I'll help out a when I can.
Alan Schumacher
Pretty much this. For better or worse, the Inquisitor is going to be a proactive "lead from the front" type of leader. But there will be tasks that you delegate. At least, that's the plan (and was talked about in the PAX playthrough). I haven't heard any differently, but JP might use some level of safe language regarding specifics and whatnot.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17396989/2
Can't cheat on your LI'S with the inquisitor
David Gaider
I'm apt to do many things with the story that some players might not like, but putting their PC in a situation where they're forced into cognitive dissonance-- such as having them romance someone who, in their timeline, is supposed to be connected to a previous PC... no, even I have my limits
http://social.biowar...ndex/17224340/2
About the survey and war room
David Gaider
I'm not going to say whether she's a companion, or if she's even still in DAI. Not every character mentioned in that survey was a companion, and some of them either no longer exist or have changed signficantly. Hence why I have said before not to hold it up as gospel-- you may be very disappointed.
http://social.biowar...6310/3#17133428
David Gaider
mattrhodesart:
DA:I - War Room
Oh, yay! Matt posted the entire thing! This has been one of my desktop backgrounds for ages, ever since it was done (even if it’s a wee bit out of date by now).
I laugh every time I see someone suggesting the fellow on the left (next to Cassandra) is saying “That is mahogany!” …that is, in fact, the very first thing Mary and Sheryl and I joked when we saw this image, though we thought it was the woman on the right (with the black hair and the bun). Just add a gasp! onto the front.
EDIT: I see people assuming that everyone pictured here (other than the Inquisitor, obviously) are party members. HAHA WRROONNG! Many of them are not. And the woman behind the Inquisitor is not Vivienne, either. Try again, suckers.
#meangirl
Luke K wrote the blonde elf, Mary Kirby wrote Varic and Vivienne, Gaider wrote Cassandra and someone else.
DA:I - Tavern
Even the Inquisition needs some down time.
This piece totally demands a caption contest, doesn’t it?
I think my favorite thing about it is how it completely captures the personalities of the characters involved, without any words being required. When Luke saw this (the writer for the blonde elf in the middle), I believe he did his customary smirk and just said, “Yup.”
http://dgaider.tumbl...tavern-even-the
Mary Kirby
This exchange has nothing to do with Vivienne. Whom I wrote. You guys know that I write all sorts of characters who aren't followers, right? The game is positively full of them
I am writing Varric again, yes. I have claimed the letter V as my sole domain.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17126310/2
Cassandra and an unknown character- David Gaider
Varic and Vivienne- Mary Kirby
Solas- Unknown
The Blonde Elf- Luke K.
The Iron Bull- Unknown
Patrick Weeks- Unknown
Sheryl Chee- Unknown
Patrick Weeks is writing at least one, one of hischaracters doesn't get along with one of Kirby's, nor will his get along with Chee's
Background content, i'll add more later
David Gaider
I'm joking, of course.
Even so, no, there's no point in going over the backgrounds. What we have planned for the races has way more content, anyhow.
David Gaider
Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:
You aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will also have the option to do the opposite.
Ultimately, the ability to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.
http://social.biowar...4580/4#14615791
David Gaider
Just to be clear as to what Mike was and was not referring to:
What is the same about Inquisition's writing style, compared to DA2:
Dialogue options are picked from paraphrases, off a wheel interface.
The player character is voiced, and dialogue is written with that in mind.
What is new:
No dominant tone. Meaning your most-selected tone does not carry through to influence other lines outside of the conversation in which you selected it. In DA2, dominant tone changed the actual line the PC spoke when action choices were made as well as those spoken inside of cutscenes ("auto-dialogue", as people like to refer to it here). In Inquisition, those are all relayed in neutral tone.
A question is often asked of how much "auto-dialogue" will exist in comparison to, say, Mass Effect 3. The answer is that the amount will be less than DA2 (and it is always neutral-toned, as mentioned above). This is generally just used in situations where the PC is saying something innocuous ("Go on" or "What is that?" ...things that don't really call for a wheel).
Addition of a "reaction wheel" (on top of the "tone wheel", which is for flavor responses, and the "action wheel", which is for places where the player is decided to do something), which allows for emotional responses to important events. The player always has the Stoic option (essentially the neutral response), or will have options such as Sad, Confused, Enraged, Surprised, etc.
Dialogue options on an action wheel now sometimes display a pop-up if the option is hovered over long enough, elaborating on what that action is intended to do. This only applies to actions where elaboration is felt necessary. It does not display the actual line which will be spoken by the PC.
The three major tones are now Noble/Clever/Direct (as opposed to Diplomatic/Humorous/Aggressive). These are primarily internal designations which affect how we write those tones, the idea being to reign in the difference a bit between the three. There are no longer alternate tone variants (which in DA2 were Helpful/Charming/Direct), as I don't think we communicated very well what those meant anyhow.
Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.
Some people will find these things very different. Some will hardly notice, as these are largely structural and procedural differences for writing. Ultimately, as Mike says, the writing style is the same--but your mileage may vary. Nothing else is really referred to by "writing style" than how the dialogue itself is functionally written.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17905267/6
David Gaider
No, the main difference between DAO and DA2 conversations with the party members was the lack of random questions-- being able to to ask the character questions about their past or about the lore.
The full conversations-- as in the ones that actually progressed their plots or relationships, were gated (mostly by approval level). DA2 had more content on the plot side, as in the one plot per act (as opposed to DAO, which simply had one short plot per party member), though I think the perception of many people is that those plots were simply quests and not really "part" of the character's interactions.
We sort of hit a middle ground in DAI. There are the random questions you can ask the party member, similar to DAO, and we're down to one plot again (which is part of their development arc). They have the full conversations which are primarily gated by event, as mentioned (though these depend on the player seeking them out, usually-- no more missions demanding you seek the party member out).
You still cannot talk to them anywhere in the world (there's not even the option to click on them outside of "safe" areas), but there are certain conversations that can initiate elsewhere, depending on whether they're present.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17225147/3
David Gaider
Okay, last time I will go through this particular argument-- in the future, I'll simply link to this if I must.
Displaying the full text of the line for a voiced PC does not work for us. We investigated it. We tried it out, and discussed it, and ultimately discarded the idea.
I get that some people feel they need all the information in order to make their dialogue choice-- and they feel that seeing the entire line displayed for them will give them that information. It won't. Or, I should say, it will... but it will break down just as often as paraphrases do. Which is to say not very often, but often enough that you remember the situations where that happens.
The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we started writing player lines as if the PC weren't voiced, as in Origins.
Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result.
So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves.
And, yes, that is something we must concern ourselves with. We do not offer, support and test options unless we believe they work as a viable option for the game as we intend it to be played. And you might say to that "well, I think it would make the game better for me", but I'd suggest you're largely wrong in that. It doesn't actually address your base problem, which is with the voiced PC. At best we'd be going out of our way to not really solve your issue while actively making the game worse for others.
This is not to say there aren't things we can do to make the system better other than simply being more rigorous with our use of paraphrases. Not being as anal about not repeating words and phrases between the paraphrase and the actual line(s) is one, but there are others... which we will discuss at a later time. Displaying the full line is not, however, going to be one of those things.
http://social.biowar...9639/6#14567693
David Gaider
To a point. You cannot begin a romance at negative approval, however.
It's based on their approval of your actions. Ultimately it's closer to DAO's approval system than DA2's, but without DAO's system of low approval locking out interactions with your party members. The majority of interactions (the ones that aren't directly approval-related) are gated by events in the game, not your approval level. The type of interaction you have in those instances varies by their approval.
It is possible for a party member to end up hating the PC if approval gets low enough, yes, and it can come to a crisis point with that character-- at which point they may even leave for good. Or other things.
http://social.biowar.../index/17225147
David Gaider
You will be able to speak with your companions at any time. If they don't have a full, cinematic conversation queued up, then you have access to the same kind of "standard" questions that you could ask companions in DAO (which change over time, depending on context).
You will not be able to talk to them anywhere, however. Those conversations are only available in a "safe zone", such as the equivalent of the party camp. Conversations while out on a mission are restricted to banter and mission-specific dialogue (such as Alistair's conversation that pops up before you enter Redcliffe the first time).
There are also no quests provided to alert you that a companion has a major conversation waiting. While those were intended as a convenience feature, some people evidently interpreted that as them being told to go and talk to the companion--and thus they felt they could only talk to a companion when the companion wanted. Which is perception only, sure, but what else is agency but perception? So the conversations are there for the player to discover, if they wish, short of the companion seeking them out on their own.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17709719/2
David Gaider
Just to spare further argument on this point, I'll elaborate regarding the differences between DAO's and DA2's approach to character interaction.
DAO had cinematic conversations that were gated (and by "gated" I mean the requirements to make the conversation trigger) by approval level and certain plot points (if they were important to the character).
By default (meaning if there were no cinematic conversations waiting) they had an "investigate" conversation--which is essentially the series of questions you could ask about their background. Some of those questions were themselves gated by approval level or plot points, so as time went on you might get a few new ones opening up.
Beyond that, DAO had one short personal plot for the companion, generally with a follow-up cinematic conversation.
In comparison, DA2's content was more on the cinematic conversation side. There was no default investigate conversation at all, and those sorts of questions were interspersed throughout their cinematic conversations. The cinematic conversations were, however, forcibly spread throughout the game since they were gated by Act as well as by approval level and plot point-- the purpose being to have the player come to know the follower gradually.
What DA2 had a lot more of was on the personal plot side--of which there were three in the game, and each was larger than the single personal plot in DAO. These were designed to give the player a way to get to know the follower outside of simply asking them questions, and their cinematic conversations were designed to largely work in conjunction with these plots (to represent an ongoing narrative). I'm not certain that everyone (who visits the BSN, anyhow) actually looks on these personal plots as follower interaction, however, and instead sees them as plots like any other plot which just happen to feature the follower. Depends on what they were looking for, probably.
As I mentioned, the cinematic conversations and personal plots in DA2 were alerted to the player through a quest--partly due to convenience, but more because the chore of "checking in" with each follower was more burdensome than in DAO because each follower was behind a separate level load (being spread throughout Kirkwall as they were).
That's the only real difference with their mechanical function in comparison to DAO--in DAO, unless the follower initiated dialogue with the player, the player was free to ignore them and would never know they had a new dialogue.
Insofar as which game's approach is better, that's debatable. As I mentioned, some of the differences are largely one of perception. A player that was used to DAO's approach might have missed being able to go to a follower in the camp and run through all their dialogues at once, feeling like they "got to know" a follower after an hour of talking to them in the investigate conversation.
They may have gotten the initial cinematic conversation, clicked on the follower again and received their "I have nothing else to tell you right now" bark, and thought "is that it?" There's also the perception of agency, such as being told when it was okay to talk to the follower again rather than being left to discover that on one's own. The experience likely varied depending on what you went in expecting.
Ultimately, the content for followers is being re-shuffled once again--the default investigate dialogue is re-appearing, so there is conversation to be had with a follower even when they don't have a big cinematic scene awaiting, and that comes at the expense of the extra personal plots as was in DA2. Also gone are the alerts, in part because we felt the agency comment was fair and in part because it's no longer necessary (for mechanical reasons)...and also because the player will likely be getting more than enough quests anyhow, they don't need more added onto their list just to go talk to someone (who they may not even wish to talk to, for all we know).
The total amount of content, as in the actual amount of writing that goes into an individual follower and the amount of interaction you have with them over the course of the game, is the same in DAO as in DA2 as it will be in DAI.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17709719/5
David Gaider
The events of the Dragon Age novels and comics are “part of Dragon Age canon”, meaning they contribute to the overall lore. They do not, however, override your game choices. Those events hay have happened very differently in your particular game continuity… meaning that, if Alistair was dead, then the events of the Silent Grove simply never occurred. If Alistair isn’t king, the Silent Grove could have still happened… but would have occurred somewhat differently.
Does this mean the comics and novels could be referenced in your game? Possibly, but only if the context is correct… and, even then, we’d need to introduce characters and events on the assumption that you’ve never read the material. The Architect was introduced in Awakening assuming that the player never read the Calling, and needed to work as a new character. If you read the Calling, then great— you would have more insight into the game. It’s not designed to do more than that.
If someone really wants to assert that ancillary media cannot exist if it contradicts their personal playthrough in any fashion, then so be it. You’re not required to read it. You can play Dragon Age without ever picking up the novels or comics or whatever else. It will, however, still exist. If the knowledge that there is story material out there which explores aspects of the story you didn’t choose in your game (all of which are equally valid) bothers you, then you’ll simply have to take a breath and either pick it up or live with it.
David Gaider
Believe I mentioned this before, but once again: if you're an elf, you're Dalish.
http://forum.bioware...2#entry16194083
David Gaider
Mary tells me that the PC would technically just be Vashoth. Either way, it's a distinction that's only going to be relevant to the Qunari themselves. Everyone else will simply say "Qunari", no matter where you were born.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17843581/1
David Gaider
That's a little different. I think most of the party members in DAI are optional or dismissable--if not all. For other characters, or party members that aren't, it really depends on whether the story offers an alternate route around their death.
Sometimes we'll endeavour to put that in, if we feel allowing for their death adds something worthwhile--but we don't feel it always is, particularly if the amount of work required to provide an alternate path in the story is enormous in comparison. Naturally, the mileage of a particular fan on that account is going to vary, especially when it comes to things they believe are worthy of summary executio.
Im not sure which is more creepy, to be honest, the inevitable "will I get to romance them?" when any character is mentioned or the vaguely psychopathic "this character annoyed me at some point so I want to be able to slaughter them, even if it's with a new character who would know nothing about it".
We had a guy in a tabletop I was once in who did that. He'd roll a new character specifically to kill another party member who, in his mind, was responsible for his previous character's death. He was kind of a dick.
Anyway, yeah. Ultimately, the chances I would allow a character to be killed solely because the player might have some lingering grudge from two games ago? Nil. If it makes sense in the current story? Absolutely. If it doesn't make sense, will accusations of "plot armor" arise? Sure, and yet
http://social.biowar...ndex/17470030/7
This link has some stuff about the ogb and anders.
http://social.biowar...ndex/16842817/4
Since someone asked here's some on the warden and hawke.
David Gaider
If they return (and are alive to do so), it would be as an NPC-- and we've said previously that, if we include them, it would be important to do it right and not as an unsatisfying cameo that would just make the very people they're included for unhappy. If we can't do that, then we just won't have them appear. Whether they appear or not, however, the question of their disappearance will need to be addressed.
What we're doing, exactly? That's a question I can't/won't answer, along with so many other questions people will have about DA3 at this point.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you there.
The existence of unresolved plot threads is not a "cliffhanger". That is an abuse of the term (much like "cliche", "retcon" or "Mary Sure" in just about any Internet forum). A cliffhanger is when the central conflict of a story is not resolved. DAO would have been a cliffhanger if the story had ended en route to Denerim for the final battle.
You left wondering what happened to your Warden if you entered the Eluvian with Morrigan is more about closure... but that's another term that people like to invoke a bit too freely. An amiguous ending-- "walking off into the sunset"-- is often something that is done deliberately to allow the player to imagine where they went and what they did. Some people claim, however, that they will not ever get proper closure so long as there's still something they imagine their hero doing. They want to know what happened to them and Alistair, how they ruled Ferelden, where they went with Morrigan... if there's even a hint that it might have been something exciting, they consider that an unfinished story rather than a brand-new one.
But it would be a brand-new story, as the previous one was indeed resolved. The conflict ended, even if a new one began. The idea that we would have to either kill the hero or effectively kill all interest in their future in order to provide real closure is a bit ludicrous.
As for the territoriality involved in that character, as in the player feeling the character is "theirs" even if they've moved onto a new story and a new protagonist, that's probably inevitable. Short of skipping to another side of the world or another time, there's bound to be some contravention of headcanon ("I didn't imagine MY character doing THAT!"). Generally the rule is that we'll approach any use of the previous PC much more carefully than characters around the PC (like, say, Alistair or Morrigan). Inevitably it's possible we'll contravene the player's headcanon no matter what, and that's a possibility that exists the moment you stop playing the character, but we'll do our best to steer around it whenever we can.
Again, neither of these are cliffhangers. They had plots, and those plots were resolved. An unresolved plot thread is not the same as an unresolved plot, and the fact you might be interested in what comes next does not mean that what comes next is not a brand new story. I appreciate that some people want every single thing to be wrapped up neatly and completely final before they feel they can "move on", but that's neither something that stories always do nor is it something I would even consider a requirement.
Possibly.
Plot threads exist to be picked up and played with, like cats with string
Excellent. That is, however, a new story
David Gaider
Why is that a false expectation? Obviously it's a plot thread we intend to play with. It's not going to be with you playing as the Warden, however -- ultimately that character is ours now, and while we'll tread as carefully as we can, the fact remains that new plots may use them in some capacity.
Contravention of headcanon is always a possibility whenever a sequel's involved. Gosh, I can't imagine the gnashing of teeth that would have occurred if we had used the Warden as the protagonist in DA2 and had something happen to them that they didn't imagine in their head-- like Leliana being alive. Oh noes! On that point, I'm afraid we will simply have to invoke authorial prerogative. Sorry. Hope it all makes sense once you see it play out, and thus eases your concern... but I can't promise that'll be the case.
David Gaider
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Hawke and/or the Warden appear, they will not be playable. They are now NPC's. Ideally the player will have a say in their import state (and thus their appearance), but that does not extend to control over their actions following the end of the stories they originally appeared in. That said, I doubt we would go out of our way to have them do things which would be wildly problematic... but that really depends on what one personally considers "wildly problematic", particularly if they have very specific headcanon regarding what they believe their former PC's went on to do.
I doubt it's going to be a matter of "importing" any more than you import your world state. Rather, it would be "re-creating"... and even if there is an import of some kind, most likely you'd be free to further tweak (as I can't imagine a circumstance where we could guarantee 100% visual accurancy with an import, considering the new engine).
That's still being investigated, however, so there's nothing I can confirm regarding how either of those things would be done.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17405252/2
It won't be. The DA Keep should ensure that import bugs are a thing of the past, but there are always going to be items that people will believe we didn't respect enough-- by rendering irrelevant or what have you. Ideally that's not the same as actively contradicting a choice, but there will probably be no shortage of people who will read into the tone of a line to extract meaning not said (like those who held up the tone Leliana spoke some of her lines in DA2 as proof she now hated mages) or who will claim "my character wouldn't do/say that" even if motivation never comes up at all.
We'll do our best, but considering some like yourself say they just don't trust us that's hardly going to assuage your fears-- some people are going to spend their time imagining the absolute worst way we could do this, assume that's what we're going to do, and then demand we disprove their fears immediately lest the lack of disproving be taken as confirmation... which we will not do. So you'll just have to wait and see how it turns out, or panic in the meantime, whichever is your preference.
Not to sound insensitive, but that is simply how it is-- "preorder canceled!" declarations notwithstanding.
"Headcanon" refers to things which were not depicted (or even mentioned) in any game, and yet which a player holds to anyhow. That fact that it's rooted entirely in the player's imagination doesn't make it invalid (for them), but it's not something we can really make promises regarding.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17301622/3
Just as an addendum to this:
Yes, those who are concerned will need to come to terms with the idea that Hawke and/or the Warden may appear in DAI. If so, they will not be under your control.
As I have said previously, we'll respect the decisions that were made-- but those are actual decisions that were in the game, not things one imagines them doing after the game was over. As with other choices, those decisions may not have results that you imagined-- but neither are we going to contradict them. Meaning that, if your former PC was in a romance, we are not suddenly going to give them a new romance or say that romance never existed.
We are not, however. going to outline exactly how these characters will appear-- if they do-- or what they will or won't be doing. That's part of the plot. If someone is determined that they definitely don't want to see them at all, or simply doesn't trust us to not have things happen which are wildly contradictory to previously-established events, then now would definitely be the time to panic.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17405252/2
A lot of assumptions in this thread, I see.
If we brought Hawke or the Warden back into the game, and that's if, it need not be them taking a side in the mage-templar conflict-- that's not the entirety of what DAI is about, after all. Or, if they did, it need not involve them explaining at length why they are doing so.
I get that people can imagine things we could have their former PC's do or say that they wouldn't like. That's not hard. Thing is, we're well aware of the risks. We're also aware, however, that no matter what we do there's bound to be some people who are unhappy-- even if we do nothing. That being the case, we're going to proceed with what we think makes for a more compelling story, knowing that some people won't like it. You can assume we'll do it carelessly, but if one's solution is that we should avoid doing anything at all because someone might be unhappy with it... that's not going to happen.
Like I said, whatever we do some people will be unhappy. Guaranteed. Many of them will be here on these forums, because this is where the most hardcore fans hang out (if you're here a year before the game's release, and more than a year after the previous one's release, you qualify), so that's no surprise. There will be upset posts on Tumblr, DAConfessions about how they wish we'd done something else, but that will happen regardless. It's enough to make us cautious, but not so cautious as to avoid doing what we think works best for the story (and game) as a whole.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17422939/3
David Gaider
It's a "no matter what we do with them in the story as NPC's". They've already "disappeared", so you already have some going "but my X wouldn't have disappeared! They went off to do Y!" Says who? "Says me!" Well, too bad. As of the end of the game, you are no longer playing that character. "But I don't like that! You should leave that character alone forever, and never bring up any other character as a cameo unless it's vitally important ot the story (and I approve of their usage)!"
Again: too bad, sorry. We'll do our best to respect the choices that were made, but take no responsibility for headcanon with regards to what you believe those choices led to after the end of the game in which those characters appeared.
David Gaider
Some people also headcanon the epilogues. If Hawke romanced Isabela in DA2, it's mentioned that they remained together afterwards... but doing what? For how long? Some people claim that means they went sailing off on Isabela's new ship, and why would Hawke ever leave her side for even a single minute? We contradict that by saying Hawke disappeared and suddenly it's a clash with headcanon-- despite "Hawke remains with Isabela forever" not being a choice we offered.
At any rate, I'm not going to get into a big discussion about it. We realize some people are very precious about their PC's, and we're not apt to go out of our way to have them do things that violate headcanon... but they obviously did something, and that involves a plot that may not be what someone had in mind. Just be aware.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17130247/4http://social.biowar...ndex/17130247/3http://social.biowar...ndex/17130247/4
David Gaider
The problem here is that people have a strange idea of what "canon" means-- almost a paranoia, really.
We have a default canon, which applies if you import nothing. So if someone comes to DAI with no import of previous games, they get a certain set of previous decisions being presumed-- and those tend to be ones that don't promise future content. The Warden of DAO is dead, because why would someone who's importing no save (and is possibly a brand new player) care about their Warden still being alive and involved in the plot? There is no OGB, because why would that person care about Morrigan having a child from some game they possibly never even played?
As for things which don't involve future content, like the sex and race of the Warden, yes-- those we just decided on at some point. So the default Warden who died was a female Dalish elf.
A default should not concern you in the slightest, however, if you intend on importing-- which I assume everyone who's hanging around on these forums a year before release likely is. How we'll do that importing is the subject of a future reveal, it's true, but I'm uncertain why a fan would be concerned about the default settings of a version of the story they'll never use.
And if your version of the definition of canon is "it overrides my previous story", then rest assured that will not happen. The story may not go exactly as you want/expect (as in Leliana being alive, if you killed her in DAO), but that's not the same as those previous actions being treated as if they never happened at all. If we ever decide to move Dragon Age over to one canonical story in-between games, I'm almost positive we would give lots of advance notice to allow fans time to rend garments, burn effigies, and send cupcakes. Until that point, just wait for news on the import feature.
http://social.biowar.../index/17179465
David Gaider
The point has been made-- numerous times. I understand there are some folks who fret a great deal when something they've done (such as killing a character) results in the decision being hand-waved... no matter how it's explained (or is yet to be explained). Understanding that, it is still going to happen from time to time when we deem it necessary.
Absolutely. Her being alive in DA2 even if she was killed in DAO was consistent, if largely unexplained, and the variable will remain present going into DA3. The explanation, once it's offered, doesn't negate the fact that some people are not getting the result they want (ie. Leliana is not there at all), but the choice will be recognized nevertheless and will have reactivity.
As we've said before, some choices carry forward between games and have big effects. Some will have small effects, such as simply being referred to. We will rarely just ignore them entirely unless we have no other choice (or if it's irrelevant in the current context). I resist the exaggeration that not having big reactivity for every choice is the same as having no reactivity for anything. I get that some people seem to think the entire purpose of putting a choice into a game is that so it can carry into the sequel, and that every choice should thus create complete divergence... but that's not really possible (and thus why the vast majority of games simply don't do it).
With regards to how we intend to do the import feature to avoid the GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) bugginess, that's something we'll talk about in the months to come.
http://social.biowar...ndex/14559402/2
David Gaider
Not a bug. It's intentional that she is still alive.
The DA Keep will look for whether you killed her (or attempted to, if you prefer) in DAO, and DAI will react to that. It doesn't mean she's dead in DAI, your desire to kill her and (evidently) stomp on her corpse notwithstanding.
Decisions are included because they affect the game they're in. They're not created specifically to carry into future games--we could have had no decisions carry over between games, and that still wouldn't affect their relevance to the game in which they appeared.
In this case, as I've said many times before, decisions from earlier games will have varying levels of impact in DAI. The decision to kill Leliana (which, incidentally, is not the decision you're offered, but rather a reaction to it) is not disregarded as it did happen and will be reacted to.
Is that not what some people wanted? Sure, obviously, but that doesn't change the fact that it still happened, and doesn't mean there still aren't other decisions which cause more divergent reactivity (including character deaths). If some want to harp on this particular piece of reactivity as if it unravels all reality, that's fine. I get why they want what they want--fans tend to want every decision they've made to cause completely divergent effects on the story, regardless of the feasibility of us doing so--but this is how it is.
Some stuff about the keep
David Gaider
Indeed. Not to mention that, even though we do make plans for future games, plans change all the time. The plan for a game-in-progress generally goes through radical changes before it's done--never mind the plan we have for what follows. Most often these things change for reasons far beyond anything to do with writing.
Even if that weren't the case, decisions are made because they affect things now--we might have the opportunity to go "well, we may need that character in the future so maybe we should leave them alone", but if our biggest consideration was what we might need them for in potential future stories we would never have any decisions in the current game whatsoever. Which is not to say that we toss all decisions out the window, either--treating a few adjustments that need to be made as if they render void all the other permutations we do include is, in my opinion, a bit of an exaggeration for effect.
Which is kind of pointless to mention, I imagine, since many fans simply aren't going to care about our issues when it comes to writing and planning. They see "decisions will have impact on future games" and imagine that means every decision being treated equally and offering complete divergence--and anything short of that, as it affects what they personally want, to be inadequate...as of course we developers could do it if we just a) wrote more, and
made a bigger game. Which is not untrue, even if it's unrealistic. But who said they have to be realistic?
Some decisions will have larger effects, and thus are hardly "tiny" in their impact on scope, but perhaps that's accurate when used in comparison to the expectations of some. Either way, our first priority is to make this story and this game work... as it's always been. Which is really as far as this conversation can go.
Of course. There are many possibilities for DA2, for instance, that we tossed out simply because the benefits weren't worth the required story convolutions (or the alternative was just as good). Occasionally that's not going to be the case.
True. We can offer completely divergent plots, and in some cases (where the implications outside of that plot are limited in scope) that's actually a fine idea. If one's expectation runs to the overall story being completely different based on an imported choice, however, they're going to be disappointed. Which, you're right, is not to minimize the work involved to even make the player's individual timeline as consistent as possible (if not truly divergent), and probably why most games don't even attempt it.
Endings are a little different, actually, and a good example of the push-pull between what's appropriate for this game and what's limiting on future games. An ending is where you should rightfully expect to see reactivity to earlier decisions in the game--like I said, the effect on the current game is why those decisions are there, and you'd be doing the current game a disservice if you limited their effects on the ending overmuch based on what might happen in the future (even if we attempt to plan around those eventualities as much as we can).
Expecting that those decisions would form the basis for how the next game world work, however, is not feasible. That's not even what the import system is meant to provide
Zevran was indeed one we messed up on. He could appear in DA2 even if he was dead, as the result on an import bug--his plot shouldn't even happen if he died in DAO, and was scripted as such. It's not even a DA2 bug specifically, but rather a bug in DAO regarding how the info was recorded.
Same applies to the problems we had in Witch Hunt. Some people went into that plot and, despite all its alternate dialogue for the various permutations regarding how Morrigan could end DAO or who could be speaking with her (the Orlesian Warden, for instance), some players got the default dialogue because of how the info was recorded in DAO. Something we can't go and retroactively change.
...not without the DA Keep, anyhow. That's the reason for its existence.
There's nothing carefully written about my response. I've said the same thing every time, and it's that this was done deliberately. I've never said people shouldn't be disappointed, since some obviously are--and that could happen with any plot point that didn't go where someone wanted it to. Some will exaggerate with regards to what this is, implying that DA offers no reactivity whatsoever or that death has no meaning in the setting... and that's fine, but we're certainly not going to apologize for taking the story where we feel it needs to go, if that's what you think we should be doing.
And I could repeat this ad infinitum, and there would still be people who will argue because they just want the story to be otherwise. Which, fair enough, but it's not happening. It does mean that the point of me repeating myself is a rather limited, so I should probably just stop.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17663565/4
David Gaider
No. You will not be able to torture people in DAI.
http://social.biowar...ndex/17864533/4
Retour en haut
Thank you to all those you contribute to this thread:
