655 réponses à ce sujet

[zMataxa]

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't have much of an issue with DA2. Whatever choices I made in DAO have pretty much shown up in DA2. if I make Alistair King he makes a Kingly cameo, If I make Anora queen and Alistair abandons the Wardens, he shows up a drunk talking about crap about the Wardens. I'm very happy with that because it feels like a true continuation of the story. It keeps the flow going for me.

Spot on!  That was great stuff!

Hazegurl wrote...
I've only killed Leliana once during my playthrough of DAO and I never used the import for DA2 but I can understand why some players had an issue with that.

I can understand them too.  But I'm also hoping that when the dust settles they also realize that it's a limitation.  All games have them. 

Hazegurl wrote...
As for ME. I don't have that much of a problem with the ending. It was more about the presentation of some of the choices and I will include the ending for that as well. Example: The Genophage cure. The story sort of bash you upside the head with a sign that says "Curing the Genophage is RIGHT!!!" especially with Wrex alive. But still it's one of my favorite arcs.

Yeah, it gets frustrating.  I've had my share of those too. 
For me, in the end I accept that a fair amount of linear story has to happen in order to get a game completed on schedule and on a certain limited budget.

Hazegurl wrote...
What I consider to be lazy is when a choice is taken away from the players and the in game explanation is like one or two pieces of dialogue. I've never killed Ohgren in DAO but seriously, why on earth would he want to come team up with the Warden he hates and "almost" kills his a**. lol!!

I am curious how much more choice/pieces of dialogue you would like to see to make it feel fleshed out?
Where do you draw the line?

[Mathias]

Nohvarr wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I don't want them to remove all choices. I'm just talking about particular choices where they don't know for a fact if they'll be able to follow up on. 

No, because that would mean they have to lock down the plot of a future game. I'd rather the focus on making the current game they are developing good rather than spend time and resources worrying about a game that may not get made or have nothing to do with any of the decisions being made in the current game.

And that's a bad thing?

[Zu Long]

zMataxa wrote...
Yeah, it gets frustrating.  I've had my share of those too. 
For me, in the end I accept that a fair amount of linear story has to happen in order to get a game completed on schedule and on a certain limited budget.

One of the reasons I'm really glad that they delayed DA:I a year to a 3-year development instead of 2.

You could really tell that ME3 felt rushed on the back-end. It seemed like they wanted to do a lot more with the battle for Earth and probably the ending too. One of the things that struck me in the Last Hours of Mass Effect 3 is that the "Lots of speculation for everyone" note that ended up influencing the ending they came up with was written in November 2011- which you may remember was the original release target for ME3. They had gotten to the original release date, and STILL didn't have the ending pinned down. They delayed it by 4 months to March 2012, but I still really got a rushed feeling from the way that ending went down. Just imagine if they'd had another year what they could have accomplished.

Modifié par Zu Long, 23 décembre 2013 - 02:45 .

[zMataxa]

Zu Long wrote...

Oh I definitely agree. Gaider himself will tell you criticism doesn't hurt though. They try to give as much consideration to the critiques they find here and elsewhere as they can. I'm hoping they'll keep pushing the envelope in future games, finding more and more ways for the game to react to the player. I also really feel like DA Keep is a big step forward. Some of the "retcons" people talk about wouldn't have happened if we'd had the Keep last time (Zevran being alive, for instance). It should really help with cutting down on those kinds of glitches.

They certainly seem to be innovating a bit here in DA:I with the way the conversation system has been tweeked, and I'm eager to see it in action. Next fall is going to be a long wait. I've got my fingers crossed that I'll get into to the Keep Beta so I have something to play with until then.

Spot on.  The Keep will be a great tool for players and goes a ways to addressing these kinds of concerns.  It's an excellent innovation for us story-variation hounds.  Did you apply for beta testing?  Hope you get it.  Anyone that pays $100 special edition preorder deserves it in my books.

RE: Criticism.  I think what gets me fired up is seeing a game series that already offers so much for $60 and I see so many other more Vanilla games also at $60, but Bioware is still asked to give more for $60 (assuming they even buy it full retail).   DA2 being the exception with the short dev time (though to me it still was a $75 game compared to most others).

[Hazegurl]

zMataxa wrote...
I am curious how much more choice/pieces of dialogue you would like to see to make it feel fleshed out?
Where do you draw the line?

Well I would prefer it if the character never shows up again cause their dead. I didn't like ME replacing One Rachni queen with another just to give us the same mission but I do like the different outcomes given. The clone Rachni Queen will betray you later while the original one stays loyal. It's a minor change but it's something.

With Leliana. I think BW can redeem themselves by giving the players who killed her a different outcome with her in DAI. Perhaps she was a demon the entire time and tries to kill the Inquisitor or something. Make something happen that says "This is NOT the same Leliana from DAO." It would bring players who killed her back into their story.
 
as for Ohgren, well he just never should have been in Awakening if killed in DAO, period. I can't imagine how upset a player who killed both him and Leliana in Origins (only to have him show up in awakening then Leilana in DA2) feels. But oh well there's nothing that can be done about that. 

But yeah a different outcome would help a lot.

Didn't recruit Justice in awakening?= Leave out the Justice dialogue and possession in DA2 for Anders. He's just a mage gone crazy or whatever his supporters want to call it.

Anders got killed in Awakening? = Give us Finn from Witch Hunt for DA2. A few dialogue changes and it's done. Heck they could have even used the same VA.

I don't think any of that is enough to exceed a budget.

@Nohvarr, I don't think it's too much to ask the BW team to at least put a board in their offices that lists some of the major in game choices including character deaths so they can remember what happened with X while making the next game.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 23 décembre 2013 - 02:46 .

[Nohvarr]

[quote]Mdoggy1214 wrote...

No, because that would mean they have to lock down the plot of a future game.
[/quote]

And that's a bad thing?
[/quote]

Yes, because there's no reason to restrict themselves like that. You essentially want them to plan out everything right now (Plot, decisions, characters, etc)  and then dole it out in bits and pieces despite having no idea if they are going to MAKE another game after this one. This kills the ability to learn from past mistakes and allow for discussion with the fan community to effect change. Afterall they have to stick to the plan no matter what to ensure all YOUR decisions are treated as you wish.

"Sorry folks we never planned for Varric to be romance able in the entire series so that's how it has to be."

"Sorry folks, we never planned to visit Tevinter, so despite your requests we can't go there."

"The original design document called for all mages to either be burned at the stake or rule the world so those are your only two options despite the discussions on this forum."

See the problem.

[zMataxa]

Zu Long wrote...

One of the reasons I'm really glad that they delayed DA:I a year to a 3-year development instead of 2.

You could really tell that ME3 felt rushed on the back-end. It seemed like they wanted to do a lot more with the battle for Earth and probably the ending too. One of the things that struck me in the Last Hours of Mass Effect 3 is that the "Losts of speculation for everyone" note that ended up influencing the ending they came up with was written in November 2011- which you may remember was the original release target for ME3. They had gotten to the original release date, and STILL didn't have the ending pinned down. The delayed it by 4 months to March 2012, but I still really got a rushed feeling from the way that ending went down. Just imagine if they'd had another year what they could have accomplished.

____________

3 year dev shift and announcing playable races was a big positive for me too in terms of overall game series success.
Sounds like the Qunari may become a new fetish.  LOL!

Yeah the ME3 ending felt like a rush job.
Not sure where the "crunch" came from.
I have my theories, but that's all they are.
In the end chalk them up to - they got the game done and the series was excellent and highly memorable.

[Angrywolves]

[quote]Nohvarr wrote...

[quote]Mdoggy1214 wrote...

No, because that would mean they have to lock down the plot of a future game.
[/quote]

And that's a bad thing?
[/quote]

Yes, because there's no reason to restrict themselves like that. You essentially want them to plan out everything right now (Plot, decisions, characters, etc)  and then dole it out in bits and pieces despite having no idea if they are going to MAKE another game after this one. This kills the ability to learn from past mistakes and allow for discussion with the fan community to effect change. Afterall they have to stick to the plan no matter what to ensure all YOUR decisions are treated as you wish.

"Sorry folks we never planned for Varric to be romance able in the entire series so that's how it has to be."

"Sorry folks, we never planned to visit Tevinter, so despite your requests we can't go there."

"The original design document called for all mages to either be burned at the stake or rule the world so those are your only two options despite the discussions on this forum."

See the problem.[/quote]

well said.
Obviously they hadn't thought out Leliana, Zevran, probably other stuff that they did in DAO that might come back to bite them later on.

"eah the ME3 ending felt like a rush job."

That was Casey and Mac.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 23 décembre 2013 - 02:52 .

[Sanunes]

Angrywolves wrote...

well said.
Obviously they hadn't thought out Leliana, Zevran, probably other stuff that they did in DAO that might come back to bite them later on.

Don't get me wrong for I do understand why you feel the way you do, but there could always be a multitude of reasons why something happens the way it does. External forces are always a pain because you never know what is going to happen and how they will impact your timeframe. An example would be Zevran for he was designed not to be in Dragon Age 2 if you killed him in Dragon Age: Origns and they planned for that to carry forward with a flag in the save game, but something happened and the flag never properly set for anyone, now they could fix that by going back to Dragon Age: Origins and fixing that, but that would mean they would have to divert someone from Dragon Age 2 to try and find the issues and then fix them if possible.

[Aaleel]

If choices are only good for the game that they're in then Bioware should have never even had an importing save feature to begin with. They may as well have just used a Genesis, Keep type function from the start. Just let you set your world state each new game and have at it. You'd know what things had been retconned from the start and there'd be no WTH moments in the game.

Modifié par Aaleel, 23 décembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[Angrywolves]

I never killed Zev or Leliana so it's not a problem for me.Just a problem for the players who did.

[Nohvarr]

Aaleel wrote...

If choices are only good for the game that they're in then Bioware should have never even had an importing save feature to begin with. They may as well have just used a Genesis, Keep type function from the start. Just let you set your world state each new game and have at it. You'd know what things had been retconned from the start and there'd be no WTH moments in the game.

So instead of allowing people to just bring those same decisions over from a previous game and apply them where appropriate to a new game they should just abandon the idea because people might complain....

Should they bother trying to improve their game or just give up since someone will complain about the changes?

[wolfhowwl]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Nohvarr wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I don't want them to remove all choices. I'm just talking about particular choices where they don't know for a fact if they'll be able to follow up on. 

No, because that would mean they have to lock down the plot of a future game. I'd rather the focus on making the current game they are developing good rather than spend time and resources worrying about a game that may not get made or have nothing to do with any of the decisions being made in the current game.

And that's a bad thing?

In the case of Mass Effect which was sold to consumers as a trilogy featuring a single protagonist, a single overarching plot, and choices that would carry through the series some planning would have been very helpful.

For Dragon Age sure they could think through "hey maybe that girl who claims to have a vision from God may be important later, let's not get her killed" but since DA is not Mass Effect I would rather they focus on single games.

I agree with you that certain choices should not be offered if they are going to continue with the import instead of just canonizing a world state for the next game.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 23 décembre 2013 - 03:28 .

[Aaleel]

Nohvarr wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

If choices are only good for the game that they're in then Bioware should have never even had an importing save feature to begin with. They may as well have just used a Genesis, Keep type function from the start. Just let you set your world state each new game and have at it. You'd know what things had been retconned from the start and there'd be no WTH moments in the game.

So instead of allowing people to just bring those same decisions over from a previous game and apply them where appropriate to a new game they should just abandon the idea because people might complain....

Should they bother trying to improve their game or just give up since someone will complain about the changes?

If you're going to say your choices are only good for the game that they're in, there's no need for an import save function at all.  Just have a genesis, keep type function with the parameters for that game.  That way you'll see what choices have been ignored and pick what you want from the new outcome possibilities, or lack there off.

Then you won't have people waiting to see the outcome of a choice that is never coming or was changed to fit the canon story. 

[zMataxa]

Hazegurl wrote...

Well I would prefer it if the character never shows up again cause their dead.

LOL! Well it's hard to argue with that.
I like your choice of the word "prefer".  Reasonable is awesome, i think.

Hazegurl wrote...
I didn't like ME replacing One Rachni queen with another just to give us the same mission but I do like the different outcomes given. The clone Rachni Queen will betray you later while the original one stays loyal. It's a minor change but it's something.

With Leliana. I think BW can redeem themselves by giving the players who killed her a different outcome with her in DAI. Perhaps she was a demon the entire time and tries to kill the Inquisitor or something. Make something happen that says "This is NOT the same Leliana from DAO." It would bring players who killed her back into their story.
 
as for Ohgren, well he just never should have been in Awakening if killed in DAO, period. I can't imagine how upset a player who killed both him and Leliana in Origins (only to have him show up in awakening then Leilana in DA2) feels. But oh well there's nothing that can be done about that. 

But yeah a different outcome would help a lot.

Didn't recruit Justice in awakening?= Leave out the Justice dialogue and possession in DA2 for Anders. He's just a mage gone crazy or whatever his supporters want to call it.

Anders got killed in Awakening? = Give us Finn from Witch Hunt for DA2. A few dialogue changes and it's done. Heck they could have even used the same VA.

I don't think any of that is enough to exceed a budget.
 

It sounds pretty reasonable and alot of it doable.
Overall I think you make some interesting points how Bioware could
shuffle the deck as required sort-of-speak to make choices stick to the wall.

The issue of Anders replaced possibly with Finn is one wildcard (with same VA).
Would most fans be OK with either Anders or Finn playing the same if they
happen to like both and want both?  And if their stories continue into the next instalment, then  do Finn and Anders continue on the same shared story arc?

Re: no Justice possession - it's doable.  For sure.  As a designer, I'm not sure I would be too thrilled about taking out the Justice possession.  That story arc would feel lacking to me.  But perhaps enough people would prefer that?  Would it exceed budget?  Well possibly.  As soon as you offer a 2nd path - you need to give it enough "meat" to work.  When I say that - I'm thinking of Anders without Justice Posession.  Is it alot?  I can't answer that.

Those are some initial thoughts and far from complete I'm sure.
I'm thinking, really, the easiest would be if this series could be written into a book series, with several instalments ahead of time.  Game of Blights maybe?


OP, is this the direction (as Hazegurl wrote) that you were thinking of, or more than this?

[Star fury]

David Gaider wrote...

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

And we can close the thread now. If some don't like that, deal with it. Or don't buy the game.

[zMataxa]

Angrywolves wrote...
That was Casey and Mac.

________

How so?
Any published sources - like interviews?

[zMataxa]

Star fury wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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

And we can close the thread now. If some don't like that, deal with it. Or don't buy the game.

LOL! That's rather terse. 

[Angrywolves]

zMataxa wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...
That was Casey and Mac.

________

How so?
Any published sources - like interviews?

http://en.wikipedia....t_3#Controversy

I like it when I can recall a link.I recently read this.It explains why Patrick Weekes is now part of the DA team.:innocent:
shrugs.

Hopefully no one at Bioware won't be too mad for me providing this link.it is after all on the web.
shrugs.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 23 décembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[Star fury]

zMataxa wrote...


LOL! That's rather terse. 

All this bickering about "but but my choices didn't matter :(" and retcons is really tiring. Every week a thread pops up with the same arguments. 

[Mathias]

Nohvarr wrote...

Yes, because there's no reason to restrict themselves like that. You essentially want them to plan out everything right now (Plot, decisions, characters, etc)  and then dole it out in bits and pieces despite having no idea if they are going to MAKE another game after this one. This kills the ability to learn from past mistakes and allow for discussion with the fan community to effect change. Afterall they have to stick to the plan no matter what to ensure all YOUR decisions are treated as you wish.

"Sorry folks we never planned for Varric to be romance able in the entire series so that's how it has to be."

"Sorry folks, we never planned to visit Tevinter, so despite your requests we can't go there."

"The original design document called for all mages to either be burned at the stake or rule the world so those are your only two options despite the discussions on this forum."

See the problem.

No. I'm not talking about the entire overarching plot here. I'm talking about certain elements of the story. Something as significant as a death, a major character death, should be followed through in the future game.

[Guns]

The OP is making a very reasonable and valid point in this thread and anyone who is disregarding everything he has to say is just a blatant Bioware drone who would defend them even if Bioware started forcing them into prisons.

No, sorry YOU are wrong David Gaider. If I chop off someone's head and they turn out to be alive in another game where I imported the decisions of my character from the previous game, that's just bad storytelling and writing PERIOD.

Modifié par Guns, 23 décembre 2013 - 04:12 .

[Mathias]

Star fury wrote...

zMataxa wrote...


LOL! That's rather terse. 

All this bickering about "but but my choices didn't matter :(" and retcons is really tiring. Every week a thread pops up with the same arguments. 

Maybe because people are tired of seeing Bioware emphasize on choice so much, only to either not follow through with them, or failed to fulfill them in a satisfying way?

[DPSSOC]

Star fury wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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

And we can close the thread now. If some don't like that, deal with it. Or don't buy the game.

Or we can continue with what I feel is the greater issue of choices not mattering within their own game, like most of DA2's.  It was mentioned earlier how none of the choices you make regarding Anders in Acts 2 and 3 effect anything, it all plays out the same regardless, what was the point?  Grace is another example, no matter what choice you make it all pans out the same, what was the point?  The only way most choices mattered in that game were whether they got Friendship or Rivalry points, which really only matters because it gets you one of two bonuses for a character.

I'm not saying they should cut choice out, or even that every choice has to lead to a different outcome, but they should all lead to a difference.

[Hazegurl]

zMataxa wrote...

I like your choice of the word "prefer".  Reasonable is awesome, i think.

Well I try not to be too demanding.

Would most fans be OK with either Anders or Finn playing the same if they
happen to like both and want both?  And if their stories continue into the next instalment, then  do Finn and Anders continue on the same shared story arc?

That is interesting to think about. I would like to think that if a player didn't recruit Anders in Awakening thus ending up with him getting killed then they wouldn't want him in DA2. If they like both, then I think it boils down to living with your choices. Just because a player likes both doesn't mean they should get both. It could increase playthough numbers. Although I'm sure some players will be dissatisfied at having a similar play through with the characters in DA2. However, Ash and Kaidan were two characters sharing the same story and I think they have different personalities at least. Also Kaidan seems more accomplished. Also, the story for both Anders and Finn could be slightly different. Finn loved the Circle in Ferelden, well what happened that got him sent to Kirkwall and why is he bitter about it? Could be a chance to give us something different while Anders stick with the same story.

Edit: I also wonder about that statue telling Finn she will not see him again. That could had been interesting.

Re: no Justice possession - it's doable.  For sure.  As a designer, I'm not sure I would be too thrilled about taking out the Justice possession.  That story arc would feel lacking to me.  But perhaps enough people would prefer that?  Would it exceed budget?  Well possibly.  As soon as you offer a 2nd path - you need to give it enough "meat" to work.  When I say that - I'm thinking of Anders without Justice Posession.  Is it alot?  I can't answer that.

I actually didn't like the Justice possession. I didn't think it added much depth to Anders. He already had issues with the Circle, did he really need Justice? Other than him almost killing a mage because of Justice I don't see anything major from him. I actually think Anders's story would have been more heartbreaking without Justice. But I will still say that having a story sans Justice could increase the play through of awakenings and DA2. recruit Anders + Justice gets you Anders/Justice for DA2. Anders dead (whether Justice is recruited or not) gets you Finn for DA2. Anders recruited sans Justice recruited gets you a non possessed Anders story for DA2

If a player didn't play Awakening then they get an Auto Anders possession story for DA2 as the default

Modifié par Hazegurl, 23 décembre 2013 - 04:30 .