184 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that would then limit the sorts of stories or plots that each game can allow.

Like the genophage cure in ME - the game world would change dramatically if we actually cured the genophage, so we're not allowed to do that.  We can't overthrow governments or destroy cities or win wars (unless losing was impossible) or lose wars (unless winning was impossible) because those would create world states that were too disparate.

That's the price of the save import.

I disagree Sylvius.

These sort of plots can easily happen with or without a save import. There's nothing in it that explicitly prevents you from being involved in historical events of this sort.
It's easy to imagine that it is, but remember that this sort of thing would have to be shown ingame as well. Otherwise it just boils down to an arbitrary choice at the end that yo're at best told about (which is the wrong way of handling it, in my opinion). We'd have to see the changes starting to happen even before the save import becomes an issue. Which is no less feasible than doing it in a sequel. This is doubly true if choices aren't carried along to the next game.

Instead when something must happen, you just don't give the player any choice in it's outcome (but compensate with plenty of opportunity to personalize it).
The goverment is overthrown? Sure, but which ones are involved in the new one?
The war was won? Great. But what were the terms? Which people gained and lost from it?
The war was lost? Uh-oh. How were the people I care about affected? Who falls out of favour at court?

I may not have chosen whether it'll be a victory... but I imagine that it could be made to feel like my victory.

What I'm suggesting is that plot dictates the larger question as per it's needs. Whereas we get a say in the smaller ones (some suggestions written in italics). We decorate the plots, change details based on our choices... but we do not dictate it's outcomes.
The Witcher 2 handled it's choices this way... the world ends up the way the plot dictates, you're just choosing from which perspective we look at it and whom you take along for the ride. And it worked fairly well in my humble opinion.

There's still a limitation involved, sure. But it's not nearly as dramatic as requiring every choice to be world altering. Unless you choose to let the entire world burn, most choices can be guided to a desired destination.

Modifié par Sir JK, 02 juin 2013 - 07:23 .

[Solmanian]

well in next gen only the PC will get save imports, so we'll find out soon enough...

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But that's not a counter to Sylvius' point. Making us only play meatheads on the ground fighting mooks is a limit on the stories.

Making us play meatheads on the ground I'd say is a limit of the...medium. Not necessarily a hard limit, but playing a Council member that sits with the two other members all day and decides who to let into the council and who not to let in and whether or not to add new Spectres and once in a blue moon if we should keep a genophage cure would be a pretty boring game. Those are the people in charge of making the big decisions. The reason they're in charge is because they can look at things dispassionately and make a decision--they aren't involved in the matter.

Given the fact that Syvlius does not say differently, it looks like he's saying he wants to be a ground-pounder that also makes these decisions. I'm saying that combination is unrealistic and slightly offensive in its level of pandering.

I certainly may be wrong on my premise, and if I am please correct me Sylvius.

Never take my silence to be agreement.

Your position regarding meatheads presupposes some immutable chain of command.  The council makes decisions, and their agents on the ground carry out those decisions, and never (apparently) do those agents on teh ground go rogue and make big, world-changing decisions themselves, even when they have the power to do so.

Alan's right.  That's a severe limitation, and one I do not accept.

Moreover, why would you assume that someone involved in the mission cannot view that mission dispassionately?  I view almost everything dispassionately.  Viewing things dispassionately, through a lens of pure logic, is my refuge.  That's how I deal with nearly every difficult problem I ever face.  I insist that this can absolutely be done by people in any circumstance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I disagree Sylvius.

These sort of plots can easily happen with or without a save import. There's nothing in it that explicitly prevents you from being involved in historical events of this sort.
It's easy to imagine that it is, but remember that this sort of thing would have to be shown ingame as well. Otherwise it just boils down to an arbitrary choice at the end that yo're at best told about (which is the wrong way of handling it, in my opinion). We'd have to see the changes starting to happen even before the save import becomes an issue. Which is no less feasible than doing it in a sequel. This is doubly true if choices aren't carried along to the next game.

Instead when something must happen, you just don't give the player any choice in it's outcome (but compensate with plenty of opportunity to personalize it).
The goverment is overthrown? Sure, but which ones are involved in the new one?
The war was won? Great. But what were the terms? Which people gained and lost from it?
The war was lost? Uh-oh. How were the people I care about affected? Who falls out of favour at court?

I may not have chosen whether it'll be a victory... but I imagine that it could be made to feel like my victory.

What I'm suggesting is that plot dictates the larger question as per it's needs. Whereas we get a say in the smaller ones (some suggestions written in italics). We decorate the plots, change details based on our choices... but we do not dictate it's outcomes.
The Witcher 2 handled it's choices this way... the world ends up the way the plot dictates, you're just choosing from which perspective we look at it and whom you take along for the ride. And it worked fairly well in my humble opinion.

There's still a limitation involved, sure. But it's not nearly as dramatic as requiring every choice to be world altering. Unless you choose to let the entire world burn, most choices can be guided to a desired destination.

It won't feel like my victory if I wasn't trying to win.  Or even if I wasn't contributing positively to the outcome (as I might if I'm playing an ineffective character).  Having victory shoved down my throat - making victory unavoidable - cheapens that victory.  Why would I feel any sense of ownership or appreciate victory at all if my contribution wasn't materially relevant?

And, I would suggest, it badly damanges the credibility of the setting if my contribution is forced to be materially relevant, even when I know my character isn't trying particularly hard.  How is it I'm the only one who can save the world?  Given that I'm not being even vaguely challenged by this, why hasn't someone else already done it?

No, instead the game should try to let me own my character's efforts, regardless of what those efforts are or whether they are successful.  Let me decide what my characte wants.  Let me decide how my character tries to achieve those ends.  Feel free to write the greater world state around me, but don't force me to be involved in it unless you're willing to let me decide how it ends.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 juin 2013 - 10:52 .

[Sir JK]

That's not what I am talking about, Sylvius. That's a separate issue entirely (to which I agree with every sentiment).

What I meant was that much like with the Archdemon, there's a assumed fixed ending. It's the one the plot steers us toward. The only choice that exists not to pursue this ending is to stop playing prior to it (and I would not be averse to the game providing nice opportunities for this to occur). We'd still be challenged to achieve it, and would have to work hard to get there. And not doing so may mean that some of the things we cared about will be lost (companions, causes, family... whatnot).

But that you will never be asked whether your side will win and lose (and have this, and only this, determine the outcome). In my suggestion you get to choose what victory (assuming you play that far) looks like. Which people survived, which people didn't (through a combination of choice and effort). You influence the outcome to a degree. Pick your rewards, essentially. Thus the world develops as befits the greater plot, you get a chance to be invested in the world and be given a chance to feel that you made a difference.

And I imagine that with that approach save import would be no greater an obstacle for the writers than any other system.

Also... I could do with a lot less plots where I and only I am in a position to save the world. That's a cheap plot.

Modifié par Sir JK, 03 juin 2013 - 06:11 .

[Wozearly]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Or D) there are less world-changing choices and more character-changing choices

If I understand correctly, you're gunning at choices with internalised consequences rather than external ones?

So when you kill the Grand High Evil Mage, you're able to influence how your character reacts to that, but the world will continue to move on around you. Your companions might notice your change / continuation in mood, but because you've left no empircally different mark on the world then assuming your character isn't required in the next game then the save import is very straightforward.

Its an interesting, but I see two leviathan-sized risks bubbling up underneath it.

If you're going to explicitly influence your own character's development down specific paths, then that means your character is going to be forced to act or react in a certain way to things which will shape them as a character - although you can pick / influence which they do.

The first risk is that the shaping is quite crucial to how your character acts, speaks, engages with others. My concern is that the inevitable consequence of this is a much higher chance of people feeling "...this is not my character, its Bioware's". Because clearly you can't just handwave your own decisions if they're meant to have consequence over your character's development.

The second risk is the opposite, that the choices give you an opportunity to do things that will help you, as a player, better define your character by their experiences - but not change the world. That avoids the first problem, but you could recast this as "Your choices don't affect the world - either you always have to pick the same side, or there are no sides to pick, or no matter what side you pick the plot simply wriggles out of your grip to get you to exactly the same point".

Truth is, the sweet spot is probably somewhere between both of our (comparatively) extremist positions.

Fewer world-shaping decisions, but something that leaves a sufficient mark on Thedas that when its mentioned in a future game you can point to it proudly and say "Hah...I did that." The continuity of those decisions would need to be maintained at least for a reasonable time frame in the game world, wherever it was relevant to a future game in the series.

On the other hand, a much broader set of game-changing decisions that would impact the story of that game, but have limited impact on the wider world or the future, and a broader set of character-companion decisions that would have different impacts on your respective stories, but not to the point where the characters would have different 'versions' of each other for future games.

And, clearly, none of them will ever be allowed to die - and if they are dead, expect an unexplained resurrection in the sequel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

That's not what I am talking about, Sylvius. That's a separate issue entirely (to which I agree with every sentiment).

What I meant was that much like with the Archdemon, there's a assumed fixed ending. It's the one the plot steers us toward. The only choice that exists not to pursue this ending is to stop playing prior to it (and I would not be averse to the game providing nice opportunities for this to occur). We'd still be challenged to achieve it, and would have to work hard to get there. And not doing so may mean that some of the things we cared about will be lost (companions, causes, family... whatnot).

But that you will never be asked whether your side will win and lose (and have this, and only this, determine the outcome). In my suggestion you get to choose what victory (assuming you play that far) looks like. Which people survived, which people didn't (through a combination of choice and effort). You influence the outcome to a degree. Pick your rewards, essentially. Thus the world develops as befits the greater plot, you get a chance to be invested in the world and be given a chance to feel that you made a difference.

And I imagine that with that approach save import would be no greater an obstacle for the writers than any other system.

Also... I could do with a lot less plots where I and only I am in a position to save the world. That's a cheap plot.

My response is twofold:

First, yes, that system would be good as long as it is careful not to assign to the PC automatically what should have been player-directed choices.  So, while the archdemon's defeat is fixed, the exuberance with which the Warden works toward that result should not be fixed.

Second, should the archdemon's defeat be fixed?  With a villain like the archdemon, I can see a strong argument for fixing that outcome, because the alternative isn't terribly interesting.  But what about DA2?  Should the destruction of the chantry be fixed?  Should the ultimate defeat of both Meredith and Orsino be fixed?  Given how they were written, perhaps, but I suspect they were written like that specifically because the game needed the player to want to defeat both of them.  Or what of the Qunari at the end of Act II.  The whole of Act II relies on Hawke feeling some sort of responsibility toward the safety and security of Kirkwall, despite that never having been established or built through player actions.

DAO was a terrific game.  Most of the design choices there, I think, work really well, either because they adhere to some valuable overarching principle of good design, or because they found a handy exception where the specific design DAO uses works despite being, generally, a bad idea.  DAO's examples, then, aren't that helpful when discussing how design can go wrong, because DAO mostly didn't go wrong.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 juin 2013 - 11:08 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

That's not what I am talking about, Sylvius. That's a separate issue entirely (to which I agree with every sentiment).

What I meant was that much like with the Archdemon, there's a assumed fixed ending. It's the one the plot steers us toward. The only choice that exists not to pursue this ending is to stop playing prior to it (and I would not be averse to the game providing nice opportunities for this to occur). We'd still be challenged to achieve it, and would have to work hard to get there. And not doing so may mean that some of the things we cared about will be lost (companions, causes, family... whatnot).

But that you will never be asked whether your side will win and lose (and have this, and only this, determine the outcome). In my suggestion you get to choose what victory (assuming you play that far) looks like. Which people survived, which people didn't (through a combination of choice and effort). You influence the outcome to a degree. Pick your rewards, essentially. Thus the world develops as befits the greater plot, you get a chance to be invested in the world and be given a chance to feel that you made a difference.

And I imagine that with that approach save import would be no greater an obstacle for the writers than any other system.

Also... I could do with a lot less plots where I and only I am in a position to save the world. That's a cheap plot.

My response is twofold:

First, yes, that system would be good as long as it is careful not to assign to the PC automatically what should have been player-directed choices.  So, while the archdemon's defeat is fixed, the exuberance with which the Warden works toward that result should not be fixed.

Second, should the archdemon's defeat be fixed?  With a villain like the archdemon, I can see a strong argument for fixing that outcome, because the alternative isn't terribly interesting.  But what about DA2?  Should the destruction of the chantry be fixed?  Should the ultimate defeat of both Meredith and Orsino be fixed?  Given how they were written, perhaps, but I suspect they were written like that specifically because the game needed the player to want to defeat both of them.  Or what of the Qunari at the end of Act II.  The whole of Act II relies on Hawke feeling some sort of responsibility toward the safety and security of Kirkwall, despite that never having been established or built through player actions.

To point one, I think we can safely say that the desturction of the chantry is fixed, and the texture of the outcome comes from the choices within it, as they are not fixed much like how the results before that event shape the story of Hawke.

To point two, simply yes, because its the working goal in the end for the chantry being destoryed essentially made the story happen to begin with via the framed narrative. Once again its the same as the Archdemon in scale, the difference being the general threat at that moment in time seemed limited. 

In terms of this, that is what the save import should allow. How we deal with the Archdemon, Connor, your sibling, Anders, the Qunari, etc is what is carried over. It allows continutity of events. Think of it as a multi-tiered campaign in a tabletop setting. The first game sets the stage for the second, and events from both continue into the third, and so on. 

It's non-linear storytelling that is focused into a linear story structure. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 juin 2013 - 11:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I suggest it would be more beneficial simply not to have continuity across games, and thus allow the player greater freedom to have his character do different things.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My response is twofold:

First, yes, that system would be good as long as it is careful not to assign to the PC automatically what should have been player-directed choices.  So, while the archdemon's defeat is fixed, the exuberance with which the Warden works toward that result should not be fixed.

Absolutely. Here we agree completely.

Second, should the archdemon's defeat be fixed?  With a villain like the archdemon, I can see a strong argument for fixing that outcome, because the alternative isn't terribly interesting.  But what about DA2?  Should the destruction of the chantry be fixed?  Should the ultimate defeat of both Meredith and Orsino be fixed?  Given how they were written, perhaps, but I suspect they were written like that specifically because the game needed the player to want to defeat both of them.  Or what of the Qunari at the end of Act II.  The whole of Act II relies on Hawke feeling some sort of responsibility toward the safety and security of Kirkwall, despite that never having been established or built through player actions.

Sure, this is a concern that is always an important one regardless of whether one have a save import or not. The fine balance between player agency and story. The story needs to close somehow, preferably in a good way (just as important as starting in a good way). One cannot go too far in either direction though. Too much player agency and the game will lack a cohesive story. Too little, and there's no room for roleplaying.

It's really a fine point of balance here. It's easy to go wrong in either direction. I do believe however that it should be fine, providing that it's told with a solid storytelling and by allowing our choices and efforts to affect what the ending looks like.

DAO was a terrific game.  Most of the design choices there, I think, work really well, either because they adhere to some valuable overarching principle of good design, or because they found a handy exception where the specific design DAO uses works despite being, generally, a bad idea.  DAO's examples, then, aren't that helpful when discussing how design can go wrong, because DAO mostly didn't go wrong.

It's valuable out of a analytical viewpoint though, isn't it? We discuss what worked and why and thus can use that data to look at other things to figure out why they didn't or what they could've done better. And, like in this topic, make educated guesses.

Modifié par Sir JK, 04 juin 2013 - 06:08 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I suggest it would be more beneficial simply not to have continuity across games, and thus allow the player greater freedom to have his character do different things.

But your characters already do different things regardless to what happened previously. Does the adventure of the Warden directly influence Hawke's choices, to the point where he can't do different things? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I suggest it would be more beneficial simply not to have continuity across games, and thus allow the player greater freedom to have his character do different things.

But your characters already do different things regardless to what happened previously. Does the adventure of the Warden directly influence Hawke's choices, to the point where he can't do different things?

No.  The adventure of Hawke limits the Warden.  BioWare's need to write a second game based on the outcomes of the first game limit the choices available in the first game.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I suggest it would be more beneficial simply not to have continuity across games, and thus allow the player greater freedom to have his character do different things.

But your characters already do different things regardless to what happened previously. Does the adventure of the Warden directly influence Hawke's choices, to the point where he can't do different things?

No.  The adventure of Hawke limits the Warden.  BioWare's need to write a second game based on the outcomes of the first game limit the choices available in the first game.

I don't see how it limits the Warden, since Hawke has little to do with the first game.

ETA:

To say something retro-actively limits the choices for the first game is a bit unusual, mainly because you get tunnel-visioned into something that is planned out down the road, so it will automatically limit what you can do.

In a sense I guess thats true, but then the proposal is that the outcomes given for the first game, and subsequent games, are always limited in the first place to make sure that happens. 

The complexity of the two games in terms of choices made, and how they are resolved (or unresolved) does require some planning to hammer through, and some work-arounds to make sure it makes sense.

But I don't see how it limits choices retroactively, because the said choices are still present in some form in both plot and narrative structure. 

Let me put it this way. Should the world change at all, or always be molded by the players in a game with this structure? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 04 juin 2013 - 05:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't see how it limits the Warden, since Hawke has little to do with the first game.

Granted, since DAO and DA2 happen in such different locations, this effect is reduced.

But a sequel needs to take place in a world with fairly little variation in its overall world state.  Sure, small things can differ (who the king is, what tactics are being used in a war), but big ticket questions like is the war happening at all, or was the entire government overthrown by an uprising - those are choices that simply can't be offered to the PC in the first game if the second game would be at all affected by it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The complexity of the two games in terms of choices made, and how they are resolved (or unresolved) does require some planning to hammer through, and some work-arounds to make sure it makes sense. But I don't how it limits choices retroactively, because the said choices are still present in some form in both plot and narrative structure.

But if BioWare knew they didn't need to write a direct sequel, then those choices in the first game could be bigger.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The complexity of the two games in terms of choices made, and how they are resolved (or unresolved) does require some planning to hammer through, and some work-arounds to make sure it makes sense. But I don't how it limits choices retroactively, because the said choices are still present in some form in both plot and narrative structure.

But if BioWare knew they didn't need to write a direct sequel, then those choices in the first game could be bigger.

See, thats an assumption though. We can't speculate on what could be bigger because it doesn't exist. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't see how it limits the Warden, since Hawke has little to do with the first game.

Granted, since DAO and DA2 happen in such different locations, this effect is reduced.

But a sequel needs to take place in a world with fairly little variation in its overall world state.  Sure, small things can differ (who the king is, what tactics are being used in a war), but big ticket questions like is the war happening at all, or was the entire government overthrown by an uprising - those are choices that simply can't be offered to the PC in the first game if the second game would be at all affected by it.

I don't know about that. Tradtional sequels have done such a thing, yes, but we are dealing with something new, even you must admit that.

Can a sequel take place in a world with massive variations to the world state? The example you list is again retro-thinking. The war happened for sure, it was the plot of the game that it happened, so that much can't be changed at all. As for a governmental uprising, it could be how the tale is spinned by rumor and such, which is an easy fix by having people spreading the rumors about as to the atrocities of the Warden or something like that. But are those big variables to mention? Truth be told, who the king is is probably a bigger deal, and it ties into things such as tactics and how the king rises to rule. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 04 juin 2013 - 06:02 .

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

...So, while the archdemon's defeat is fixed, the exuberance with which the Warden works toward that result should not be fixed.

Completely, totally and utterly agreed. Same with their exact motivations for doing so. DA:O did a great job with keeping your decision to join the Wardens sufficiently grey (no pun intended) that a reluctant character was as possible as an enthusiastic one. As was a reluctant one who evolved into a determined one.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Second, should the archdemon's defeat be fixed?  With a villain like the archdemon, I can see a strong argument for fixing that outcome, because the alternative isn't terribly interesting.

Actually, the alternative of a world descending into utter chaos could have been very interesting. But you couldn't have written DA2 as it was off the back of that without some variation of "...some other Grey Warden killed the Archdemon before the darkspawn overwhelmed the free cities. Phew. Now, DA2 is a story about Hawke..."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But what about DA2?  Should the destruction of the chantry be fixed? 
Should the ultimate defeat of both Meredith and Orsino be fixed?  Given
how they were written, perhaps, but I suspect they were written like
that specifically because the game needed the player to want to defeat
both of them.  Or what of the Qunari at the end of Act II.  The whole of
Act II relies on Hawke feeling some sort of responsibility toward the
safety and security of Kirkwall, despite that never having been
established or built through player actions.

Which were distinct problems with both the game and those sections. I feel DA2 tried too hard to make us care about Hawke and his family too quickly, rather than letting us grow into Hawke in the way (IMO) we were able to with the Warden. It rushed too quickly into the "...and now, something really exciting happens", and almost seemed to intentionally dodge any meaningful down time for a long period. Contrast that with the more exploratory beginnings in Origins, where you weren't thrust into a fight in the first fifteen seconds.

The effort to make both mages and templars equally detestable also unfortunately ended up painting both sides as a complete bunch of lunatics, with Meredith and Orsino descending into caricatures of each sides failings through unexpected and unforgivable lunacy during Act 3. Having to kill both then became inevitable, if feeling contrived. But its probably the main reason why by the end I really didn't give a monkeys about the Mage / Templar war, and was hoping against hope that DA3 wouldn't make it a focal point.

But then, it seems the purpose of DA2 was to set the stage for DA3. Which is a whole different gripe I have with sequels seeming to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot and deserves a thread of its own.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO was a terrific game.  Most of the design choices there, I think, work really well, either because they adhere to some valuable overarching principle of good design, or because they found a handy exception where the specific design DAO uses works despite being, generally, a bad idea.

Agreed.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No. The adventure of Hawke limits the Warden.  BioWare's need to write a second game based on the outcomes of the first game limit the choices available in the first game.

I have to disagree on this. Hawke could only have limited the Warden's story if Hawke's story had been written in detail in advance of DA:O. This would be a very bizarre way to approach the launch of a new series - plus, I think we could point to enough ropey decisions with resurrecting dead characters from DA:O for cameos as evidence that this is unlikely.

I don't feel that DA:O limited Hawke so much as it limited the setting. We couldn't easily return to Ferelden, and definitely not Amaranthine, because of the variety of outcomes the Warden's actions had - short of a retcon, imposing canon or waiting until enough time has passed that a new situation can credibly explain how either outcome ended up in the same place.

Likewise, having devoted so much time to the Mage / Templar war in DA2, DA3 was virtually shackled to picking it up as a result. Which is a restriction rather than a problem, but the way that DA2 concluded doesn't stop the series returning to Kirkwall in the future. But oh Maker no, please not Kirkwall. I've seen too much of it. Never, ever, ever again....please!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wozearly wrote...

But then, it seems the purpose of DA2 was to set the stage for DA3.

I'm arguing that this is aways true, to some degree, as long as the writers are even allowing for the possibility of a subsequent game.  They can't blow up the whole setting while also allowing for another game set in it.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm arguing that this is aways true, to some degree, as long as the writers are even allowing for the possibility of a subsequent game.  They can't blow up the whole setting while also allowing for another game set in it.

This is true. They cannot go on with a setting they allowed to be blown up. Not on large scale, and just barely on small scale.

So if we assume that the setting blowing up is somehow a desireable end and that the player should have a choice in this, then indeed... save import stands in it's way.

However... that line of thinking misses a very crucial question:

Could a choice between letting the world blow up (or any equalient choice) and saving the situation truly be done justice at all? Save import or not?

Because if we're not showing it over multiple installments, then we have to show it in the same one. We'd have to show how the world diverges, which effects it had down the line and discuss it's consequences. Show, don't tell. The first and primary rule of storytelling. Just like the story would have to show success, it would have to show failure. And it would have to devote just as much focus to either.

Therein is where the true problem lies. It's not whether it can be done justice in two or more separate games. It's whether it could be done justice at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think epilogue slides are more than adequate feedback.

[AlanC9]

As long as they cover the required info, sure. Worked in Fallout, works now.

I can see using other techniques, but slides are awfully efficient.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 juin 2013 - 11:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...


As long as they cover the required info, sure. Worked in Fallout, works now.

I can see using other techniques, but slides are awfully efficient.

I know, right? Epilogue slides have been the vehicle for some of the best RPG endings I've seen. If ME3 had put in epilogue slides like DA:O as seen here, they could have filled in all the confusion, lack of clarity and absence of closure people complained about in the original ME3 ending and which some felt the Extended Cut and/or Citadel DLC delivered.

They are cheap, easy and can accommodate a variety of player's choices with ease. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

But then, it seems the purpose of DA2 was to set the stage for DA3.

I'm arguing that this is aways true, to some degree, as long as the writers are even allowing for the possibility of a subsequent game.  They can't blow up the whole setting while also allowing for another game set in it.

ME3 says hi. Lol