660 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Wulfram wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
and I find it odd that the Warden wouldn't make sure she's dead esp 
since so many darkspawn (esp Ogres) can get up again after only seeming
to have taken fatal wounds (see Ogre entry).  I would expect "making
sure" of death would be Grey Warden SOP.

So it's an example that perhaps the Warden isn't as much your character as you've historically convinced yourself to believe?

Uh, I didn't write that

Sorry Quote pyramids get confusing.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And yet...not everyone checks corpses.

The Warden isn't the only one in the party.

In a battlezone I'd understand there not being time to make sure of the dead, but in a small fight, one that concerned a fellow party member no less, there is no good reason not to see if they're ok after. 

I do not like the idea of this being used as a deliberate mechanic to allow NPC survivability. 

If Leliana has a drug that can stop her heart/breathing for a while, then it stands to reason she could have fooled hte PC.

And the head-lopping argument aside, I don't disagree with you! If Anders can fake his own death after Awakening, why can't Leliana fake hers? It won't satisfy the people who say their Wardens stab every body whether or not it's breathing (because, hey, darkspawn), but it's a much better idea than 'You didn't check her body for signs of life.'

Of course, one has to realise that FORCING yourcharacter to check each and every corpse is just as insulting as forcing him NOT to. I don't recall a corpse-checking function in the game, so it's out of the players hands anyway.

Oh, I agree. I'm not saying they should put in such a function. Personally, I just think that if someone is beaten in combat then they are dead unless the game specifies otherwise (case in point: Zevran's ambush). Considering the body count PCs rack up in games, you can't feasibly do it the other way. 

Liskat wrote...

If those who killed Leliana didn't see the Warden checking if she was really dead on screen, then it would make sense to assume that the Warden didn't check. If you didn't see it happen on screen you cannot automatically assume that it happened. 

But by that logic just about everyone the PC kills in Dragon Age could still really be alive because 'you didn't check'. And does your argument also mean that if something happened on screen it must have happened, namely the beheading animation? Or does that not count?

Ziggeh wrote...

As the writers in a continuining series they, by definition, need to add things. Those things are often going to contradict things that people have added themselves, such as "The warden would definitely have taken a pulse". When this happens, as the player, you cannot say "I own this narrative, you cannot make this addition".

You are free to ignore any such additions, but you have no claim concerning the text.

*shrug* The writers also have the power to contradict things they themselves have written. I'm not going to tell them they can't or that they're not allowed to, that'd be silly, considering, but I see no problem with telling them when I feel there are problems with how they're doing it, so long as I do it in a civil fashion.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 07 juillet 2013 - 12:50 .

[Ziggeh]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

But by that logic just about everyone the PC kills in Dragon Age could still really be alive because 'you didn't check'.

I would say these are fairly exceptional circumstances - rogue trained in deception goes down in a room with a major healing artifact - but generally I would say yes, we can't really use gameplay abstractions as evidence of narrative deaths.

I think location would make many of them shakey - if they dropped in a castle surrounded by guards or someones front room they would need to be dragged away at some point, people are going to notice. Ruined temples lost to history don't get so much in the way of foot traffic.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

*shrug* The writers also have the power to contradict things they themselves have written. I'm not going to tell them they can't or that they're not allowed to, that'd be silly, considering, but I see no problem with telling them when I feel there are problems with how they're doing it, so long as I do it in a civil fashion.

Just as it's worth noting: contradicting information given earlier in a narrative isn't inherently flawed - twists typically rely upon it. But entirely agree that the manner in which it's done is the important point.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ziggeh wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

But by that logic just about everyone the PC kills in Dragon Age could still really be alive because 'you didn't check'.

I would say these are fairly exceptional circumstances - rogue trained in deception goes down in a room with a major healing artifact - but generally I would say yes, we can't really use gameplay abstractions as evidence of narrative deaths.

I think location would make many of them shakey - if they dropped in a castle surrounded by guards or someones front room they would need to be dragged away at some point, people are going to notice. Ruined temples lost to history don't get so much in the way of foot traffic.

Exceptional circumstances are fine, so long as they're made use of. I've said it before, but the place Leliana dies is exceptional enough I'd totally buy a good reason for her returning. 'You didn't check if she was dead' is not a good explanation to me.

Just as it's worth noting: contradicting information given earlier in a narrative isn't inherently flawed - twists typically rely upon it. But entirely agree that the manner in which it's done is the important point.

There's a difference between contradicting and twisting IMO, since one is straight out going against what was said and the other is putting a spin on it--a spin that isn't a full 180 degrees. But contradictions aren't always bad, no. Again, it's how they're done, and to an arguably lesser degree what's being contradicted.

[JWvonGoethe]

I'm starting to wonder how many of the people on this thread have ever actually "killed" Leliana in-game. All this talk of whether the Warden "checked Leliana to see if she's dead or not" is completely irrelevant, for the following reason:

Leliana turns into a pile of bones on the ground after the Warden kills her. This happens in-game, and can clearly be seen.

Does the Warden still need to "check" if she's alive when that happens? No - she's a pile of bones.
However, does it really matter that this happens? No. It's just a stock animation, just like the beheading. Presumably we all saw how crazy things were in the Gauntlet - people were coming back from the dead literally left right and centre - and we've been told that Leliana's apparent resurrection will be explained in the future.

If the explanation we're given in the future is unsatisfactory, then by all means complain, but at least give Bioware a chance to tell us what happened first.

[Airdeen]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Liskat wrote...

If those who killed Leliana didn't see the Warden checking if she was really dead on screen, then it would make sense to assume that the Warden didn't check. If you didn't see it happen on screen you cannot automatically assume that it happened. 

But by that logic just about everyone the PC kills in Dragon Age could still really be alive because 'you didn't check'. And does your argument also mean that if something happened on screen it must have happened, namely the beheading animation? Or does that not count?

By any stretch of logic, if you see her head being chopped off you're free to assume she is 100% dead. It's a bit difficult to heal a chopped off head.

I think they made a mistake with the animation by allowing her head to be cut off. If they knew at the time that this was a character that could be important enough in the story later on they shouldn't have allowed you to kill her at all and replaced it with either having her leave you then and there or you just stabbing her or something (which leaves the potential for her to survive).

It would be best for continuity if they decided before making the animation which characters can safely be killed off and who they should be more careful with. Since this may not have been the case, there are other ways they could have solved it. They could have replaced her with someone else for those who killed her. But I suppose this comes down to resources and whatnot, and they may not have the same view on animations as we do. As far as I know it's not that uncommon for developers to do this sort of thing.

(So as you can see it's not like I think they do things perfectly and without mistake, I'm not even really disagreeing with you.)

[Lotion Soronarr]

DPSSOC wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...
You can't rely on in game mechanics such as deathblows.

 
This is a worse counter argument.  I get what you're saying, and I agree, it's just poor phrasing.  It invites the question of, "Well what game mechanics can we rely on?"  If deathblow animations aren't reliable are death animations at all?  Can we rely on anything that's not a fully scripted cutscene? 

In general? No.
You cannot really rely on most game mechanics, since they are made to serve the gameplay and action, not the lore/story.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Liskat wrote...

I think they made a mistake with the animation by allowing her head to be cut off. If they knew at the time that this was a character that could be important enough in the story later on they shouldn't have allowed you to kill her at all and replaced it with either having her leave you then and there or you just stabbing her or something (which leaves the potential for her to survive).

Well, I doubt they were thinking that far ahead at the time.  

One of the things I wished both Dragon Ages handled a little bit better was companion deaths, or rather party reactions to character deaths. Especially in DA2 where you see them becoming friends or getting to know one another, I'd have liked to see a bit more response towards the PC if they suddenly decide to tell someone to leave or kill them--and that's a response in dialogue, not a friendly/hostile slide. Maybe it's deemed a waste of resources because not enough people off their companions, but I still think it'd be great.

[Ryzaki]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

XM-417 wrote...

berelinde wrote...

It really is better for everyone if they give characters they want to use later on plot armor. Don't want that character to stay dead? Make them unkillable.

I would hope to see the PC being allowed some choice in how they deal with these characters who get pampered and coddled with plot armour. As it was annoying that at the end of MoTA you just let that elf go and you couldn't do a damm thing about it.

Nah, apparently that was only annoying because we are all jealous of Tallis, not like she was a back-stabbing qunari spy or anything.


But yeah I agree. They need to be very careful about this sort of thing as it goes bad quickly if handled poorly, as it currently is.

A good way to me anyay is having the PC express dislike for them and maybe even attack/injure them and just have them retreat.

Even if Hawke had gotten a face filled of dirt and Tallis had ran away it'd been better than the whole "welp I'm just gonna stand here and let you walk away" thing. Least then Hawke would've *tried* to stop her. Even if unsuccessful.

[Inanna Athanasia]

I did one play through that my Warden was more hardcore and he thought the dragon cult made his army stronger and so he did the blood on the ashes. Leliana fought me and died. My warden was a two handed fighter and he plunged his sword in her chest and beheaded her. I am not sure how you can get more dead, then having your heart cleaved in two and your head leaving your shoulders. So yeah I was ticked when she showed up in DA 2, big time. I think if you choose to kill someone, then they are dead. I killed Wynne in that run too and she didn't show up in Awakening in front of the Chantry so why bring back Leliana if she died? For what tiny bit Leliana did show up in DA2, it would not have been a huge cost difference to have another woman show up in her place to talk to Hawke and to Cassandra at the end. I understand that sometimes it is costly to take into consideration all player choices, but this one was just a small blip of annoyance. So having someone else in her place if you did kill her would not have been a huge costly process like some things could be.

Whether I believe in the whole Maker nonsense or not, dead is dead. Wynne died in the tower and whether it was a good spirit or not, she only lived because she became an abomination. If you kill her in the tower of Magi, the spirit does not bring her to life again, seeing as she was diced up by swords. I view her 1st "death" her body was whole and she was barely dead before the spirit fused with her, but in battle if you killed her, well the spirit couldn't help in that death. So again, if you diced up Leliana, she should of stayed dead.

In the ME world, if you killed someone, they stayed dead in all games. If you killed the Rachni queen, she is dead in all games, if your team died in the relay, well they are gone for good too. They should do the same for the Dragon Age games. Bringing back to life a character like that is just an insult to player choices. I never thought I would ever say it, but its one thing that I was happy they did better in the ME universe then the Dragon Age one and makes me like the ME universe a bit more then the dragon age one.

[Airdeen]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Liskat wrote...

I think they made a mistake with the animation by allowing her head to be cut off. If they knew at the time that this was a character that could be important enough in the story later on they shouldn't have allowed you to kill her at all and replaced it with either having her leave you then and there or you just stabbing her or something (which leaves the potential for her to survive).

Well, I doubt they were thinking that far ahead at the time.  

One of the things I wished both Dragon Ages handled a little bit better was companion deaths, or rather party reactions to character deaths. Especially in DA2 where you see them becoming friends or getting to know one another, I'd have liked to see a bit more response towards the PC if they suddenly decide to tell someone to leave or kill them--and that's a response in dialogue, not a friendly/hostile slide. Maybe it's deemed a waste of resources because not enough people off their companions, but I still think it'd be great.

This I agree with, but like you said it comes down to resources and what they'd have to sacrifice in order to do this.

I'm very glad I'm not working in game development when thinking about the decisions they have to make. It seems to be a lot of "damn if you do, damn if you don't" regardless of what they choose to do.

[TheRealJayDee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...
You can't rely on in game mechanics such as deathblows.

 
This is a worse counter argument.  I get what you're saying, and I agree, it's just poor phrasing.  It invites the question of, "Well what game mechanics can we rely on?"  If deathblow animations aren't reliable are death animations at all?  Can we rely on anything that's not a fully scripted cutscene? 

In general? No.
You cannot really rely on most game mechanics, since they are made to serve the gameplay and action, not the lore/story.

Of course it's extremely difficult -if not outright impossible- to keep the gameplay and it's mechanics 100% consistent with the lore/story, but the better they harmonize the better the experience imo. If they are too much out of sync the believability of the setting suffers, but of course this affects the enjoyment of different players differently.

[Todd23]

I hate zombies, so sue me.

[Mykel54]

I think the problem here is that Bioware doesn´t want to admit to doing a retcon, definition here: http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

I will say this: I think doing a retcon is ok if it is needed for the following chapters of the story to work. The writers can´t see the future and plan for everything, so it makes sense that sometimes they need to change past events. Doing a retcon shouldn´t be something to be ashamed of, however it isn´t something to be proud of either. In a perfect word, it wouldn´t be needed, but the DA setting story is a continous work in progress, not a planned novel, so some retcons are going to happen no matter what, even if they´re minor.

I think this is the case with Leliana, the codex in DAO established she was dead, but bioware still has a role for her, so they need to retroactively change what happened, or add a new things to past events. This happened with Anders and Oghren in DAO too if they died.

Now, i am not going to expect the writers to be omniscient and capable of seeing the future, or demand that they plan the whole story beforehand and never make a singel retroactive change. That is just unrealistic.

I however expect bioware to admit to doing changes to past events if it is really necessary to the narrative. I don´t understand the reaction of: "it was already there in DAO, you just didn´t see it". Not it wasn´t, it was added later, but you talk like there is shame in admitting that.

I don´t think there is shame in it, specially when working on a narrative that is a constantly work in progress: even actual novelists sometimes are forced to use retcons to make the story fit. I don´t think making retroactive changes is something that should be encouraged as an easy solution, but sometimes when there is no good option it becomes necessary.

I believe what bioware needs is admitting that one must sometimes go back and change things, and moving on. I don´t think they need to get defensive about past choices being invalidated or at the use of term "retcon". I see no point in it, i think it is better for the public to accept that retcons are going to happen no matter how hard you try to avoid them, and accept that as part of the drawbacks of working on a changing setting.

[LogicGunn]

Maybe it's just her faith in the (non-existent) maker being rewarded?

[Magdalena11]

Or maybe it's fans not wanting to see her dead. Kill her and get it over with already.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, many codex entires are written from the Wardens POV, and Codex entreis are NOT infalible or immutable.
So when the Codex setz "The warden fought and killed Leleiana" is basicly mimics the wardens diary.
It's what the Warden THOUGHT happened. 

You mean Origins established her as dead when The Warden killed her, while Dragon Age II established her as alive even if this confrontation happened? A change of the past narrative by the developers is retroactive continuity.

Origins didn't establish anything other than the Warden defeated her.

Incorrect, per the codex: "When The Warden corrupted and destroyed the Sacred Ashes of Andraste, Leliana drew her weapon and was killed alongside the guardian."

[Ziggeh]

Mykel54 wrote...

I think the problem here is that Bioware doesn´t want to admit to doing a retcon, definition here: http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

I think the problem is that the definition depends upon intent.

By the wiki's definition Vader's revelation of parenthood is a retcon, but we wouldn't call it one because the intent was clear. If the intent was that she was dead it's a retcon, if it was to retain the possibility that she was alive it's not. While the intent is not clear to us it is to them.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 07 juillet 2013 - 04:32 .

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Incorrect, per the codex: "When The Warden corrupted and destroyed the Sacred Ashes of Andraste, Leliana drew her weapon and was killed alongside the guardian."

The character codex, though, is from the POV of the Warden. 

[The_11thDoctor]

I loved Leliana and didnt know she could die... This is news to me. But DA 2 didnt let people have choices to affect the game period so I wander why Leliana being alive really affects anyone's day? There were hundreds of choices I wasnt given or choices I tried to make and the game didnt let me and the same thing happened no matter what in DA2.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Incorrect, per the codex: "When The Warden corrupted and destroyed the Sacred Ashes of Andraste, Leliana drew her weapon and was killed alongside the guardian."

The character codex, though, is from the POV of the Warden. 

Are you suggesting that the developers planned to have Leliana survive this attack when Origins was released?

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Are you suggesting that the developers planned to have Leliana survive this attack when Origins was released?

Not at all. I do think that the character codex, however, isn't from the POV of an omniscient writer, but rather from the Warden (which is why it gets updated, for example, when you get higher approval). 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Codex is hardly irrefutable. My Codex told me that Oghren, Nathaniel and Velanna died at Vigil's Keep, even though the first two survived in the epilogue and the third wasn't there.

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Codex is hardly irrefutable. My Codex told me that Oghren, Nathaniel and Velanna died at Vigil's Keep, even though the first two survived in the epilogue and the third wasn't there.

The Vigil's Keep problem at the end of DAA is a well known and aknowledged bug (like much of Zevran's script in DA2).  If you save Amaranthine the game calls all those that didn't go with you dead and that is a coding mistake and one that Bioware copped to a long time agi.

-Polaris

[TheKomandorShepard]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Codex is hardly irrefutable. My Codex told me that Oghren, Nathaniel and Velanna died at Vigil's Keep, even though the first two survived in the epilogue and the third wasn't there.

Epilogue are rumors (unfortunately , what is point doing endings which are a lie) at least they ignore most of them and Nathaniel if alive should be in third act but if you leave him in keep doesn't appear...