655 réponses à ce sujet

[Hazegurl]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

Why does people care about retcon when the previous character is no longer your character? Seems like people are too concerned about the past and future to enjoy the present, Because isnt that the MOST important? To enjoy the player you are currently playing?

I care about a retcon because the Warden, Hawke, and the Inquisitor all live within the same world. They are not living in some alternate universe every single time a sequel comes out. For me the world my current character is in has to make sense from point A to point B.

Ex: What if in DAI. Mages didn't exist. You can't play a mage, there are no mages anywhere. Mages have been retconned out of the story. They never existed at all in the world of Thedas.  Your Inquisitor never acknowledges that mages exist as well. 

You mean to say people would be out of hand to worry about the past and future of the story and they should only focus on the present game? 
 
I don't think retcons are completely bad, they can be done right. But falling back on them whenever you need to make a plot work is just lazy, IMO. retcons are for mistakes, the writer thought something would work but later discovers it doesn't and wants to fix it. Retcons are not actual writing tools used to fix every plot issue you have. That's the difference.  

[ignoreality]

I vote that certain players' insistence that BUT THEY KILLED LELIANA OMG, is properly acknowledged in DA:I.

Upon loading the game and importing the universe state, a note appears on screen:

"Due to the choices made in Dragon Age: Origins, events of this game cannot happen in your universe. Thank you for your understanding."

The end, game closes.

[Hazegurl]

That type of stupidity would work if Leliana was the end all be all of every event that happened in the story. She isn't. Try again.

[ignoreality]

Hazegurl wrote...

That type of stupidity would work if Leliana was the end all be all of every event that happened in the story. She isn't. Try again.

She is required for the story that DA:I tells. Apparently some people can't get over that fact. I don't see any other way of resolving the situation than them actually not playing the game.

It's been four years since the launch of Origins. Bioware made some mistakes allowing crucial characters to be killed. Hopefully they learned from those mistakes; we'll find out in later games. It's done. Deal with it.

[Star fury]

ignoreality wrote...

I vote that certain players' insistence that BUT THEY KILLED LELIANA OMG, is properly acknowledged in DA:I.

Upon loading the game and importing the universe state, a note appears on screen:

"Due to the choices made in Dragon Age: Origins, events of this game cannot happen in your universe. Thank you for your understanding."

The end, game closes.

Yes, please! But they would still have to pay the full price of the game. 

[andy6915]

Qistina wrote...

Work with Red Iron ----> get into the city
Work with Athenril ----> get into the city the same like above

Defend Ketojan ---> Ketojan dead, burn himself
Give Ketojan to Arvaraad ---> Ketojan dead killed by Arvaraad

Help Mages flee from Templar ---> They kidnap your love ones and turn to Blood Magic against you later
Give the Mages to the Templar ----> Same thing happen as above

Help Anders find ingredients ---> the ingredients is actually to make a bomb and he bomb the church
Don't help Anders find his ingredients ---> same thing happen as above

Kill D'Puis --> Hawke mom dead
Don't kill D'Puis ---> Hawke mom dead
Let Templar execute D'Puis ---> Hawke mom dead
Inform Templar mom is missing ---> Hawke mom dead
Search mom alone ---> Hawke mom dead
Search with Aveline --> Hawke mom dead
Use D'Puis to track mom ---> Hawke mom dead
Do whatever regarding mom ---> Hawke mom dead

Side with Mages --> Orsino become a monster and want to kill you, Meredith go nut
Side with Templars ---> same thing happen as above

What choice again?

I think that's the point. Hawke was never as important as everyone though, was just a poor victim who got swept up in everyone else's idiocy. Both mages and Templars seemed determined to just make everything worse and things were going to go bad no matter what Hawke did Hawke was less of a guiding force and more like a leaf that landed in a raging river. That was kinda what Varric was trying to tell Cassandra, Hawke was being being dragged around like everyone else. Hawke was connected to everything, sure, but was not the cause of even a quarter of it.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think that's the point. Hawke was never as important as everyone though, was just a poor victim who got swept up in everyone else's idiocy. Both mages and Templars seemed determined to just make everything worse and things were going to go bad no matter what Hawke did Hawke was less of a guiding force and more like a leaf that landed in a raging river. That was kinda what Varric was trying to tell Cassandra, Hawke was being being dragged around like everyone else. Hawke was connected to everything, sure, but was not the cause of even a quarter of it.

Insane levels of powerlessness in a game advertised as a "Rise to Power" is one that is grossly mismarketed and a terrible bait and switch to do to the player from a narrative point of view.

It's like advertising a Captain America movie with him fighting the German Socialist Party and then having the movie wind up being Schindler's List. Sure, Schindler's List is a powerful story that tells a great narratvie of doing everything possible in the face of soul-crushing hopelessness... but it is insanely depressing if you were hyped to expect a happy ending going in.

[Fast Jimmy]

I care about a retcon because the Warden, Hawke, and the Inquisitor all live within the same world. They are not living in some alternate universe every single time a sequel comes out.

It would be better if they did. That is to say, if each sequel was set in a universe where a set sequence of events was confirmed to have happened in previous games. That would be much better, cleaner and tell a more coherent story.

[mp911]

anders reckoning was explained, but yeah i understand how annoying that must have being for people who killed zevran, leliana.....even more when you see how unimportant bringing them in was in da2, it was just fan service.
that's why i feel the games should be as less connected as possible.
still in the end it still is pleasant to have choices in the present game, it is much more immersive

[JWvonGoethe]

At the very least, the game could do a better job of communicating to the player why so-called 'retconned' characters are alive when they appear in subsequent games.

Isolde was said to have died in one of my DA:O epilogue slides (it happens if you make her kill Connor). She reappeared as alive during a DA2 DLC, which is fine since the epilogue slides were just rumours. However I would have expected at the least some kind of context that explained why the rumours of her demise had been, shall we say, greatly exaggerated.

But no, the game never acknowledged in any way that the player might be surprised that Isolde was alive. She was just there and that was the end of it. (Even more curious is that she wouldn't appear if she had died in a different way in DA:O).

If Bioware want to bring back characters from their supposed deaths, that's fine as long as it's done in an interesting way. Simply ignoring a character's supposed death is just not very interesting, however. Neither is it interesting to put in a single line akin to "Aha! So you thought I was dead? Think again!"

It's just a minor bugbear, of course, rather than a fatal flaw of the series. And anyway, I have a feeling that with Leliana we'll get a more enticing story at some point which will explain her death defying appearance in DA2 in a more satisfying (even if still not wholly complete) way.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 23 décembre 2013 - 12:06 .

[Goneaviking]

It's an unreasonable expectation that game developers should know what they intend to do with the theoretical next installment in the franchise. Expecting that they should predict what story they'll do two games from now, and that they'll have a clear idea of which characters they'll want to bring back for cameos or major roles in unreasonable.

Personally I'd rather they focus on making a good game every time. Telling the best story they can with every installment, and if that means they write over a minor decision from a previous game then so be it. Much better than buying a product made inferior because the developers felt roped into servicing the continuity obsessed intent on preserving the sanctity of their own playthroughs.

That said, I don't object to complaints about illusory decisions that tie the player into a fixed sequence of events despite appearing to offer a range of alternative approaches to the problem. If choices in an important event - for instance how to handle the investigation of the missing women that culminates in Hawke's mother dying - provide no different game play or story content then it's hard to see the plot line as meaningful.

[DPSSOC]

ignoreality wrote...

I vote that certain players' insistence that BUT THEY KILLED LELIANA OMG, is properly acknowledged in DA:I.

Upon loading the game and importing the universe state, a note appears on screen:

"Due to the choices made in Dragon Age: Origins, events of this game cannot happen in your universe. Thank you for your understanding."

The end, game closes.

Have we really been given any indication that Leliana is crucial?  Been avoiding news on DAI because Bioware has been kinda spoilery with their news in the past, but unless they've stated or hinted that Leliana is special I don't see why it couldn't be some other agent of the Divine.  If Leliana is irreplaceable in the next game I'd rather not play, because that means it's really her story and not the Inquisitors, and if I want to play an RPG protagonist who just tags along while someone else is the hero, I'll play Final Fantasy.

[DPSSOC]

Goneaviking wrote...
It's an unreasonable expectation that game developers should know what they intend to do with the theoretical next installment in the franchise. Expecting that they should predict what story they'll do two games from now, and that they'll have a clear idea of which characters they'll want to bring back for cameos or major roles in unreasonable.

True, but expecting them to work around characters that could have died rather than just saying, "Nope, didn't happen." is not.

[Jaison1986]

I agree. What's the point to give an option to save or kill said character, if in the end they will come back later regardless? It's simple like that: Keep Leliana alive through the game results in her having an role in future sequels, or kill her an she is dead and gone for good. Is it so hard to understand this concept? If you give an choice, all we ask is that said choice will give two different outcomes.

[Mathias]

wolfhowwl wrote...

I read the first post. A statement like "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." is going result in some incredulous reactions due to its outlandishness.

As the saying goes, if you can't do it right then don't do it all. But again I'm not saying gut choices out completely. If it's so hard to carry over all the choices you make, then perhaps don't present us with as many choices so that it's easier? I just think things like this should be planned out better.

[Goneaviking]

Jaison1986 wrote...

I agree. What's the point to give an option to save or kill said character, if in the end they will come back later regardless? It's simple like that: Keep Leliana alive through the game results in her having an role in future sequels, or kill her an she is dead and gone for good. Is it so hard to understand this concept? If you give an choice, all we ask is that said choice will give two different outcomes.

And it DID have two different outcomes in the game where the choice was made. If you kill her she doesn't respawn in time for the afterparty post-blight.

Expecting them to either fully eradicate a popular character because an indeterminate number of players killed her in some of their playthroughs, or to create two versions of each followup game for the ever growing number of potential dead character is unreasonable.

They've pretty much openly stated that every game is its own story, and although the events of previous games transfer across they only do so in service of the story they're aiming to tell. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

[Nohvarr]

If OP were discussing the illusion of choice within the game, as Quistina and others have complained about, that would be fine, and I would point them to the 30 minute video in which a town is destroyed because the player choose to sacrifice it to save their keep. But the OP is complaining about choices affecting future games and harping on the Leilana incident, despite other choices coming over just fine.

[Mathias]

Goneaviking wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

I agree. What's the point to give an option to save or kill said character, if in the end they will come back later regardless? It's simple like that: Keep Leliana alive through the game results in her having an role in future sequels, or kill her an she is dead and gone for good. Is it so hard to understand this concept? If you give an choice, all we ask is that said choice will give two different outcomes.

And it DID have two different outcomes in the game where the choice was made. If you kill her she doesn't respawn in time for the afterparty post-blight.

Expecting them to either fully eradicate a popular character because an indeterminate number of players killed her in some of their playthroughs, or to create two versions of each followup game for the ever growing number of potential dead character is unreasonable.

They've pretty much openly stated that every game is its own story, and although the events of previous games transfer across they only do so in service of the story they're aiming to tell. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

That's just another way of saying "Oh your choices matter but not really."

If every game was suppose to be it's own seperate story, then I wish they left the characters of DA:O alone. Because the way my Warden's journey ended in that game was that he and his friends saved the world, and then he lived the rest of his days in Denerim with his pal Alistair and love Leliana. 

But then DA2 comes along and tells me "Lol nope your Warden disappeared and Leliana left."

[Thomas Andresen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think that's the point. Hawke was never as important as everyone though, was just a poor victim who got swept up in everyone else's idiocy. Both mages and Templars seemed determined to just make everything worse and things were going to go bad no matter what Hawke did Hawke was less of a guiding force and more like a leaf that landed in a raging river. That was kinda what Varric was trying to tell Cassandra, Hawke was being being dragged around like everyone else. Hawke was connected to everything, sure, but was not the cause of even a quarter of it.

Insane levels of powerlessness in a game advertised as a "Rise to Power" is one that is grossly mismarketed and a terrible bait and switch to do to the player from a narrative point of view.

It's like advertising a Captain America movie with him fighting the German Socialist Party and then having the movie wind up being Schindler's List. Sure, Schindler's List is a powerful story that tells a great narratvie of doing everything possible in the face of soul-crushing hopelessness... but it is insanely depressing if you were hyped to expect a happy ending going in.

That analogy is terrible.

First of all, the marketing of DA2 was extremely unspecific beyond the "Rise to Power" gimmick. Expecting BioWare to account for all the fans' exceedingly active imagination is unfair, to say the least.

Second, I never had those feelings of powerlessness, playing through the game, not the first, and not the tenth time. There were feelings of loss, but I never expected to exert that kind of control over the narrative.

[Nohvarr]

That's just another way of saying "Oh your choices matter but not really."

They're suppose to matter within the game in which you made them, and they can be acknowledged or used in later games when and where appropriate.

[Goneaviking]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's just another way of saying "Oh your choices matter but not really."

If every game was suppose to be it's own seperate story, then I wish they left the characters of DA:O alone. Because the way my Warden's journey ended in that game was that he and his friends saved the world, and then he lived the rest of his days in Denerim with his pal Alistair and love Leliana. 

But then DA2 comes along and tells me "Lol nope your Warden disappeared and Leliana left."

No it's just another way of saying "You can't always get what you want".

Your choice mattered in the game in which you made them, after that point they ceased to be relevant in any way that didn't service the story being told in subsequent games.

So take a teaspoon of concrete and harden up.

[Gwydden]

I think some here are making too big a deal of an insignificant "choice" (as far as I remember, the Warden couldn't actually decide to kill Leliana; she decided to turn on him) with an outcome that remained unspecified until very recently, and that is unlikely to have happened in most people's playthroughs.

That's not fearing that your choices are being taken away from you. It's being paranoid. As Goneaviking said, you can't always get what you want.

Modifié par Gwydden, 23 décembre 2013 - 01:24 .

[Mathias]

Goneaviking wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's just another way of saying "Oh your choices matter but not really."

If every game was suppose to be it's own seperate story, then I wish they left the characters of DA:O alone. Because the way my Warden's journey ended in that game was that he and his friends saved the world, and then he lived the rest of his days in Denerim with his pal Alistair and love Leliana. 

But then DA2 comes along and tells me "Lol nope your Warden disappeared and Leliana left."

No it's just another way of saying "You can't always get what you want".

Your choice mattered in the game in which you made them, after that point they ceased to be relevant in any way that didn't service the story being told in subsequent games.

So take a teaspoon of concrete and harden up.

I don't agree with the method of thinking and storytelling. If you're going to make each game such a personal journey for the player and his character, then when all's said and done, you should leave the player character alone, especially if they're suppose to be they're own seperate story. You mean to tell me they HAD to make the Warden disappear in order for them to tell the story they want? I call BS. 

This isn't anything new. Revan is also a good example of this. People don't like it when they mess with their characters afterward. If you want to tell a different story, then tell a different story without bringing our past characters into it. ESPECIALLY if you're gonna do it in a way that's gonna completely deviate from how their journey ended.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 23 décembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[Afro_Explosion]

This isn't going to end well can't we all sing kumbaya and get along.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Qistina wrote...

Work with Red Iron ----> get into the city
Work with Athenril ----> get into the city the same like above

Defend Ketojan ---> Ketojan dead, burn himself
Give Ketojan to Arvaraad ---> Ketojan dead killed by Arvaraad

Help Mages flee from Templar ---> They kidnap your love ones and turn to Blood Magic against you later
Give the Mages to the Templar ----> Same thing happen as above

Help Anders find ingredients ---> the ingredients is actually to make a bomb and he bomb the church
Don't help Anders find his ingredients ---> same thing happen as above

Kill D'Puis --> Hawke mom dead
Don't kill D'Puis ---> Hawke mom dead
Let Templar execute D'Puis ---> Hawke mom dead
Inform Templar mom is missing ---> Hawke mom dead
Search mom alone ---> Hawke mom dead
Search with Aveline --> Hawke mom dead
Use D'Puis to track mom ---> Hawke mom dead
Do whatever regarding mom ---> Hawke mom dead

Side with Mages --> Orsino become a monster and want to kill you, Meredith go nut
Side with Templars ---> same thing happen as above

What choice again?

It's funny when i played Stanley Parable and heard this... the first thing that came into my mind was DA2.