72 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

LindsayLohan wrote...

If I am not mistaken doesn't bioware employ a scrum variation type of development?

They do. 

As a project manager myself, I cannot even begin to imagine having the level of project dependencies from previous projects affecting the current one and not demanding that such things never happen again.

[Fast Jimmy]

LindsayLohan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

If I am not mistaken doesn't bioware employ a scrum variation type of development?

They do. 

As a project manager myself, I cannot even begin to imagine having the level of project dependencies from previous projects affecting the current one and not demanding that such things never happen again.

This is what kills some aspects of the games. The main problem they have is that the scope of the project becomes too big. At times they have to many diverging options. I hope they find someway to properly tackle this.

I have little doubt that somewhere in Edmonton, there is a Viso document tracking plot choices for the previous games that no one can look at directly, for fear of being turned into stone or catching flame.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I would personally have a shorter game with different outcomes. I mean I wouldn't do it for the main story line but it would be cool to have some side quests that change based on past things.

For example, like the Op said with Connor. Have a side arc if you left him alive. However cut that content for people who killed him. You don't have to add some make up quest for people who killed him.

I would like to see at least a few of these quests during the game. DA2 experimented slightly with this. Some decisions from DAO caused new side quests in DA2.

I also want to see some quests like ME3 cure for the genophage. Where decisions from other games effected the fates of those within the game. In this case the Eve's fate. Her death could lead to huge consequences for the Krogan people and could really effect people's view on curing the genophage.

[Wulfram]

Best to have low expectations of divergence based on prior choice, so that any serious reflection of your prior choices is a surprise.

I don't know if it would be very satisfying to have things too dependent on stuff from prior games - it's one thing Shepard gettings screwed because he made a mistake in a previous game, but this time we're playing a totally different character.

[Maria Caliban]

If the game is going to spend zots on 'big consequences' I'd rather they be to the Inquisitor's choices, not the Warden's or Hawke's. Those are no longer the PC. They are not the important characters in the story.

The Inquisitor is.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I would personally have a shorter game with different outcomes. I mean I wouldn't do it for the main story line but it would be cool to have some side quests that change based on past things.

For example, like the Op said with Connor. Have a side arc if you left him alive. However cut that content for people who killed him. You don't have to add some make up quest for people who killed him.

And what if every choice you made from a previous game wound up being quests that weren't followed up on? 

Besides, what is one quest? DA2 had quests due to past choice - and they were silly. Like Harrowmont's nephew needing us to run a fetch quest... that does nothing to add to the game. No story was revealed or the world shiftted by that - it was just a bland fetch quest with some pretext given to it so that we knew it was tied to a prior game choice.


I'd rather have a game that showed some of the huge changes that could happen in the dwarven world because of the choice of king or if the Anvil was saved or not, not one that gives me a fetch quest because those decisions. I'd rather have a game that has a forest full of feral werewolves in DA:O have an effect on the story, rather than a game that has me collect some random ingredients to make a cure potion (which, conveniently enough, wasn't known or around in DA:O). I'd rather the argument about if the Chantry's way of handling Mages is debated right alongside the discovery of the Ashes of the Prophet and them being proved to have powers, rather than attacking some peddlers who are trying to pass off fake dust.


To me, setting a canon let's the writers say "okay, a choice was given in the previous game, but imagine how much we could have the world be affected by this choice" and then let them run with it. The Ashes are a huge event for Thedas - it would be like finding the Ark of the Covenant and seeing that it really does have the power to melt people's faces off like in Indiana Jones. The Anvil is one of the most important discoveries in the course of Dwarven history - Branka herself said the dwarves were slowly losing more and more territory and, without the Anvil, their society would cease to exist - yet there is no way that story could be told, because you can't have the destruction of Orzammar in one game and them having an unstoppable army of golems in another without some serious railroading.

I could (and have, in the past) go(ne) on and on. Point being - I don't have a problem with the idea that the player can make huge, big decisions. But the second you have to start accomodating for all choices in future games is the second you begin to make concessions about how important those choices really are. And if it means that the game has to look more or less the exact same (aside from a side quest, some dialouge or a cameo), then that choice is none too important in the grand scheme of things.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2013 - 01:09 .

[spike08]

@fast jimmy

That's exactly what I was going for. Though it would be nice if some side quest can show reflection, a la my Connor example. I'm not asking for every choice to have such consequences. Just maybe a handful the writers can make a substantial quest out of.

Going for main quests, I'd have to agree with what you wrote out. Again not for every choice, but seeing a vastly different dwarven kingdom and having multiple dependent future relations with dwarves would be what I'm looking for.

Another one where I hope can be vastly different is the dark spawn/architect decision. No more blights? DA7:dark spawn either disorganized in deep roads searching for old god or organized and shunned/hunted society on surface. That is a branch of different outcomes I would gladly accept a shorter story for.

[Fast Jimmy]

spike08 wrote...

@fast jimmy

That's exactly what I was going for. Though it would be nice if some side quest can show reflection, a la my Connor example. I'm not asking for every choice to have such consequences. Just maybe a handful the writers can make a substantial quest out of.

Going for main quests, I'd have to agree with what you wrote out. Again not for every choice, but seeing a vastly different dwarven kingdom and having multiple dependent future relations with dwarves would be what I'm looking for.

But that is the real problem - to date, the only thing the main quests have been getting a small side quest, while smaller choices have been getting nothing at all, except the occassional one-line dialogue change, or maybe a Codex entry.

My point is that they are not showing any indication to date (including three games - DA2, ME2 and ME 3 - plus an expansion - Awakening) of doing any more than that. To which I would say why not offer these choices in each game, give a set of endings that could bring closure to a lot of these (the fate of Connor, for example, is pretty well-detailed in DA:O depending on your choice), but then choosing a set outcome in future games and using that as a point of jumping off and telling a great story. 

Another one where I hope can be vastly different is the dark spawn/architect decision. No more blights? DA7:dark spawn either disorganized in deep roads searching for old god or organized and shunned/hunted society on surface. That is a branch of different outcomes I would gladly accept a shorter story for.

I think this this a great story point for possibilities too... but do you really think Bioware is going to create two vastly different worlds in DA whatever (seven in your post? For a choice made in the EXPANSION of the first game? I highly doubt it.

Now... if a canon was set and the game told a story in everyone's game where the Warden spared the Architect, that could be a story Bioware follows up and develops. But since it is a branching choice, they can't do much of anything of significance with it. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2013 - 04:02 .

[Brockololly]

I think the important thing is having a variety of consequences that vary in scope. Have a bunch of resource cheap callbacks to past events from past games and player choices where appropriate. And maybe a cameo that varies based on some player choice. And then have maybe one consequence from a past choice in a past game that actually has some gravitas to it. Like a questline that is unique one way or another based on a choice in a past game.

To me, DA needs to do a better job of that kind of thing in order to sell the world more. In the past, Laidlaw, Darrah, Gaider and other BioWare people have said that Dragon Age isn't about any one person or character, its about the WORLD. Well, the world is made of people. And since we're not zooming forward in time hundreds of years or switching locales to the other side of the planet, we should feel some repercussions to the actions of past player characters in subsequent games. And they should be accurate based on past player choices.

[Sjpelke]

Brockololly wrote...

I think the important thing is having a variety of consequences that vary in scope. Have a bunch of resource cheap callbacks to past events from past games and player choices where appropriate. And maybe a cameo that varies based on some player choice. And then have maybe one consequence from a past choice in a past game that actually has some gravitas to it. Like a questline that is unique one way or another based on a choice in a past game.

To me, DA needs to do a better job of that kind of thing in order to sell the world more. In the past, Laidlaw, Darrah, Gaider and other BioWare people have said that Dragon Age isn't about any one person or character, its about the WORLD. Well, the world is made of people. And since we're not zooming forward in time hundreds of years or switching locales to the other side of the planet, we should feel some repercussions to the actions of past player characters in subsequent games. And they should be accurate based on past player choices.

I agree. The world is made of people. Safe import 'promisses' to see some of them back as the characters are tied to the world and their actions had a certain impact in whatever form. If there is no safe import persons/objects or names could be used as easter eggs.

A questline that is unique one way or the other depending on choices made in a previous game is a very good suggestion.

Big impacts are overall made by the main character who will play their role and be gone in the next game. Which is fine because a new game will have a new angle and the previous one played their part. However, certain choices made, if they had a significant impact, should not be ignored.

[Fast Jimmy]

I guess my problem is that I have a different definition of "consequences" than is commonly used on these boards.

For instance, having a side quest, or a Codex entry, or a character cameo, etc. is a REFERENCE to a past choice. "Hey, you cured the werewolves, so here's a random encounter with a Dalish trying to kill a former wolf." Or "hey, you picked Bhelen, so here's a side quest with a random relative of Harrowmont you've never heard of." Or "your Warden sacrificed themselves to end the Blight, so Allistair says one line differently and there's a few Codex entries about it."

Those are all references, but they aren't real consequences or developments in these stories.

As I mentioned earlier, having the Anvil of the Void, or the Urn of Sacred Ashes, or an Old God Reborn should affect the world in pretty incredible ways. Who is king should matter significantly when the whole world is on the precipice of war. Having beings like a Sominari from DA2, that can bend reality with their mere thoughts, should be a big game changer.

I'd like these stories CONTINUED, not just mentioned. And, frankly, unless they ditch the vast majority of choices in favor of one or two big ones, I can't see that level of reactivity being possible.

Some point to ME3 as an example of doing it right, but I disagree. There is no reason to destroy the Genophage Cure in ME2. There is no reason to Destroy the Geth. There is no reason to let the Council die. Or to save the Collector Base, other than simply making the Destroy/Control optimal endings easier to receive.

There is reason to do anything but metagame these choices. Even if you want to fo the Krogan, keeping Eve alive is worth the EMS points to not destroy the cure. Even if you side with the Quarians over the Geth, saving them or destroying them in ME2 doesn't matter a lick. And even when these things DO matter, it isn't in some larger, bigger narrative scope... it is a slight tick up or down in your EMS score.

Inequitable recognition of choices is a real problem, as is any real level of consequence outside of the goofy EMS system.

So even in Bioware's best endeavor to address the import system, it has proven too difficult to do well. But just imagine, instead, the stories that could be told without the imports, where Bioware can control events and make the game world truly react to the events of the game, rather than leaving everything open and nebulous or railroading decisions into the game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2013 - 12:59 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The biggest aspect for this is valuing breadth vs. depth.

I like mutual exclusion (even if I didn't actually replay The Witcher II, knowing it was there was still valuable).

Even if we do a completely different level, it means that we take from the overall length of any single playthrough. It's a balancing act, because for some they have to feel that a playthrough takes X hours for it to be satisfying.

For example, assume we have enough budget to do about 40 hours of gameplay. We could do 40 hours of straight linear, or we could have the first 10 be roughly the same, have two different 10 hour splits in the middle, bring it back together for the final 10. (Similar to the Witcher).

For someone that plays through once, they get about 30 hours. Which may be okay, may not be okay. For someone that replays, they'll get 60 hours, and presumably a more enjoyable 60 hours than the 80 hours they'd get replaying the "40 hour linear" version.


I like branching, it's just challenging to do without combinatorial explosion. Unless you account for said explosion by making the game shorter. I do think it'd be interesting to have a game that takes 2-3 hours to play through, but has dozens of ways to branch through it.

I think this is all sensible and well-written, Allan... but it's also a reason I think mutually exclusive RPG choices (as in, those with radically different decision states) are a mistake... or at least, the wrong focus. Mutually exclusive outcomes demand expectations of mutually exclusive content, and that's where we start getting '40 is 30' or less.


Instead of RPG choices that involve irreconciliable end-points, like the famous 'character is dead or alive' problems with generally annihalate the potential for any future plots to  be driven by that character (think most of the ME2 character roles in ME3), working to change the tone of a story by having more easily compatible follow-through reflecting those choices.

This is a poor case example since it is a dead/not-dead choice, but think of the tone difference in ME3 between when Wrex or Wreave is the leader.

The nature of the content is almost exactly the same: the same alliance, the same concerns are raised, and the same missions for the same reasons. About the only thing that changes is the tone of the Krogan leader... but that alone changes the tone of the entire arc, and radically affects how players perceive it. Even though the same issues are raised over the same consequences and same themes (do the Krogan deserve to be punished for the crimes of their ancestors, can the Krogan as a species be trsuted), even though the only difference is the nature of an individual out of an entire species... the tone change alone recasts it into something new and different.

Wrex and Wreave may as well not be different characters: they could just be two outputs of the character development of a single, unkillable, character.



In contrast, look at the mutually exclusive nature of the ME2 collector base decision. By being so big a difference, it ended up not being able to be reflected at all, and players could be easily forgiven for not being able to tell what choice they made in the gameplay or storyline. Cerberus does the same things for the same reasons with the same tone regardless, and it's an honest question as to who was invalidated: did Cerberus get the same tech despite the efforts of those who blew up the Collector Base, or did the people who preserved it not get anything new to show for the promised treasure trove?

Similar problems in follow-through exist with the Rachni (why are there more?), or the Anvil of the Void (Braka stops affecting the plot after the point she could die, and the anvil is only mentioned again in passing regardless).



Point is, instead of looking at mutually-exclusive outcomes for mutually-exclusive content that is almost always underwhelming, why not focus more on more reconciliable choices with a follow-through on changing the tone, making the same content seem different? Instead of 40 is 30, in which a set of distinct units is less than the sum of its parts, we could give the illusion that 30 is 40, making the same units seem different.

[Fast Jimmy]

Point is, instead of looking at mutually-exclusive outcomes for mutually-exclusive content that is almost always underwhelming, why not focus more on more reconciliable choices with a follow-through on changing the tone, making the same content seem different?

I think telling Bioware to hedge their bets with the choices they offer is a bad idea. If you start dictating what stories can and cannot be told based on how hard they are to follow up on in future games, then you should stop carrying choices in future games, not dial back the options/stories in the current game.

DA2 could be accused of this - the game had exponentially less control over choices and the overall feel of the game compared to DA:O. Was this Bioware's attempt to make future references more manageable? If so, I'd say it was an unsuccessful attempt. In addition, there were dozens of choices from DA:O referenced in DA2, but all in a very shallow manner. Did this attempt at referencing lots of choices also hurt the amount of work that could be applied to the base game?

We don't know for sure, but I'd wager it certainly was a factor. Acknowledging the Save Imports while hedging back the amount of big choices or divergent choices in DA2 made for an unsatisfying experience. It could be done better in DA:I, but the question is - how much better? And how much will the game itself take a hit because of such efforts? Remember, every sit spent on a prior game choice is one less spent on a choice that could actually be offered in the game you are playing now.

[Potato Cat]

References are fine, but I think we'd all prefer consequences.

Consequences to the most of the Warden's choices and nearly all of Hawke's shouldn't really affect DAI however, or at least most would be difficult. I would say there's roughly four choices that could potentially affect all of Thedas, and or the main players within it.
The existence of the OGB.
The ruler of Fereldan.
The fate of the Architect.
The new body of Corypheus.

Unfortunately, we haven't really seen consequences of these choices so far, despite being potentially very important. There's only been small references made to the ruler of Fereldan and the Architect I believe.

[Potato Cat]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
DA2 could be accused of this - the game had exponentially less control over choices and the overall feel of the game compared to DA:O. Was this Bioware's attempt to make future references more manageable? If so, I'd say it was an unsuccessful attempt.

If you mean they failed to make the game more manageable, I would disagree. Remember how Cassandra believes Hawke was like at the start of DA2? There's just one 'canon' to most of the world making references much easier and the lack of meaningful choices makes consequences easier as well.

[Fast Jimmy]

Elfman wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
DA2 could be accused of this - the game had exponentially less control over choices and the overall feel of the game compared to DA:O. Was this Bioware's attempt to make future references more manageable? If so, I'd say it was an unsuccessful attempt.

If you mean they failed to make the game more manageable, I would disagree. Remember how Cassandra believes Hawke was like at the start of DA2? There's just one 'canon' to most of the world making references much easier and the lack of meaningful choices makes consequences easier as well.

They made the game more manageable, yes... but it was highly criticized for it- the framed narrative, the linear plot, the lack of player agency or choice - all of these things have been discussed as huge negatives for DA2.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2013 - 01:41 .

[Potato Cat]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
They made the game more manageable, yes... but it was highly criticized for it- the framed narrative, the linear plot, the lack of player agency or choice - all of these things have been discussed as huge negatives for DA2.

Ohhhhh.
That I agree with.

[Allan Schumacher]

Point is, instead of looking at mutually-exclusive outcomes for mutually-exclusive content that is almost always underwhelming, why not focus more on more reconciliable choices with a follow-through on changing the tone, making the same content seem different? Instead of 40 is 30, in which a set of distinct units is less than the sum of its parts, we could give the illusion that 30 is 40, making the same units seem different.

Mutual exclusion doesn't have to mean different levels though. On some level if you provide any degree of choice, unless your reconciliation effectively brings it back together in the same way, the expectation will make things different. Which effectively runs the same risk of "my choices didn't matter" for some people (a perspective I agree/disagree with depending on the context of application)


The "40 is 30" exists whenever you grant any degree of reactivity. If we have the game respond to you in Orzammar because you went to Brecilian Forest first, that is content that only someone that did Brecilian Forest did first will see. As such, those zots could have been put in a way that ALL players would have always seen.


Rarely is it a clean cut case of "40 in 30" but more "take a few minutes here and there from a ton of places." A lot of little things, like a dialogue line acknowledging a player sex/class/background or something like that.

[IC-07]

No, this is a Bioware game.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

The whole savegame-transfer thing is ridiculously overrated anyway. 9 times out of 10 it bogs down the experience instead of making it better when they have to take into account every little fart you made along the way in previous games.

I'd rather they just focus on making a better story, and not care about returning characters who may or may not know you, babies that may or may not have been conceived or who is king or queen of country X.

The mechanic only breeds entitled, bratty players who somehow think the story should reflect exactly what choices THEY made.

I would prefer it if they just did away with it.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 13 août 2013 - 08:57 .

[spike08]

They can write good stories with a save transfer. The existence or lack there of save transfers doesn't strengthen or weaken a story. You're acting like story and this save transfer themselves are mutually exclusive.

I actually feel, if done right, save transfers and molding a story should be something to strive for, if the writing is done properly. It's a way to inject new properties into a series, like enhancing game mechanics.

You rather things get canonized? Just have inquisitor auto dialogue. Everyone loves that

Modifié par spike08, 13 août 2013 - 09:09 .