655 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

@Sylvius, as someone else put it in this thread. If both options lead to the exact same outcome, then where is the difference?

Retconning or setting it in a separate universe, either way your previous choices are wiped from the board and the writers tell you what actually happened. It leads to the exact same result, new game, new canon, your canon is gone.

But you had more freedom within each game.

If you're going to lose your canon anyway, why not let us make real changes within a single game?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Guns wrote...

I don't understand what this means. Are you asking why two games within the same universe should be consistent with each other because two different universes aren't? I have a hard time believing someone with that logic could even survive past childhood yet alone grasp how to operate a computer.

But why are we presupposing that DAO and DA2 occur in the same version of that universe?

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.

If the world is going to progress as it does regardless of what I do in it, why should I care about the plight of the world at all?

[LinksOcarina]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So why are all of our companions basically living gods in these games again? Why couldn't sten become, say, one of the most respected warriors of the qunari without becoming the arishock? Why does zevran have to become leader of the crows? Is merrill going to become queen of the dalish and fenris the new supreme templar commander?

What you are bringing up fast jimmy is a problem that isn't due to save imports, its a universal problem in making certain characters too big for the setting. These problems would be encountered in a game without save imports as much as they would games with them. The "retconing" everyone fears becomes reality with the removal of save imports, so again I question where the benefit is in having a game without save imports over a game with save imports? Because the developers didn't think this through all the way? When did that become a valid excuse?

Also, since you brought up dragon age inquisition, which would be less jarring for players? If dragon age should have a save import feature in inquisition, or if dragon age inquisition comes in and you get no say in what occur in the previous game?

To be fair you are kind of assuming Sten becomes the Arishok  because it was in a comic book, and the developers have stated that its in their own canon for that comic book.

That is less of a retcon and more of a "expanded universe" type of deal, where the developers have their own pre-determined storyline, while the games follow a non-linear progression for the world.

I think they did think this through, I think the problem is they did make a lot of the choices too big. The epilogues of Origins for example show off wide-reaching changes that can effect the world ten-fold if were not careful. The way to do this is to really scale things back, or bring it to a head and start fresh afterwards. Dragon Age II did scale it back to only really two world-shattering choices, while Inquisition will likely bring it back to a climax.

I don't mind choices from game to game though. Considering this is an attempt to tell a long-term narrative that we control, it's up to BioWare to be careful, and make sure that narrative makes sense. In some cases it may be impossible, so those choice might have to go, or stay in and have people be upset for their loss. Its a damned if they do, dammned if they don't kind of scenario as they experiment on things. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

@Sylvius, as someone else put it in this thread. If both options lead to the exact same outcome, then where is the difference?

Retconning or setting it in a separate universe, either way your previous choices are wiped from the board and the writers tell you what actually happened. It leads to the exact same result, new game, new canon, your canon is gone.

But you had more freedom within each game.

If you're going to lose your canon anyway, why not let us make real changes within a single game?

but can you prove dragon age with no save import would be more free then dragon age with a save import? Or actually prove empirically and not subjectively that there would be more "freedom" in one game over the other?

And is this freedom genuine?Is this freedom of choice actually freedom if it is ultimately futile and meaningless? All choices boiling down to being rented by the developers until the point in time in which the developers decide that one set of.choices reigns above all? Is what amounts to fanfiction truly a measure of freedom if or simply delusion of choice when that choic is retconned out of existence?

[Afro_Explosion]

Gosh if you all love canon so much go be a pirate.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think they did think this through, I think the problem is they did make a lot of the choices too big. The epilogues of Origins for example show off wide-reaching changes that can effect the world ten-fold if were not careful. The way to do this is to really scale things back, or bring it to a head and start fresh afterwards. Dragon Age II did scale it back to only really two world-shattering choices, while Inquisition will likely bring it back to a climax.

I don't mind choices from game to game though. Considering this is an attempt to tell a long-term narrative that we control, it's up to BioWare to be careful, and make sure that narrative makes sense. In some cases it may be impossible, so those choice might have to go, or stay in and have people be upset for their loss. Its a damned if they do, dammned if they don't kind of scenario as they experiment on things. 

I feel like any move made to limit the choices in one game for fear of how hard they be to deal with in a future game is infinitely more punishing than the small reward the Save Import gives us - namely very little outside of tiny references or dialgoue changes.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 décembre 2013 - 06:16 .

[addiction21]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So why are all of our companions basically living gods in these games again? Why couldn't sten become, say, one of the most respected warriors of the qunari without becoming the arishock? Why does zevran have to become leader of the crows? Is merrill going to become queen of the dalish and fenris the new supreme templar commander?

Giving the culture it would make sense for one of the most respected warriors a front runner for being Arishock but I understand your point and it is one of those fantasy tropes. Companions being exemplary and feeding into the power fantasy many desire. 

I am just one of those people who shrugs off clches and tropes because its always about the execution.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like any move made to limit the choices in one game for fear of how hard they be to deal with in a future game is infinitely more punishing than the small reward the Save Import gives us - namely very little outside of tiny references or dialgoue changes.

Personally, I think it would give us better choices and consequences. The idea that the protagonist is the destiny chosen ubermensch that will change the course of history for everything encountered is a bit absurd. 

There's a quest with Veronica in New Vegas that I think is a great example. She tries to change the direction of the Brotherhood of Steel. She fails miserably. Her choices, really, are just to stick with the BoS or try and join the Followers of the Apocalypse (with poor consequences). The fact that she somehow doesn't completely alter everything about the BoS does not make her story less interest, but IMO, more interesting. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes, but you are talking about an NPC. Veronica is not the main character.

The PC of New Vegas changes lives every where they go. They determine the fate of the entire Mojave area and wind up deciding who is the larger power broker in the American west as a whole with how things shake out with Hoover Dam.

I'd rather we take another cue from Fallout - FO:1 gave us the option to save Shady Sands, a village early on in the game. Conversely, we could also side with the raiders harassing the village and leave it in ruins. The epilogue slides say that the village was wiped about by the sands... or, if you helped, they became the capital for one of the most powerful factions in the Wastelands, the NCR.

The NCR became a huge part of the Fallout sequels, including New Vegas. They didn't try to ignore the past choice or to somehow try and sugarcoat the fact that they cut out entirely the actions you could have take in Fallout 1... in fact, there are even quests in Fallout 2 that specifically state that the main character of FO1 attacked and killed the Khans.

They are able to tell a great story that built on a previous game plot piece and decision. And they did so without side stepping or tip toeing around the tulips in regards to the prior game choice - yes, they offered it in FO1 and no, they aren't respecting any other variations other than the one they they can tell the best story.

That's a lesson from Fallout I'd wish Bioware would embrace.

[BlackInquisitor]

If i recall correctly, isnt all Fallout games either take place decades between each other or in locations quite far from each other? If that's the case then they already have the advantages to conveniently ignore or handwave a lot of the player's choices in individual games. With modern Bioware games like DA series or ME series the connectivity between each games in the series is much tighter to allow Bioware the privileges of doing stuffs like that. And also if they somehow does that a lot of people in here will start to complain on the other direction. To me Bioware is already doing a great job with their choices and import already, with proof being the ME series. Give them times to improve it, rather than just erase it.

[FutharkTomahawk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the world is going to progress as it does regardless of what I do in it, why should I care about the plight of the world at all?

An excellent question.  You might have concerns as to the ultimate fate of your character, but if the world is on rails... 

[Angrywolves]

I want my main charsacter to make decisions and actions that affect all of Thedas or a good portion of it.
I don't want my main character to be a nothing.

[Nightdragon8]

Angrywolves wrote...

I want my main charsacter to make decisions and actions that affect all of Thedas or a good portion of it.
I don't want my main character to be a nothing.

ALERT SPOILERS !!!!! Oh you mean like that last choice you get in ME3, which makes it virtually impossable to follow it with another story considering in 2 of the 3 states leaves the reapers alive, and in 1 state leaves sheaperd sort of in charge of them. Which would make any future confilcts null and void. Spoilers over

Anything too world changing will create 3 diffefent timelines that they will have include in a game, now your thinking thats not a big deal. But look thrid game 6 timelines, forth game 12 timelines. Thats potentally 12 different scripts actions animations cutscenes with a multitude of characters alive or dead in any interation of the timelines.

Because sooner or later, the planning and writing cycle of the game will just get to large and too complecated and they will just end the series. With how they are now, your choices do matter, even if its just codex entries. Some people are alive some are died.

Yes they screwed up by allowing you to kill Liliana. I'm sure they learned there lesson not to retcon that kind of choice. get off it.

Also not every choice needs to matter. Just because I give x person money or not shouldn't change if a king rises or falls. Life doesn't even work that way.

[BlackInquisitor]

I dont think with the new Mass Effect sequel Bioware will go that route. Probably a new universe or something. Also, the ability to killed Leliana and have her appeared in the next game as alive doesnt bothered me one bit, as opposed to many rustled jimmies in BSN. Why? In the game rogue have the ability to play dead, now what if Leliana played dead? It is totally possible and explanable (even if her head got chopped off - it is a pure gameplay devices that have no impact on story) She isnt a newbie rogue or something.

[Angrywolves]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

I want my main charsacter to make decisions and actions that affect all of Thedas or a good portion of it.
I don't want my main character to be a nothing.

ALERT SPOILERS !!!!! Oh you mean like that last choice you get in ME3, which makes it virtually impossable to follow it with another story considering in 2 of the 3 states leaves the reapers alive, and in 1 state leaves sheaperd sort of in charge of them. Which would make any future confilcts null and void. Spoilers over

Anything too world changing will create 3 diffefent timelines that they will have include in a game, now your thinking thats not a big deal. But look thrid game 6 timelines, forth game 12 timelines. Thats potentally 12 different scripts actions animations cutscenes with a multitude of characters alive or dead in any interation of the timelines.

Because sooner or later, the planning and writing cycle of the game will just get to large and too complecated and they will just end the series. With how they are now, your choices do matter, even if its just codex entries. Some people are alive some are died.

Yes they screwed up by allowing you to kill Liliana. I'm sure they learned there lesson not to retcon that kind of choice. get off it.

Also not every choice needs to matter. Just because I give x person money or not shouldn't change if a king rises or falls. Life doesn't even work that way.

uh I've never played an ME game.Rotfl.Yes the mistakes made with the ME series are well know,.The DA series is written by a different team.

Off topic but the ME team HAS to write a sequel. A prequel WILL FAIL.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 27 décembre 2013 - 11:27 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Ultimately, if a sequel is to be made then big "world"-changing decisions need to be:-
a) Avoided (i.e. players only get minor or localised decisions)
canonised (i.e. sequel picks one option and disregards other possibilities, common in many game series with multiple endings and sequels)
or c) trivialised (e.g. KOTOR ended up with player choosing sides between Jedi and Sith. In KOTOR2 a new group of Sith have arrived and decimated both the Jedi and Sith from the previous game so both sides are in the same bad state whichever the player picked).

Bioware claim they have an explanation for Leliana's return and that seems to be the main reason for this thread due to the lack of other player decisions being intentionally reversed.

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 27 décembre 2013 - 11:47 .

[Nerdage]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "they'll probably just retcon most of this anyway" but the knowledge that they may workaround events from the games (including the one I'm playing) does bother me when I'm playing, even if it hasn't happened yet for whatever bit of the game I happen to be on.

I make choices in-game to affect the story going forward, be that 5 minutes after making them or 5 games down the line. This is really the only way to make any choices in-game because, without meta knowledge about the scope of the game I'm playing (which we've been told before isn't something they design the game around (I think?)), I just don't know any better. Allowing choices to become less valid when the game ends then -- given that I have no idea when that is as I'm playing -- is effectively setting a hidden expiration timer on them, after which they may simply be side-stepped with an ugly workaround, and knowing that definitely affects the experience at least slightly, even if it's not enough to spoil it.

I don't think that choices become less valid with however many games ago they happened, and I think it's strange they get away with things between games that they probably wouldn't otherwise - if you sent Anders off with the templars at the start of Awakening and he turned up a few hours later as a warden you'd be rightly bewildered, but when it happens between games "I guess he became a warden some other way" is fair enough.



For the record, I'm not one of the people who think all of our choices should follow us around forever or lead to completely divergent outcomes, and I don't need the games to keep reminding me of insignificant things I did however many games ago, I just think that they shouldn't offer a choice if they don't plan to follow it through (as in, no more "you just weren't there when this other thing happened which undid the thing you did" situations). Even if that means fewer "big" choices (e.g. killing important characters), I'd be happier with that.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The PC of New Vegas changes lives every where they go. They determine the fate of the entire Mojave area and wind up deciding who is the larger power broker in the American west as a whole with how things shake out with Hoover Dam.

The New Vegas PC tips the scales in an inevitable two-way battle that has a shadowy power behind the scenes. The whole game revolves around what, in DA:O, is basically the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice. Otherwise, in the rest of the vanilla game, you're doing really small scale stuff: like picking a Sherrif for Primm. Yeah, that's important in the butterly effect sense, but it's not literally you playing Kingmaker. 

They are able to tell a great story that built on a previous game plot piece and decision. And they did so without side stepping or tip toeing around the tulips in regards to the prior game choice - yes, they offered it in FO1 and no, they aren't respecting any other variations other than the one they they can tell the best story. 

I don't have a problem with that model. I'm just expressing my own dislike of the ubermensch protagonist. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

but can you prove dragon age with no save import would be more free then dragon age with a save import? Or actually prove empirically and not subjectively that there would be more "freedom" in one game over the other?

And is this freedom genuine?Is this freedom of choice actually freedom if it is ultimately futile and meaningless? All choices boiling down to being rented by the developers until the point in time in which the developers decide that one set of.choices reigns above all? Is what amounts to fanfiction truly a measure of freedom if or simply delusion of choice when that choic is retconned out of existence?

There's no retcon.  Each game stands alone.  There's no need for a retcon, since there was never continuity across games.

Each game simply has its own back story.  One game's backstory might be incompatible with another game's possible outcomes.  One game's backstory might be incompatible with another game's backstory.

But it's obvious that the choices available to use within one game must be narrower if those choices are to be respected by subsequent games.  You can't team up with Saren in ME, partly because doing so would make it virtually impossible to build ME2 such that it allowed for that to have occured.  But eliminating that constraint means that the developers could then offer whatever choices they thought made for a better game, without regard for whether they'd be able to work with them later.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So I could take, say, kotor, and take mass effect 2 and rename it "Kotor 2: Rise of the Hive", and because neither game requires any continuity between the games, still have it count?

And again, where is the improvement over the current system if both result in the same thing? You give one crappy example which probably only 2-3% of the players will actually take, and the rest either out of boredum or curiosity, assuming they just don't youtube it and save themselves a playthrough. Maybe it was better before an alternative exsisted to the system, a lot of things tend to be that way. But now that there exists an alternative, even with that alternatives flaws, it is still preferable to the other system.

I don't know if this is known or not, but I hate the fact that siding with either the sith or the jedi in kotor, basically got your decision overruled in the next game to "Sith won anyway, suck it.".  Why even give us the option to decide what could have happened if none of it matters within the continuity of the games. And yeah, maybe to you continuity isn't a big deal, but to other players like myself consistency and continuity are kinda big deals, that's why Dragon age 2 with its almost total overhaul of the appearances of the setting, is really jarring to get into, even if some of the changes are preferable. 

Point is, I don't see where there is a positive in having crazy off the wall choices if they won't be accounted for later, or even addressed in a half assed "well this did happen last time but things got complicated so it didn't happen", but just say "Too bad, deal with it" and have that be that. If they're going to do that, they might as well just make everything completely linear and get it over with.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 28 décembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[SaltBot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Each game simply has its own back story.  One game's backstory might be incompatible with another game's possible outcomes.  One game's backstory might be incompatible with another game's backstory.

That means you're looking at 5 -6 years between games because you need a new IP for every game. Maybe you can wait that long, but I don't think anyone on the business side of the house is going to like the infrequency of sales. Not to mention it's a lot to ask of BW to keep coming up with this stuff seeing as how even the Final Fantasy series is resorting to sequels these days.

Additionally, it seems amusing to me that the NCR retcon of the Fallout series is being touted as a better direction when it is a shining example of what the OP was originally railing against. I suspect that if he/she were still here, they would ask what the point of even having the Shady Sands choice was if the NCR was going to be the only choice recognised. They should just have removed that decision from the player's hands. Or they should have planned the sequels better. Or they should have acknowledged our choices instead. Or something else equally unfair under the spotlight of hindsight.

I think OP should care about choice because if you didn't then BW wouldn't, and then we'd all be playing Final Fantasy clones with narratives on rails.

[Star fury]

SaltBot wrote...

That means you're looking at 5 -6 years between games because you need a new IP for every game. Maybe you can wait that long, but I don't think anyone on the business side of the house is going to like the infrequency of sales. Not to mention it's a lot to ask of BW to keep coming up with this stuff seeing as how even the Final Fantasy series is resorting to sequels these days.

Additionally, it seems amusing to me that the NCR retcon of the Fallout series is being touted as a better direction when it is a shining example of what the OP was originally railing against. I suspect that if he/she were still here, they would ask what the point of even having the Shady Sands choice was if the NCR was going to be the only choice recognised. They should just have removed that decision from the player's hands. Or they should have planned the sequels better. Or they should have acknowledged our choices instead. Or something else equally unfair under the spotlight of hindsight.

I think OP should care about choice because if you didn't then BW wouldn't, and then we'd all be playing Final Fantasy clones with narratives on rails.

What? it's bull**** and you don't know anything about retcons or Fallout. I wish people at least learned a meaning of "retconning" before they start to throw it everywhere. 

Fallout always had the set canon for it's history. Shady Sands & NCR history is NOT a retcon, Black Isle and Bethesda are not Bioware, and Fallout never recognised all choices in sequels. There were always canonical choices and any alternative choices were non-canon.


P.S. Everyone read these links before posting more bull**** about "retcons".

http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

http://tvtropes.org/...php/Main/Retcon

Modifié par Star fury, 28 décembre 2013 - 12:36 .

[Il Divo]

SaltBot wrote...

That means you're looking at 5 -6 years between games because you need a new IP for every game. Maybe you can wait that long, but I don't think anyone on the business side of the house is going to like the infrequency of sales. Not to mention it's a lot to ask of BW to keep coming up with this stuff seeing as how even the Final Fantasy series is resorting to sequels these days.

What are you talking about? How does a new IP model logically follow from this? Sylvius is suggesting exactly what previous efforts, like Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 have done. Neither of those required 5-6 years of development and overall perception seems to be that they're some of the best RPGs out there.

I think OP should care about choice because if you didn't then BW wouldn't, and then we'd all be playing Final Fantasy clones with narratives on rails.

Or we'd be playing games in the style of Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate 2. Your bad logic is a result of assuming that people who dislike the save import also dislike choices, which is not necessarily true.

[Il Divo]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And again, where is the improvement over the current system if both result in the same thing? You give one crappy example which probably only 2-3% of the players will actually take, and the rest either out of boredum or curiosity, assuming they just don't youtube it and save themselves a playthrough. Maybe it was better before an alternative exsisted to the system, a lot of things tend to be that way. But now that there exists an alternative, even with that alternatives flaws, it is still preferable to the other system.

The improvement lies in the overall narrative. Many of Bioware's more recent lackluster plot points, at least with ME3, have been the result of having to account for multiple choices.

To use DA:O as an example, the Old God Baby plotline provides enough story for its own game and that's ignoring the plethora of other major decisions the player is able to make. In any other linear medium, a plot point like this can be given proper attention. In save import systems, unless you want incredibly short games, which is valid, they're never going to accurately reflect the epic nature of its preceding narrative.

I don't know if this is known or not, but I hate the fact that siding with either the sith or the jedi in kotor, basically got your decision overruled in the next game to "Sith won anyway, suck it.".  Why even give us the option to decide what could have happened if none of it matters within the continuity of the games. And yeah, maybe to you continuity isn't a big deal, but to other players like myself consistency and continuity are kinda big deals, that's why Dragon age 2 with its almost total overhaul of the appearances of the setting, is really jarring to get into, even if some of the changes are preferable. 

And what is the alternative you're thinking? I'd love to see it done on paper.

And to the bolded, technically no. KotOR 2 acknowledges your decisions. KotOR 2's narrative relies on Revan's personality from prior to his mind wipe, which is recovered both as a Jedi and a Sith.

Point is, I don't see where there is a positive in having crazy off the wall choices if they won't be accounted for later, or even addressed in a half assed "well this did happen last time but things got complicated so it didn't happen", but just say "Too bad, deal with it" and have that be that. If they're going to do that, they might as well just make everything completely linear and get it over with.

Your crazy off the wall choices are the problem, as seen with examples like the Rachni and the Collector Base. People make character decisions for role-playing reasons, just as much as for their desire to see the consequences.

Maybe the solution is for Bioware to simply not make sequels? Jade Empire is phenomenal with world-changing consequences and that stands completely alone.