161 réponses à ce sujet

[DonaldFwump]

@Fast Jimmy I'm glad some one else realizes this. Many posts that I read talk about the issue of their world not being 100% theirs or 100% unique from the next persons or why one minor insignificant choice isn't noted. It's refreshing to see. Hopefully my previous posts weren't misinterpreted as "Bioware is making your world" regarding the keep. Which is why I used terms such as "respectfully." Obviously they do what they can and some decisions have bigger impacts than others, so while they will try and respect the player choices, it is impossible to do everything. I hope people also realize that you can't have 100 different endings either. Bringing in Mass Effect 3 as an example, I know it was a big...for the lack of a better word...issue with a lot of fans as to how it ended. There can only be so many out comes that is not only practical, but feasible for the team or writers to make and carry on with (I'm not trying to spark a debate as to whether or not the ME3 endings were good/bad or whatever so please do not derail the point). So hopefully people don't get some expectations in their head about an ending they want that may or may not happen based on what you've done in the game.

[David Gaider]

DonaldFwump wrote...
So hopefully people don't get some expectations in their head about an ending they want that may or may not happen based on what you've done in the game.

Endings are a little different, actually, and a good example of the push-pull between what's appropriate for this game and what's limiting on future games. An ending is where you should rightfully expect to see reactivity to earlier decisions in the game--like I said, the effect on the current game is why those decisions are there, and you'd be doing the current game a disservice if you limited their effects on the ending overmuch based on what might happen in the future (even if we attempt to plan around those eventualities as much as we can).

Expecting that those decisions would form the basis for how the next game world work, however, is not feasible. That's not even what the import system is meant to provide.

[Fast Jimmy]

So hopefully people don't get some expectations in their head about an ending they want that may or may not happen based on what you've done in the game.

I, personally, advocate for the abolishment of the Save Import system, simply because I think it hinders good story telling and also results in fan rage when the story demands that a "retcon" happen, even if that's not technically the case. For instance, Leliana is not a retcon - the game still says she was killed (left for dead?) at the Urn. It just says the outcome you thought you had seen (her dying, permanently) did not happen. The event (Leliana attacking you and you winning) did still happen. A retcon would be future games saying "the Warden and I were great friends, I stood by their side as they struck down the Archdemon."

Anyway, I think elaboration of past choices could be done much better with a canon instead of an import, as paradoxical as that may seem on the surface. A game that would commit to certain outcomes (say, Preserving the Ashes, Keeping the Anvil, siding with the Templars) could truly delve into the outcomes and results of these choices. Instead, since many are so huge in nature, there isn't a feasible way to respect all of them while simultaneously creating divergent content for them.

For all the praise Bioware gets for using the Save Import, I've seen very few game series that give the player a lot of big choices in a game and then set a canon in a sequel where those choices are tackled in large ways. The Fallout games usually move from one side of the country to another. The Elder Scrolls games usually separate decades or centuries of time from one installment to the next. Or even offer supernatural events to hand wave player choice (see Daggerfall's "The Warp in the West"). But not many developers have committed to giving a player a game with lots of large scale choices like what we saw in DA:O and then picked up in the sequel and tried to address some of the ramifications of those choices from a canon perspective. 

Finding the Urn could be a world-changing event. As could the Anvil of the Void. Naming rulers of countries and forever changing the line of succession is an event that alters history, yet results in the same world states in DA2. I'd like to see a game that tackled some of these stories further, since even if someone of them weren't choices I made, the choices and circumstances were interesting enough for me to want to see how they played out. With the Save Import, that ability is seriously hampered.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[AlexanderCousland]

It's always funny to watch David word his way out of the Leliana situation. "Hey we messed up with that one (and Zevran too)" would work well for me. Instead we get a carefully written soliloquy which, if you look between the lines, sums up to be "F you, we are doing this our way." Which is fine really, but let's not act like players shouldn't be disappointed by the fact that Character's (plural) who they had the option to kill arent dead. It would be nice to hear someone take responsibility for their own inconsistencies. Instead of "Hehe You thought You did, but you really didn't"

[stormhit]

There's no inconsistencies other than in your head.

[Ieldra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So hopefully people don't get some expectations in their head about an ending they want that may or may not happen based on what you've done in the game.

For instance, Leliana is not a retcon - the game still says she was killed (left for dead?) at the Urn. It just says the outcome you thought you had seen (her dying, permanently) did not happen. The event (Leliana attacking you and you winning) did still happen. A retcon would be future games saying "the Warden and I were great friends, I stood by their side as they struck down the Archdemon."

Retcon means "retroactive continuity". It actually isn't meant to result in a contradiction, just a reinterpretation of past events. Quote from tvtropes:

"Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on."

Also, Leliana's appearance after her confirmed death would contradict established lore, since magic on Thedas can't resurrect. The only way to reframe this without a lore violation would be to claim that she didn't really die and that, for instance, a spirit entered her and kept her alive.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:45 .

[David Gaider]

FreshIstay wrote...
It's always funny to watch David word his way out of the Leliana situation. "Hey we messed up with that one (and Zevran too)" would work well for me.

Zevran was indeed one we messed up on. He could appear in DA2 even if he was dead, as the result on an import bug--his plot shouldn't even happen if he died in DAO, and was scripted as such. It's not even a DA2 bug specifically, but rather a bug in DAO regarding how the info was recorded.

Same applies to the problems we had in Witch Hunt. Some people went into that plot and, despite all its alternate dialogue for the various permutations regarding how Morrigan could end DAO or who could be speaking with her (the Orlesian Warden, for instance), some players got the default dialogue because of how the info was recorded in DAO. Something we can't go and retroactively change.

...not without the DA Keep, anyhow. That's the reason for its existence.

Instead we get a carefully written soliloquy which, if you look between the lines, sums up to be "F you, we are doing this our way." Which is fine really, but let's not act like players shouldn't be disappointed by the fact that Character's (plural) who they had the option to kill arent dead. It would be nice to hear someone take responsibility for their own inconsistencies. Instead of "Hehe You thought You did, but you really didn't"

There's nothing carefully written about my response. I've said the same thing every time, and it's that this was done deliberately. I've never said people shouldn't be disappointed, since some obviously are--and that could happen with any plot point that didn't go where someone wanted it to. Some will exaggerate with regards to what this is, implying that DA offers no reactivity whatsoever or that death has no meaning in the setting... and that's fine, but we're certainly not going to apologize for taking the story where we feel it needs to go, if that's what you think we should be doing.

And I could repeat this ad infinitum, and there would still be people who will argue because they just want the story to be otherwise. Which, fair enough, but it's not happening. It does mean that the point of me repeating myself is a rather limited, so I should probably just stop.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I mean... Leliana was in the one place where it would make total sense for someone to die and then get up and walk away.

Besides, I'd really like to see numbers on the number of imports that killed her. There is little to no incentive to defile the Ashes (especially with the fact that the Reaver spec need only be unlocked and then a game could be reloaded). Even if you are anti-Chantry, it is a source of instant healing. That's worth kingdoms.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:50 .

[Ieldra]

FreshIstay wrote...
It's always funny to watch David word his way out of the Leliana situation. "Hey we messed up with that one (and Zevran too)" would work well for me. Instead we get a carefully written soliloquy which, if you look between the lines, sums up to be "F you, we are doing this our way." Which is fine really, but let's not act like players shouldn't be disappointed by the fact that Character's (plural) who they had the option to kill arent dead. It would be nice to hear someone take responsibility for their own inconsistencies. Instead of "Hehe You thought You did, but you really didn't"

He said that they can't plan ahead to account for all possibilities, and that the Leliana situation is a possible result of that. I also understand the attitude. Let's be honest: there are much bigger fish to fry than the retconned death of a companion.

[AlexanderCousland]

EntropicAngel wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

It's always funny to watch David word his way out of the Leliana situation. "Hey we messed up with that one (and Zevran too)" would work well for me. Instead we get a carefully written soliloquy which, if you look between the lines, sums up to be "F you, we are doing this our way." Which is fine really, but let's not act like players shouldn't be disappointed by the fact that Character's (plural) who they had the option to kill arent dead. It would be nice to hear someone take responsibility for their own inconsistencies. Instead of "Hehe You thought You did, but you really didn't"

What if it was never an inconcistency?

That's never been proven, has it?

Hahaha sure. I didn't even Kill her, never have never will. However the option to kill her was there ANY excuse the writers decide to give is via plot or dialogue IS AN EXCUSE. This much, to me, is undeniable.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...
He said that they can't plan ahead to account for all possibilities, and that the Leliana situation is a possible result of that. I also understand the attitude. Let's be honest: there are much bigger fish to fry than the retconned death of a companion.

Leliana's death even being an issue is more a result of finishing move animations than anything else.  If it wasn't fo rth epotential decapitation, I doubt this would nearly as much scowling.   I mean, how many people rage about Morrigan's return with "Hey, I murder-knifed her!"?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Agree, at least to some degree. If we were to have hurled a magic blast at her (or had one of the mage companions do it instead, if memory serves me correctly Witch Hunt did have a mandatory Mage companion), it would have been less "official" than a murder knife.

For what that's worth.

[Afro_Explosion]

Morrigan and lelianas "deaths" can be easily explained for leliana the ashes or the maker cured her, morrigan is the daughter of flemeth one known to cheat death, also morrigan doesn't fight back she had something up her sleeve

[Ambeth]

The temple already had you fight a copy of your party, which makes any conflict in its walls suspect in my book. I call it less ret-con and more pointing out something you didn't see at the time and still don't want to see.

[Zatche]

FreshIstay wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

It's always funny to watch David word his way out of the Leliana situation. "Hey we messed up with that one (and Zevran too)" would work well for me. Instead we get a carefully written soliloquy which, if you look between the lines, sums up to be "F you, we are doing this our way." Which is fine really, but let's not act like players shouldn't be disappointed by the fact that Character's (plural) who they had the option to kill arent dead. It would be nice to hear someone take responsibility for their own inconsistencies. Instead of "Hehe You thought You did, but you really didn't"

What if it was never an inconcistency?

That's never been proven, has it?

Hahaha sure. I didn't even Kill her, never have never will. However the option to kill her was there ANY excuse the writers decide to give is via plot or dialogue IS AN EXCUSE. This much, to me, is undeniable.

I have "killed" Leliana. Thing is: you are never presented with the choice or "option" to kill her. You are presented with the choice of defiling the ashes. Leliana turning on you is a consequence of that choice. Her dying appears to be a consequence. It just turns out she didn't die. You may not like it, but that's not inconsistent. It may be considered misdirection, however.

Modifié par Zatche, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:25 .

[Zatche]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
He said that they can't plan ahead to account for all possibilities, and that the Leliana situation is a possible result of that. I also understand the attitude. Let's be honest: there are much bigger fish to fry than the retconned death of a companion.

Leliana's death even being an issue is more a result of finishing move animations than anything else.  If it wasn't fo rth epotential decapitation, I doubt this would nearly as much scowling.   I mean, how many people rage about Morrigan's return with "Hey, I murder-knifed her!"?

To be fair, the same thing could happen to Zevran and Howe.

[Conduit0]

I wish people would quit using the word, "retcon" in relation to Leliana. To paraphrase a famous giant, the word does not mean what you think it means.

Leliana being alive is not a retcon, to begin with her death is never established as fact in the story. Before someone says, "But I saw her dead body!" you saw her dead in combat, well hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of examples from DAO where a character is dead in combat and then magically alive and well in the next cutscene. Since we never see her dead body outside of combat, or have any other story based hard conformation of her death, you can not call her being alive in DA2 a retcon, because her death was only presumed and never confirmed from a story stand point.

[addiction21]

David Gaider wrote...


There's nothing carefully written about my response.

Sorry to snip this out off it all but Its a good laugh you even have to say this.  I've only found you to be candid with your interactions with us (outside of avoiding spoilers for the current project) the go to example of how BIoWare is dismissive, ignores, abusive, etc... to fans.

Conduit0 wrote...

I wish people would quit using the word, "retcon" in relation to Leliana. To paraphrase a famous giant, the word does not mean what you think it means.

Retcon is like plot hole and marysue. People throw them around because they don't understand them and the negative connotations associated to it.

And I am just going to bow out this because I'd prefer importing got dropped all together.

[thats1evildude]

Conduit0 wrote...

I wish people would quit using the word, "retcon" in relation to Leliana. To paraphrase a famous giant, the word does not mean what you think it means.

That quote is actually attributed to Inigo Montoya. 

[Fast Jimmy]

thats1evildude wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I wish people would quit using the word, "retcon" in relation to Leliana. To paraphrase a famous giant, the word does not mean what you think it means.

That quote is actually attributed to Inigo Montoya. 

Evildude is retconning the lore!

[Versus Omnibus]

Last time I checked, sequels weren't considered for Dragon Age until after the first game was released, or close to it. So somebody said to bring Leliana back at one point.

Unless, of course, I'm completely wrong.

[b0j4ngles]

 I think the frustration that some players have with the Leliana retcon situation is that it feels like another example of an rpg that doesn't support evil player characters.  I'm sure that most players don't make evil decisions, (at least not on their first playthrough) but when we do, we hope that the game takes them seriously.

[Homer2101]

I'm sure this has been brought up, but the Dragon Age setting has wizards, elves, and gods. It has characters willingly go into combat without any real armor (See: just about every companion in DA2). Is it so difficult to imagine an explanation for why a character might have seemed dead, and yet did not die?

This may be somewhat odd, but I don't think that players should have a choice over major plot-turning events. For example, a player should be able to decide whether to save the werewolves or the elves, or to save them both at substantial cost. The decision alters a few minor things, and can show something of the Warden's character, but it has no major effect on the game plot. But saving Redcliffe Castle or clearing the Tower should not be optional.

The choices which the player makes need not have plot-altering consequences in order to feel meaningful. A codex entry, a letter, or a small bit of overheard dialogue reflecting relatively minor decisions made in an earlier game are very effective at making the world feel more alive. Most of the Origins epilogue does not deal with major plot-altering things, but it feels meaningful because it shows to the player that their actions mattered.

In that regard, I do not like Skyrim. It is a beautiful game, with many things to see and do. But it is also a very shallow and atomized game. Actions almost never have an impact outside of a particular quest line. Achievements are almost never recognized. Most NPCs treat the player character exactly the same way, whether the character is some nobody thief or is dragonslayer and arch-mage. So the game world ultimately feel sterile and lifeless, even though the NPCs can sit at tables and lie on beds, because nothing you do appears to matter.

[Conduit0]

thats1evildude wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I wish people would quit using the word, "retcon" in relation to Leliana. To paraphrase a famous giant, the word does not mean what you think it means.

That quote is actually attributed to Inigo Montoya. 

Whoops, you're right, apparently its been far too long since the last time I watched the movie.