15 réponses à ce sujet

[Yggdrasil]

I'm actually hoping that the Inquisitor doesn't end up deciding things like the Orlesian civil war and that we bring the Mage-Templar conflict to a détente rather than choosing one over the other.

 

I realize that a lot of people enjoy the sense of power, but leaving such world-shaking decisions to the individual player actually limits the content of future games because Bioware doesn't have the resources to make multiple content to reflect such decisions.  So, for example, if the player decides who gets the throne of Orlais, then the Orlesian monarch can't be a significant part of direct game content in future games.  They will have to be relegated to codex indices and Alistair-esque cameos.

 

Look at Mass Effect.  Future games will have to run concurrent with the Shepard story (as is the case with the next one), be prequels or involve a canon that roughly two-thirds of players didn't choose.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy agency.  But I'd rather Bioware have the creative freedom to continue telling quality stories and bringing us along for the ride.

[KaiserShep]

Thus far, the major world changing stuff has been fixed in each game. Even Origins, with its variation of decisions, only has one major outcome in the end.

[Harshfacts]

It would be pretty crap if we couldn't though. i mean we are the inquisitor and the leader of inquisition a power to be reckoned with. i'm sure Bioware has planned enough plot for the next games or have a vague idea where they;re going with the franchise . for all we know next DA game could be set somewhere outside of Thades so right now they should in order to outdo themselves 

[Wulfram]

They shouldn't hamstring a game for a sequel that may or may not turn up years later, that'll in any case not feature the same protagonist.

If they find it's impossible to handle the deviation in that subsequent games, they should just drop imports.

 

Alternatively, they should try to write smaller scale stories, where world shaking decisions aren't expected.  But that's not what they've done here.

[SirGladiator]

Without the ability to make those big choices, you really might as well be playing another Final Fantasy game, or some such.  Bioware's trademark is the ability to let the players make those big decisions.  While games that don't give you any meaningful choices can still be fun in their own way, that's a clearly inferior way of doing it.  No doubt it isn't the easiest thing in the world to write future stories knowing there are 2 or 3 possibilities instead of one, but they're professionals, they don't get paid to do things the easy way, but to do them the right way.  And that's what they're doing in regard to our choices in DAO.  For example, if we put Alistair on the throne he's in DAI, if we put Anora on the throne she's in DAI.  They didn't take the easy way out, because that isn't what they do.  And that's what I'd expect from them going forward.  If we hand Orlais to Celene, she should be in control in DA4, if we give it to Gaspard, he should be.  Easy isn't relevant, fun is relevant, and that's all that matters  .

[Medhia_Nox]

Anything Bioware wants fixed should not allow choice - but they also shouldn't shackle your character. 

 

That I knew Anders was going to blow up the Chantry the entire time I'm getting him bomb materials induced rage that has yet to truly abate. 

 

That being said:  I hope we can't alter major changes simply because we've only spent two games and a few books in this world.  Altering it completely now would be to throw a great deal of what I originally loved about DA out the window (I'm looking at you mage conflict and elven rebellion). 

I don't need ANOTHER world of "wondrous" mages and "glorious" elves. 

[MrMrPendragon]

I agree. I don't want this game to have the same problem as Mass Effect 3 going into Mass Effect 4 in that you can't have Destory, Synthesis, and Control all at the same time. And disregarding one will inevitably anger those who picked that ending.

 

No huge decisions. Characters don't control the entire DA world. They live in it.

 

We shouldn't change the backbone of the ending. Multiple paths are available to make the ending look slightly different depending on the choices we make to get there.

[andar91]

There is no way they haven't considered this. I'm sure there's plenty of chaos and disorder to go around.

 

For instance, take the mage-templar conflict. Even if the freedom of mages is guaranteed, that's does not mean everything involving mages will be rosy. For instance, Lincoln abolished slavery in the US...but restoration and the years afterward were rough to say the least.

[Hadeedak]

I just get really tired occasionally of being a huge-force-of-nature hero. It's what I don't like about the Warden and Shepard, and really like about Hawke. I kind of have an easier time getting in my character's head if they're not always the most important person in the scene.

 

I do want SOME big decisions, though. XD

[Tubercle]

There are other things in Thedas to worry about aside from mages vs. templars or the Orlesian civil war.

 

Don't overlook the Qunari sitting in the far north or the Tevinter Imperium.

 

Not to mention 2 other Old Gods/Blights.

 

Then there could be other continents on that world threatening Thedas again.

 

DA:I is about resolving events that were set in motion from DAII. Would be a real slap to the face if Bioware leaves those plots hanging.

[JonathonPR]

I prefer to make a major contribution not make the final decision. Thing seem smaller when my character becomes the all deciding arbiter of a conflict. It becomes as large as the number of people deciding the outcome. That is one of the things I hate so much about the end of ME3. Ont the other hand DA2 was the opposite with helplessness in an increasingly bad situation(the nature of the events not the quality) with little sense of agency to change the course of events apart from obvious handouts by the writers. The PC should not be the ultimate decider of events in a godlike sense but should have the ability to influence the outcome in a big way. 

[Yggdrasil]

Without the ability to make those big choices, you really might as well be playing another Final Fantasy game, or some such.  Bioware's trademark is the ability to let the players make those big decisions.  While games that don't give you any meaningful choices can still be fun in their own way, that's a clearly inferior way of doing it.  No doubt it isn't the easiest thing in the world to write future stories knowing there are 2 or 3 possibilities instead of one, but they're professionals, they don't get paid to do things the easy way, but to do them the right way.  And that's what they're doing in regard to our choices in DAO.  For example, if we put Alistair on the throne he's in DAI, if we put Anora on the throne she's in DAI.  They didn't take the easy way out, because that isn't what they do.  And that's what I'd expect from them going forward.  If we hand Orlais to Celene, she should be in control in DA4, if we give it to Gaspard, he should be.  Easy isn't relevant, fun is relevant, and that's all that matters  .

 

The problem is that you exponentially increase the varying possibilities of major world states with each progressive game.  And--as an example--neither Anora or Alistair is able to have a really detailed, intense involvement in DA:I because the devs are pigeon-holed by the decisions the player made in Origins.  They'll have a few scenes, but Bioware can't make redundant content for their major involvement.

 

DA:I is about resolving events that were set in motion from DAII. Would be a real slap to the face if Bioware leaves those plots hanging.

 

Believe me, I'm anxious to see a lot of these plot threads resolved.  I'm just not married to the idea that it's the player who gets to decide these world-shaping decisions.  I would imagine we'd have a lot weighty choices to make in Inquisition without deciding who rules one of the most powerful nation in Thedas.

[nutcrackr]

Mike Laidlaw actually said you will see the Mage / Templar war come to a head.

[In Exile]

They shouldn't hamstring a game for a sequel that may or may not turn up years later, that'll in any case not feature the same protagonist.

If they find it's impossible to handle the deviation in that subsequent games, they should just drop imports.

 

Alternatively, they should try to write smaller scale stories, where world shaking decisions aren't expected.  But that's not what they've done here.

 

Fans want worldshaking stories. The real solution is to just always wipe away the board in a believable way. TW2 does that and no one complains, becuase there's a lot of internal reactivity.

[Tevinter Soldier]

all comes down to writing, games are power fantasy's ALL of them, the difference is the degree's of it.

 

as others have mentioned unless your going to be increasingly vague about the world and jump fwd's 100's of years in the timeline sooner or later you have to have a game pull out operation clean slate or put in retcon's and ignore player choices. there's only so much budget, people have to realise that sooner or later there's going to be too many variables and things need to tied up or ignored.

 

But the solution need's to feel logical, DA2 (yes i'm raging on it again) failed in it's attempts, because it lost the power fantasy aspect. nothing you did mattered. but of course the plot was secondary in that game (i still feel sorry for whoever wrote Orsino, being told........ oh yeah we need another boss fight, Orsino is now going to turn on everybody for no logical reason.......)

[HiroVoid]

If I wanted the series to work like this, I'd play more linear games.  If anything, I'd rather have more choices in the game itself that just chooses a canon path in future games then limit choices in the game because of future ones.