655 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

I'm not trying to be a smartalec or attempting to cause trouble. I am being real with you.

After ME3, DA2, and David Gaider's comments on past choices being retconned, why should I care about the choices you present to me in Dragon Age: Inquisition? I'm going to be playing this game under the assumption that there's likely going to be another installment of this franchise in the future, depending on it's success. But seeing how you've been handling choice in your past few games, whenever you talk about decision making in DA:I, it comes off as empty words to me.

I understand that carrying over all these choices into future games can be a nightmare in terms of coding and narrative. But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices. Or at least don't present us with as many. I don't think I'm being unfair with this.

[Iakus]

What comments are you referring to?

I've read that concerning possible appearances of the Warden, the OGB, and Hawke they would try to be respectful of choices made but can't guarantee they'd please everybody. But I haven't heard anything in particular saying "your choices matter until we decide otherwise"

[Angrywolves]

thread needs locking.

[Wulfram]

Why should what some possible game might do years in the future affect your enjoyment of this game now?

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices.

This whole way of thinking is alien to me. How about you just enjoy the game you are playing when you are playing it, and stop worrying about how much of what you do might affect future games.

This isn't Mass Effect. We aren't playing a trilogy, the DA games are just a bunch of loosely related games set in the same universe.

[Achire]

Clearly a good choice should have consequences within the actual game as opposed to hypothetical sequels.

[Sylvius the Mad]

1. As mentioned, why should what happens in a subsequent game affect your enjoyment of this game?

2. What retconning?

[Secretlyapotato]

They didn't retcon anything except for Dalish accents. They just made up excuses for why such and such is happening instead.

[David Gaider]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I'm not trying to be a smartalec or attempting to cause trouble. I am being real with you.

After ME3, DA2, and David Gaider's comments on past choices being retconned, why should I care about the choices you present to me in Dragon Age: Inquisition? I'm going to be playing this game under the assumption that there's likely going to be another installment of this franchise in the future, depending on it's success. But seeing how you've been handling choice in your past few games, whenever you talk about decision making in DA:I, it comes off as empty words to me.

I understand that carrying over all these choices into future games can be a nightmare in terms of coding and narrative. But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices. Or at least don't present us with as many. I don't think I'm being unfair with this.

The primary purpose for putting a choice into a game is for it to affect that game.

As for choices carrying between games, some will have a bigger impact. Some will have a minor impact, as in simply being referenced. Some won't come up at all, or will be ignored. If your intent is to say that, knowing that some of those choices won't be carried over in the way you like (even if others will) that we should offer no choices at all in the current game...then I don't know what to tell you. I'm uncertain which games you play that abide by such criteria. Ultimately our primary goal is to make DA Inquisition a fun game, and to have the choices you make in Inquisition have a large impact within DA Inquisition. If that's insufficient, consider yourself duly warned.

[wolfhowwl]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
I understand that carrying over all these choices into future games can be a nightmare in terms of coding and narrative. But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices. Or at least don't present us with as many. I don't think I'm being unfair with this.

Choices don't need to be carried over to have meaning.

Smaller scale choices can still offer tangible consequences in a single game but be irrelevant in the larger setting or years later.

Removing choices from a game just because the save import doesn't give them what you see as their due seems to be an overreaction.

Also "carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality" is not only an unreasonable demand given the resources it also doesn't make any sense given the scale of some of the choices. Should Hawke siding with the mercenaries or smugglers affect anything other than his own story?

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 23 décembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[OdanUrr]

David Gaider wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I'm not trying to be a smartalec or attempting to cause trouble. I am being real with you.

After ME3, DA2, and David Gaider's comments on past choices being retconned, why should I care about the choices you present to me in Dragon Age: Inquisition? I'm going to be playing this game under the assumption that there's likely going to be another installment of this franchise in the future, depending on it's success. But seeing how you've been handling choice in your past few games, whenever you talk about decision making in DA:I, it comes off as empty words to me.

I understand that carrying over all these choices into future games can be a nightmare in terms of coding and narrative. But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices. Or at least don't present us with as many. I don't think I'm being unfair with this.

The primary purpose for putting a choice into a game is for it to affect that game.

As for choices carrying between games, some will have a bigger impact. Some will have a minor impact, as in simply being referenced. Some won't come up at all, or will be ignored. If your intent is to say that, knowing that some of those choices won't be carried over in the way you like (even if others will) that we should offer no choices at all in the current game...then I don't know what to tell you. I'm uncertain which games you play that abide by such criteria. Ultimately our primary goal is to make DA Inquisition a fun game, and to have the choices you make in Inquisition have a large impact within DA Inquisition. If that's insufficient, consider yourself duly warned.

Ninja'd.

[Sanunes]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I'm not trying to be a smartalec or attempting to cause trouble. I am being real with you.

After ME3, DA2, and David Gaider's comments on past choices being retconned, why should I care about the choices you present to me in Dragon Age: Inquisition? I'm going to be playing this game under the assumption that there's likely going to be another installment of this franchise in the future, depending on it's success. But seeing how you've been handling choice in your past few games, whenever you talk about decision making in DA:I, it comes off as empty words to me.

I understand that carrying over all these choices into future games can be a nightmare in terms of coding and narrative. But I'm of the opinion that if you cannot fulfill the task of properly carrying over every choice you presented us in a game, and flesh out all these variations into at least an acceptable quality, then don't give us the choices. Or at least don't present us with as many. I don't think I'm being unfair with this.

Why can't you enjoy your choices in the game you are currently playing, instead of only thinking how it will impact future games? I don't know of many companies that even bother to try to make anything carry forward and designing a whole game around a choice that could have drastic different outcomes or branches seems like a fool's errand to me.

Mentioning Mass Effect 3 I found one of my problems is that I felt I was either playing a main story mission or having some nod to the previous games and that left very little room for the game to establish itself felt like a "Best of Mass Effect 1 and 2".  The nightmare is that they would have to account for every difference especially if there are major changes to the next game, so eventually you are trying to accomondate three fourty hour games worth of choices into a fourth 40 hour game. which might make the that game extremely short because they have a fourty hour game, but only two hours of it is playable per game and then its only fully explored if you have fifteen different characters with the different choices.

[Mathias]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sounds like YOU, friend, don't understand either the value of choice or the intent of role-playing.

I understand the value of choice. Which is why I don't like seeing them get handwaved in the next game.

[In Exile]

I'm very confused. What past choices are you referring to? What past comments are you refering to?

[Mathias]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

When you decide to change a choice made in a game forcibly, then the choice in the previous game doesn't even matter for the previous game.

Now I understand that many of the choices that didn't transfer to well into DA2 because of bugs. If that's the case, then could you at least put in a patch to fix it? If you can fix an import feature, then fixing a flag shouldn't be extremely difficult.

Also, stop it with the "give us a chance to kill a character, but then say that you didn't really kill those people" choices. That excuse is just the single most frustrating one I have ever come across. Giving excuses of that nature makes me really feel that the team really doesn't care about choices. There has been some of this in both ME and DA, so DA writers reading this shouldn't take it personally. 

Really, if you change a choice from a previous game, then the whole "the choice is supposed to impact that game" is moot because you KNOW that the choice means NOTHING. It feels like fluff just put in there because you had nothing better to do with your time.

Thank you, it's nice to see someone else shares the same opinion. I honestly can't believe so many people are ok with this.

To those of you talking about how this whole thing is effecting my enjoyment of the game, I never said it "ruins" the whole game for me. OF COURSE I'll be enjoying Dragon Age Inquistion regardless of the whole choice thing. But when it comes to the choice feauture, I feel that there's an issue with that given how they've been handled.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 23 décembre 2013 - 12:47 .

[Sanunes]

In Exile wrote...

I'm very confused. What past choices are you referring to? What past comments are you refering to?

I am thinking the choice of killing Zevran which has been said to be a bug with how the flag is set in Dragon Age: Origins and of course Lelianna for people are dead set on if she is defeated in combat that means she is 100% dead.  As far as comments I have an idea, but I can't find the links and I don't want to misquote anyone.

[Mathias]

Sanunes wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I'm very confused. What past choices are you referring to? What past comments are you refering to?

I am thinking the choice of killing Zevran which has been said to be a bug with how the flag is set in Dragon Age: Origins and of course Lelianna for people are dead set on if she is defeated in combat that means she is 100% dead.  As far as comments I have an idea, but I can't find the links and I don't want to misquote anyone.

Here's one at least:
http://social.biowar...index/6589945/2

[ElementalFury106]

Unlike the majority here, I agree with you.

Some example that really tick me off were the following

1) Leliana appearing in the ending even though my cynically ruthless Warden playthrough in DA:O killed her. What gives
2) Oghren appearing in Awakening even though my same Warden mentioned above ^ killed him. Lame ass excuse too.
3) Anders appearing in DA:2 even though he was left behind at the keep and we saw his corpse...with an arrow through his neck...yeah.

And finally the BEST one of them;

Anders still manages to blow up the chantry in DA:2 even if I

- Told him to screw off in Act 2
- Refused to even start his Justice quest in Act 3
- Refused to distract the Grand Cleric while he plants the "bomb".

The dev back there said the choices you make in the game should impact the game's outcome. Well explain how no matter what I did with Anders, the outcome is the same. Help him or not, same result.

[KC_Prototype]

Somebody needs a nap and some apple juice.

[Medhia Nox]

I don't think it hurts to remove the deaths of all these characters. I would prefer if Bioware only allows us to kill characters that would make a difference in the narrative.

They clearly wanted Leliana and Anders - so, why allow us to kill them? There are literally hundreds of other options beside death that could have them removed from the party.

That being said - when they do decide to do it - I just accept that as the new reality of things.

Maybe my Warden left Zevran to die, but he wasn't dead - he nursed himself back to health. etc. etc.

Maybe the Maker saved Leliana.

Maybe Anders.... ugh... I can't.

[Sanunes]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I'm very confused. What past choices are you referring to? What past comments are you refering to?

I am thinking the choice of killing Zevran which has been said to be a bug with how the flag is set in Dragon Age: Origins and of course Lelianna for people are dead set on if she is defeated in combat that means she is 100% dead.  As far as comments I have an idea, but I can't find the links and I don't want to misquote anyone.

Here's one at least:
http://social.biowar...index/6589945/2

I still have a hard time considering Leliana's defeat being a retcon simply because we aren't presented the same option as Zevran with "Kill them", its how the player interprets what is happening and is something that I can't see BioWare being able to compensate for because there can be an unlimited amount of options then.  With Zevran at least they said it was a flag issue and it was intended that he not be there if you made that choice.

[David Gaider]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
When you decide to change a choice made in a game forcibly, then the choice in the previous game doesn't even matter for the previous game.

So you only make choices in a game based on your estimation of how they'll affect possible future games? I respect the fact that, should you go back and play the previous game again you'll now know how the things you do affect the future (or don't), but that's true for every part of that previous game.

Now I understand that many of the choices that didn't transfer to well into DA2 because of bugs. If that's the case, then could you at least put in a patch to fix it? If you can fix an import feature, then fixing a flag shouldn't be extremely difficult.

The DA Keep does not go back and fix previous bugs. It just establishes a new, clean base of decision variables from which to draw. The only way that could affect previous games would be to go back and make those previous games also draw their variables from the DA Keep (instead of importing from a save file), which I don't believe is possible.

Also, stop it with the "give us a chance to kill a character, but then say that you didn't really kill those people" choices.

Nope, sorry. We have many instances of characters who are killed and who remain so. So long as we don't say that their death (or your attempt to kill them, anyhow) never happened in the first place, it's fair game for sometimes that resulting in them still returning. I get that some people find this frustrating, but to imply this is the same as no character being killable or death itself having no meaning (or no choice having any impact at all) is a bit of an exaggeration.

Really, if you change a choice from a previous game, then the whole "the choice is supposed to impact that game" is moot because you KNOW that the choice means NOTHING. It feels like fluff just put in there because you had nothing better to do with your time.

Yep. We're just whimsical that way, I guess.

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2013 - 01:12 .

[Mathias]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I don't think it hurts to remove the deaths of all these characters. I would prefer if Bioware only allows us to kill characters that would make a difference in the narrative.

They clearly wanted Leliana and Anders - so, why allow us to kill them? There are literally hundreds of other options beside death that could have them removed from the party.

That being said - when they do decide to do it - I just accept that as the new reality of things.

Maybe my Warden left Zevran to die, but he wasn't dead - he nursed himself back to health. etc. etc.

Maybe the Maker saved Leliana.

Maybe Anders.... ugh... I can't.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I personally can't accept it because I feel it cheapens my playthrough of the previous game. When I perform a finisher move on Leliana during the Sacred Ashes quest, cutting her head off, and then she shows up in the next game without any explanation as to why she's alive, it takes me out of the experience. Is it a game ruiner? No, but it does detract from my overall experience with the game.