without worrying about accommodating the previous game's divergent paths.  It would also, I would think, amount to some savings in the word budget, thus allowing deeper plots (because there could be fewer plots).

But maybe I'm wrong about this.  Maybe the writers enjoy working within the restrictions save imports provide.  Maybe there's a difference of opinion among the writers.  I don't know.  I'm admittedly biased on this one, since I don't really see the value in save imports, but I'm curious whether the writers see value (or drawbacks) in them purely from a writing standpoint.

Could you not say the same thing about any part of player characterisation? Wouldn't it be easier if the writers just got to write their single version of the protaganist, without having to offer players any choice of action in the game or customisation over the protaganist. Personally as far as i'm concerned i hope they stay with the player characterised protaganist & with save imports rather than going down the route of pure interactive movie making.

[Fast Jimmy]

wright1978 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I honestly don't know.  It strikes me that not having to worry about them (or even perhaps not needing a consistent canon from one game to the next) would grant the writers greater freedom to write as they see fit, without worrying about accommodating the previous game's divergent paths.  It would also, I would think, amount to some savings in the word budget, thus allowing deeper plots (because there could be fewer plots).

But maybe I'm wrong about this.  Maybe the writers enjoy working within the restrictions save imports provide.  Maybe there's a difference of opinion among the writers.  I don't know.  I'm admittedly biased on this one, since I don't really see the value in save imports, but I'm curious whether the writers see value (or drawbacks) in them purely from a writing standpoint.

Could you not say the same thing about any part of player characterisation? Wouldn't it be easier if the writers just got to write their single version of the protaganist, without having to offer players any choice of action in the game or customisation over the protaganist. Personally as far as i'm concerned i hope they stay with the player characterised protaganist & with save imports rather than going down the route of pure interactive movie making.

You could say the same about SOME part of player customization, yes. Such as choice and consequence or personaltiy tracking. But other parts, such as your class, appearance or gender, have nearly no role in the writing of the games aside from a few random little lines (although, in relation to class, this may be changing for DA3).

But the Save Import isn't just allowing player customization of one character... it is creating a game that deals with the customization of THREE. And counting. As big of a headache as giving player's choice in one game is (something most developers don't do at all to begin with), imagine how much more it is compounded when you have to work within the customization of two previous games PLUS a new one? With the ME and Withcer series this is mitigated a little bit, since it is one continuous character throughout. And even then, they have huge mountains to climb. But to integrate the choices, customization and control of three characters, all adhering to the player's decisions? It is an avalanche of variables to track.

[Nightdragon8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Depends on the writer. Sometimes absolute freedom is devastating, and sometimes structure and limitations are empowering.

Also - having to write around multiple paths of divergence can be very challenging, even fun.

Depends on the writer.

Exactly, but you have to assume that a writer that is in employment, and not freelance, is willing to work within the constraints.

Willing, sure.  But presumably he can still have preferences.

... yea because working at Bioware, where now its been esablished as working with import save files, you wanna get hired but hate having to do the work... honestly if they don't like doing it shouldn't they just quit and try to find a job some place else? somewhere that would only do 1 off games or games with a set canon...

cause I don't think they are under contract to work there for X amount of years...