660 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

xkg wrote...

I think the most definite answer to "whether Leliana can be killed or not" you can find inside the game files. There are 2 flags that should make it clear:

{6203269} The player killed Leliana
{6203270} The player did not kill Leliana

Hm...I wouldn't call that definite proof. It's a name of the variable.

I've seen games use such variables for characters that aren't really dead and are supposed to make a comback later.
Heck, I use such variable myself in some of my campaigns.

[Lotion Soronarr]

And yet you claim absolute objectivity.
The entires chronicle the Wardens action and don't really appear to me to be "omniscent".
Not saying they aren't...but we don't really know, do we?

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...Effectively invalidating that decision even with a retcon doesn't showcase the choice and consequences BioWare claims pervade their games.

Does it need to? Does every choice you make require an expensive dramatic "showcase"? That's an unreasonable expectation, and a major overstatement about their claims. 

Like almost all of the choices, it has a dialogue exchange acknowledging it. It would be nice of course, if there were more, but I'm certain you understand the limitations.

It doesn't "invalidate" the choice any more than any other, and it doesn't remove the consequences, it changes them, which is what a continuing narrative does.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:19 .

[Slayer_22]

A good solution to all of this would be a "make sure they're dead" option. Where you poke them with a stick to see if they move. That way you could make sure the people you thought you killed are actually killed or if they're alive and plotting a dastardly plot to get revenge on you.

But, as someone who never killed Leliana(But REALLY disliked her), I still find her randomly coming back to life if you made a decision that was supposed to end in her death a little odd. Unless there's a REALLY good explanation for it that will please everyone or add some really juicy story. Or a way to kill her again, for the people that like killing people.

But to answer TC's question, I guess it just makes the choice to defile the ashes kind of worthless, if that was the sole intention. Or it makes the impact weaker? I'm just spitballing, but those would be the reasons I'd think of.

Modifié par Slayer_22, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:32 .

[ArenCordial]

Ziggeh wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...Effectively invalidating that decision even with a retcon doesn't showcase the choice and consequences BioWare claims pervade their games.

Does it need to? Does every choice you make require an expensive dramatic "showcase"? That's an unreasonable expectation, and a major overstatement about their claims. 

Like almost all of the choices, it has a dialogue exchange acknowledging it. It would be nice of course, if there were more, but I'm certain you understand the limitations.

It doesn't "invalidate" the choice any more than any other, and it doesn't remove the consequences, it changes them, which is what a continuing narrative does.

No of course every choice doesn't need a dramatic showcase but when BioWare themselves puts the option in for such a choice they should honor it.   They didn't give me the option to kill Morrigan in DA:O and I was fine with it.  Again if they keep have a predetermined path no matter what you choose, then they aren't really giving the player choice which an rpg should be about, especially when it repeatedly advertised. 

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...
No of course every choice doesn't need a dramatic showcase but when BioWare themselves puts the option in for such a choice they should honor it.

Again, the majority of choices result in a different dialogue exchange, and that's what you get here. They acknowledge the choice. They acknowledge your impact. It's not to the extent you want, but that's not the same thing.

ArenCordial wrote...They didn't give me the option to kill Morrigan in DA:O and I was fine with it.

They did, in Witch Hunt. And you get the choice to try, but not the choice whether she lives or dies.

[Zanallen]

If we want to call this a retcon (It really isn't, but whatever), then Flemeth being alive is also a retcon. We made a choice to kill her in DA:O, but she was brought back in DA2. Her resurrection was explained (Basically, "magic"). Now, Gaider has said that Leliana's survival has an explanation, but it hasn't been revealed to us yet.

[Mykel54]

Zanallen wrote...

If we want to call this a retcon (It really isn't, but whatever), then Flemeth being alive is also a retcon. We made a choice to kill her in DA:O, but she was brought back in DA2. Her resurrection was explained (Basically, "magic"). Now, Gaider has said that Leliana's survival has an explanation, but it hasn't been revealed to us yet.

You´re wrong. In DAO, after you kill Flemeth you can tell Morrigan what you did, and she will say that her mother is far from being dead. This is DAO (the same game where you kill Flemeth), telling you that even thought you killed her, she may not be dead. That is not retroactive continuity, the writers of DAO planned for it, and it wasn´t added later on another game or dlc, it was right there in the main game.

You want to know what Flemeth´s codex says after you kill her?
She was slain at Morrigan's behest. At least apparently...


Now compare to what the codex says when Leliana is killed
When The Warden corrupted and destroyed the Sacred Ashes of Andraste,
Leliana drew her weapon and was killed alongside the guardian.

This is a retcon for several reasons: 1) it is established in DAO that Leliana died, there is no suggestion of something else happening. 2) The suggestion that she might not be dead comes from a later (in real world time) chapter, namely DA2. That is retroactive continuity, it means modifying past events in order to better fit the new narrative that you want to tell.

The Flemeth appearance in DA2 has nothing in common, it is merely provides a in-world explanation to something that was already established in DAO through Morrigan and through Flemeth´s own codex entry: that she was only apparently dead.

I´m fine with bioware doing a retcon if they believe it is necessary, but don´t deny and evade about it like it is some mark of shame. Just admit that you can´t plan for everything in advance, try to be more careful in the future, and move on.

[lastpatriot]

I don't get the argument/problem here with this topic. My Hawke must have killed an Ogre in the first few moments of the game yet no long after, it came back to life again! Every time I kill that darn Ogre, it always comes back to life...

[Ziggeh]

Mykel54 wrote...
I´m fine with bioware doing a retcon if they believe it is necessary, but don´t deny and evade about it like it is some mark of shame. Just admit that you can´t plan for everything in advance, try to be more careful in the future, and move on.

I don't have a problem with calling is a retcon, but take issue with the negative connotations people bring to that. In fairness, that bugs me about most literary terms. Dues Ex Machina isn't ineherantly bad, for example.

But I can see how Bioware might not consider it one, because they retained the possibility. We assume certainty because we assume trust in the information delivered, but if their intent was that information was fallible, then we can genuinely say it's a retcon for us, but not for them.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 09 juillet 2013 - 04:02 .

[Hazegurl]

Mykel54 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

If we want to call this a retcon (It really isn't, but whatever), then Flemeth being alive is also a retcon. We made a choice to kill her in DA:O, but she was brought back in DA2. Her resurrection was explained (Basically, "magic"). Now, Gaider has said that Leliana's survival has an explanation, but it hasn't been revealed to us yet.

You´re wrong. In DAO, after you kill Flemeth you can tell Morrigan what you did, and she will say that her mother is far from being dead. This is DAO (the same game where you kill Flemeth), telling you that even thought you killed her, she may not be dead. That is not retroactive continuity, the writers of DAO planned for it, and it wasn´t added later on another game or dlc, it was right there in the main game.

You want to know what Flemeth´s codex says after you kill her?
She was slain at Morrigan's behest. At least apparently...


Now compare to what the codex says when Leliana is killed
When The Warden corrupted and destroyed the Sacred Ashes of Andraste,
Leliana drew her weapon and was killed alongside the guardian.

This is a retcon for several reasons: 1) it is established in DAO that Leliana died, there is no suggestion of something else happening. 2) The suggestion that she might not be dead comes from a later (in real world time) chapter, namely DA2. That is retroactive continuity, it means modifying past events in order to better fit the new narrative that you want to tell.

The Flemeth appearance in DA2 has nothing in common, it is merely provides a in-world explanation to something that was already established in DAO through Morrigan and through Flemeth´s own codex entry: that she was only apparently dead.

I´m fine with bioware doing a retcon if they believe it is necessary, but don´t deny and evade about it like it is some mark of shame. Just admit that you can´t plan for everything in advance, try to be more careful in the future, and move on.

I agree. It's known in game and in codex that Flemeth is not dead. That was well done. We also have to remember that everytime a player has a confrontation with an npc that could possiblity live through the encounter the combat was halted before death. except for npcs that are meant to die, then you fight them until they are dead. Now Flemeth and Leliana are the only two that you can choose to fight and fight until they die. Now unless bioWare is going to claim Leliana is on the same level as Flemeth in terms of power than I think any explanation would disappoint anyone who killed her and wanted her to stay dead. As for the bolded, this is sums up my point about the whole thing. Whocares if it's a retcon, just admit that you didn't plan on using her in DA2 or you forgot that she could be killed in DAO accept the fan rage and move on. Now unless they reveal that Leliana is really Andraste then it really wouldn't be a retcon.

[Ostagar2011]

Ziggeh wrote...
I don't have a problem with calling is a retcon, but take issue with the negative connotations people bring to that. In fairness, that bugs me about most literary terms. Dues Ex Machina isn't ineherantly bad, for example.

But I can see how Bioware might not consider it one, because they retained the possibility. We assume certainty because we assume trust in the information delivered, but if their intent was that information was fallible, then we can genuinely say it's a retcon for us, but not for them.

This has got to be trolling. Nothing negative about retcons? How about - lazy writing and disrepecting player agency which you use as the principal selling point of your game? Deus ex machina is also lazy in general. A good writer should stick to his own rules and boundaries. If he doesn't, how can the reader/player take him or his work seriously?

"We trust the information delivered" is exactly what this is about. The moment I start doubting my eyes and ears when playing a game is when the fourth wall is broken and I'm aware that I'm just staring at polygons on an LCD screen. The one thought I don't want in a game is "this happened on screen... I wonder what Gaider really had in mind here - probably 180 degree the opposite".

[Ziggeh]

[quote]Ostagar2011 wrote...
This has got to be trolling. Nothing negative about retcons? How about - lazy writing and disrepecting player agency which you use as the principal selling point of your game? Deus ex machina is also lazy in general. A good writer should stick to his own rules and boundaries. If he doesn't, how can the reader/player take him or his work seriously?[/quote]
Darth Vader being Luke's father is retroactive continuity and Doctor Who relies on Dues Ex Machina for about half it's plot resolutions. They are not inherently bad, they are frequently misused. Just like the terms themselves.

[quote]Ostagar2011 wrote...
"We trust the information delivered" is exactly what this is about. The moment I start doubting my eyes and ears when playing a game is when the fourth wall is broken and I'm aware that I'm just staring at polygons on an LCD screen. The one thought I don't want in a game is "this happened on screen... I wonder what Gaider really had in mind here - probably 180 degree the opposite". [/quote]
So the opening of DA2 broke the game for you?




[/quote]

[Nightdragon8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

xkg wrote...

I think the most definite answer to "whether Leliana can be killed or not" you can find inside the game files. There are 2 flags that should make it clear:

{6203269} The player killed Leliana
{6203270} The player did not kill Leliana

Hm...I wouldn't call that definite proof. It's a name of the variable.

I've seen games use such variables for characters that aren't really dead and are supposed to make a comback later.
Heck, I use such variable myself in some of my campaigns.

thats why when i use things like that, i make the varriables sound silly, insted of killing anyone its "Ate pizze" Didn't eat pizza" 

its a WTF moment until somoene changes it and finds out what happens.

[Asch Lavigne]

I said it way back in the first few pages, but I'd like an explanation of her telling Hawke she traveled with my Warden when I left her in Lothering.

If you are still reading this thread Mr.Gaider, please do not forget about this. Even its as simple as she's lying, I would just like an answer.

[ArenCordial]

Ziggeh wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...
No of course every choice doesn't need a dramatic showcase but when BioWare themselves puts the option in for such a choice they should honor it.

Again, the majority of choices result in a different dialogue exchange, and that's what you get here. They acknowledge the choice. They acknowledge your impact. It's not to the extent you want, but that's not the same thing.

ArenCordial wrote...They didn't give me the option to kill Morrigan in DA:O and I was fine with it.

They did, in Witch Hunt. And you get the choice to try, but not the choice whether she lives or dies.

Its not really honoring the choice if they undo the consequences of your actions.  That consequence being dead Leliana and/or Wynne.  If they had a cut scene where Lel or Wynne escaped after being wounded I'd be ok with that.  Resurrection from the dead in a setting where they specifically said 'no raise dead' when describing DAO and ultimately undoing your choice and actions is something else entirely. 

The Morrigan example in WH I'd be ok with.  You wounded her and never see her die and you especially don't see her head rolling on the floor.

Modifié par ArenCordial, 09 juillet 2013 - 11:21 .

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...Its not really honoring the choice if they undo the consequences of your actions.

It's diminishing your expected impact, not invalidating the choice. 
I can understand how you could expect that impact, we have other examples of choice that resulted in different or missing characters, but I think that's rather missing the point of the scene, which is point out she's alive and will be important in some future story.

I really don't understand how that doesn't alter your expectation.

ArenCordial wrote...The Morrigan example in WH I'd be ok with.  You wounded her and never see her die and you especially don't see her head rolling on the floor.

I don't really like going round in circles, but gameplay abstractions are consistently inconsistent with narrative elements.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:38 .

[Azaron Nightblade]

Ziggeh wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...The Morrigan example in WH I'd be ok with.  You wounded her and never see her die and you especially don't see her head rolling on the floor.

I don't really like going round in circles, but gameplay abstractions are consistently inconsistent with narrative elements.

You are very persistent to still argue this point with people who have dismissed both the lead writer and one of the devs when they came to point out that the silly gameplay mechanics don't matter. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

People don't know what a cliffhanger is. People don't know what a cliche is. People don't know what a retcon is. People are stupid...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

So the opening of DA2 broke the game for you?

It didn't break the game, but it was a complete waste of the player's time.

It had nothing to do with the player's character.  It had no reason at all to be interactive.

[CronoDragoon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It didn't break the game, but it was a complete waste of the player's time.

It had nothing to do with the player's character.  It had no reason at all to be interactive.

Then you should have never played Dragon Age II at all, knowing that it was being told by a potentially untrustworthy narrator. Or, alternatively, you should have gone in knowing you were RP-ing Varric, not Hawke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Then you should have never played Dragon Age II at all, knowing that it was being told by a potentially untrustworthy narrator. Or, alternatively, you should have gone in knowing you were RP-ing Varric, not Hawke.

That really is the only way to roleplay DA2 - roleplay Varric, rather than Hawke.

But that does mean that great swaths of the game (like combat) become entirely unimportant, and remarkably dull.

[Angrywolves]

Gaider has already explained his version of it I believe.
shrugs.
I never kill my own party members. It's counterproductive to do so So no retcons for me.

[ArenCordial]

Ziggeh wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...Its not really honoring the choice if they undo the consequences of your actions.

It's diminishing your expected impact, not invalidating the choice. 
I can understand how you could expect that impact, we have other examples of choice that resulted in different or missing characters, but I think that's rather missing the point of the scene, which is point out she's alive and will be important in some future story.

I really don't understand how that doesn't alter your expectation.

Lol, that's a slippy argument to make because if you start applying that logic to everything, it ultimately will mean you really are only left with a pointless choice, which may not matter because consequences can be changed at any time.  Your Warden married Alistair?  Well guess what his advisors convinced him two Warden's can't make an heir so he dumps you like a hot rock after a few years to try and get Ferelden a Therin heir.  Refuse to take place in the Dark Ritual?  Well Morrigan found some Warden on the outskirts of Denerim shagged him and OGB is cannon. 

Having unexpected consequences is fine but ultimately making your choice invalid by changing those consequence after they have been shown to you is a retcon and what people are unhappy with. A lot of people play RPGs of these kind because they love impacting the world around them and molding it with those choices.   Those people have tried to explain why they have a problem with Leliana's return (personally I love her character and never once killed in in a ton of playthroughs).  That being going back after the fact a retconning something.    If they wanted to show Lel and Wynne lived in Origins they easily could have done that. Heck Lel's role in future installment probably could have done with another character entirely.

Defenders of the change keep arguing it doesn't matter Leliana's a great character I never kill her or you just didn't get your expectation.   The problem is by invalidating that death it does invalidate the consequences of the player's actions and the player being force to accept the consequences BioWare showed them.  We ARE arguing in circles because it matters to people and not to others.  Lets say the tables are turned and BioWare says no romances in DA3 because they really won't impact the narrative of the world and the Inquisitor is too busy saving the world to roll in the hay.  Some people would be rightly very angry that even if its within BioWare's rights to do so.  That doesn't mean that the people who enjoy those sorts of things wouldn't be wrong in raising issue because it deprives them of their enjoyment.

That's the issue and I'm surprised more people don't respect that.  (ok not really that surprised.)

Modifié par ArenCordial, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:00 .

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...

Your Warden married Alistair?  Well guess what his advisors convinced him two Warden's can't make an heir so he dumps you like a hot rock after a few years to try and get Ferelden a Therin heir.

That would be a reasonable development. It would be annoying to people who chose the super happy ending, but it would represent a twist, rather than the invalidation of the choice - because it would be dependant on the option having taken place.

ArenCordial wrote...

Refuse to take place in the Dark Ritual?  Well Morrigan found some Warden on the outskirts of Denerim shagged him and OGB is cannon. 

That wouldn't because we can be really very sure the Warden died. That said, I fully expect him to pop up with either the soul of another old god (because if I were writing this, I'd be that much of a troll) or special in some other way.

ArenCordial wrote...

Having unexpected consequences is fine but ultimately making your choice invalid by changing those consequence after they have been shown to you is a retcon and what people are unhappy with.

I get that people are unhappy, and have no issue with that. It's perfectly understandable.

My issue is with people implying that their displeasure means that the decision was objectively wrong, when what they mean is not as satisfying an impact as I had hoped, with holding this to a different standard than other elements because it suits their current argument, and all the flawed arguments people use because they think "this is my preference" is a weak position.

I really have very little opinion on the topic, but I am an enormous pedant, and "I felt it invalidated my choice" and "It invalidated the choice" are entirely different positions.