411 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Glad of it being pretty much nullified.

 

Got tired of the it should be canon discussions.

[Ieldra]

Sadly a number of DA storylines have had so much potential, only to be watered-down and sanitized with a weak, stupid ending... Solas story will be no different.... he will meet the same sanitized, stupid, disinterested ending... so don't get all worked up, i.e. Dark Ritual, meant nothing... Mages v. Templars meant nothing. Yawn

As I've said before, a decision does not derive its meaning by its outcome, but by its intent. 

 

The problem is, regardless of what the decision means to you, the story sends a message by implementing a certain outcome. Give it a bad outcome, that's akin to a slap in the face and the message "You chose poorly". Everyone hates that. Give it a very good outcome, that's a slap in the face and the message "Your sacrifice was unnecessary" to those who avoided the ritual. Everyone hates that, too. So they try to make balanced outcomes, sending the message "OK you get what you want here, but you'll have to pay for it somewhere else". As long as everyone gets the same message from their outcome, it is perceived as fair.

 

I chose the ritual because it was interesting. Showing it as a big unknown rather than an obvious evil went against the grain of mainstream storytelling, making it something you haven't seen a million times before in fantasy stories. A bad outcome would have completely nullified my appreciation, as it would've sent the message that everything goes as the mainstream expectation dictates, and don't stop to think and just accept the prescribed value system. While the outcome is bland, it is also fair and not bad. So I'm ok with it.

 

What I'm not ok with is this: Bioware seems done with going against the grain. Parts of DAI appear like an attempt to clean up the legacy of DAO so that they can now tell more mainstream stories without those pesky nonstandard elements from DAO getting in the way. We'll never get a character as interesting as Morrigan again, we'll never get something like the Dark Ritual again, that age has passed. That's why as much as I love DAI for what it does well, I feel that something irreplaceable has been lost. Lost innocence, lost inspiration, maybe, I don't know. The DA team is pulled and pushed in too many directions by circumstances beyond their control. and everything they write has to be considered from too many viewpoints and thus, the eventual story will inevitably lose impact. 

 

I wonder if it's still possible for them to tell the story they want to tell. I also wonder how that story has changed over time.

[Antergaton]

What I'm not ok with is this: Bioware seems done with going against the grain. Parts of DAI appear like an attempt to clean up the legacy of DAO so that they can now tell more mainstream stories without those pesky nonstandard elements from DAO getting in the way. We'll never get a character as interesting as Morrigan again, we'll never get something like the Dark Ritual again, that age has passed. That's why as much as I love DAI for what it does well, I feel that something irreplaceable has been lost. Lost innocence, lost inspiration, maybe, I don't know. The DA team is pulled and pushed in too many directions by circumstances beyond their control. and everything they write has to be considered from too many viewpoints and thus, the eventual story will inevitably lose impact. 

 

I wonder if it's still possible for them to tell the story they want to tell. I also wonder how that story has changed over time.

 

DA:O was very open compared to DA2 and DA:I, recruitement decisions, if companions turned on you, who fought in your final battle and who you made king or such alike all had effects. You could do things in such a way I'm sure that if you recruite everyone you could also only finish with Oghren and Dog at the end of the game.

 

Yet, in DA:I, pretty much all party members stay with you the entire game. Only 1 has the option of being told to leave, 1 leaves for personal reasons but you can get them back and one leaves after. That's it, the rest stay regardless. None are dead, I think in a way the writers removed our choices in this way so they could tell the stories they want with their characters instead of us controlling them. The books are evidence of this. No matter your choices, those books are canon right? So the basic worlds we create never are canon, the canon world is what is created when you don't import a world state and just go with it.

[ThreeF]

Yet, in DA:I, pretty much all party members stay with you the entire game. Only 1 has the option of being told to leave, 1 leaves for personal reasons but you can get them back and one leaves after.

 

It's has been established that almost everyone can leave.

[Mr Walker]

I don't know why everyone expected this to be wrapped in a bow.  The OGB was an optional event.  How else can they handle it?  It'c can't be plot-centric, otherwise it invalidates peoples saves.

[Ryzaki]

It's has been established that almost everyone can leave.

Eh out of the 9 companions.

 

Varric never leaves.

Cass never leaves.

Vivienne never leaves once recruited.

Bull doesn't leave (least I never saw him leave) once recruited.

 

People who can leave.

Sera

Blackwall

Cole

Dorian

 

Solas auto leaves once the game is complete but until then he goes nowhere. So it's hardly most in either direction.

[ThreeF]

Eh out of the 9 companions.

 

Varric never leaves.

Cass never leaves.

Vivienne never leaves once recruited.

Bull doesn't leave (least I never saw him leave) once recruited.

 

People who can leave.

Sera

Blackwall

Cole

Dorian

 

Solas auto leaves once the game is complete but until then he goes nowhere. So it's hardly most in either direction.

 

If I'm not mistaken someone in another thread mentioned being able to make Bull and Vivienne leave (100% positive about Viv).

[Unknown_Warrior]

If I'm not mistaken someone in another thread mentioned being able to make Bull and Vivienne leave (100% positive about Viv).

 

You can't. Blackwall and Cole leave automatically if you reach their critical point, Sera and Dorian can be pushed to leave at their critical points. Vivienne, Solas, Varric and Cassandra just make very (passive) aggressive remarks at their critical points and Iron Bull doesn't have enough disapproval flags to get him to his critical point.

EDIT: Vivienne and Cassandra can leave the party if made Divine but only post-game.

[ThreeF]

You can't. Blackwall and Cole leave automatically if you reach their critical point, Sera and Dorian can be pushed to leave at their critical points. Vivienne, Solas, Varric and Cassandra just make very (passive) aggressive remarks at their critical points and Iron Bull doesn't have enough disapproval flags to get him to his critical point.

EDIT: Vivienne and Cassandra can leave the party if made Divine but only post-game.

No, I'm saying that someone mentioned that they managed to make Viv leave before the Divine thing, actually leave, not just furniture rearrangement. Let me dig out the thread.

 

http://forum.bioware...t#entry18459962

 

I had Vivienne leave. Oh man she hated me soooo bad.

So yeah companions can leave you. Not false advertising.

 

[Antergaton]

Nevermind, people have answered anyway.

 

EDIT: there is a side factor to my point I guess. When I say they don't leave it also means they don't die. Sure there is the possibility of Blackwall not surviving the thing...but they are still alive. Wynne and Leliana can die on certain occasions, even with high approval they can turn on you, Sten can be left in that cage. I only found out from the Keep but apparently Alistair can die and you can stab to your enjoyment of Zevran. It just says to me that these people are David and Cos creations and not ours so they want to do what they want with them, not letting us.

[Ryzaki]

If I'm not mistaken someone in another thread mentioned being able to make Bull and Vivienne leave (100% positive about Viv).

 

I've had Vivienne despising me and I've never seen her leave.

 

She can refuse to come back if she's divine but even at hostile she'll stay if you ask her too.

 

Not sure about Bull because I don't usually have his approval low.

[Ieldra]

Can we please stay on topic. Whether companions can leave or die is for another thread. Try the "not dark enough" thread.

[Kantr]

Yes but does Solas have it or did Flemeth send it through the Eluvian? If she sent it through then, did she put the soul back then, could it still be alive and, thus come to inhabit another dragon, be found by darkspawn, corrupted and, start another Blight? Could there be 8 Blights now instead of 7?

 

IF, and that's a big if, the old gods and Elven gods are one and the same, then are Flemeth Solas the only two that have not started a blight and will not do so thus, they need the soul of the OGB to trigger another blight if they need to use one to nudge history again?

Souls in the fade usually head off to someplace else. So that's likely where Urmthemiel soul is off to, and not back to another dragon

[ThreeF]

I've had Vivienne despising me and I've never seen her leave.

 

She can refuse to come back if she's divine but even at hostile she'll stay if you ask her too.

 

Not sure about Bull because I don't usually have his approval low.

 

I'm tempted to make a pt and deliberately try to gain only disapproval from her,  just to test if she indeed can be pushed to leave.

[Alan Drifter13]

While the story of DA2 was obviously written with DA:I in mind, DA:O seems to have been written as a stand-alone game. This is obvious when you see that all the clumsy story modifications (Leliana coming back from the dead if you killed her, Flemeth suddenly being WAY more than an old witch and suddenly not interested in killing Morrigan, the kid -if he was born- not being important anymore...) are related to decisions made in the first game.

[Ryzaki]

I'm tempted to make a pt and deliberately try to gain only disapproval from her,  just to test if she indeed can be pushed to leave.

 

Yeah I tried to make an assquisitor.

 

I wish I could at least see the approval levels. Being a jerk is hard when I'm not sure how much more I need to push them. >_<

[Vilegrim]

Yup, again, consequences from choices are bad and have to be removed... it was  huge let down.

[Ieldra]

While the story of DA2 was obviously written with DA:I in mind, DA:O seems to have been written as a stand-alone game. This is obvious when you see that all the clumsy story modifications (Leliana coming back from the dead if you killed her, Flemeth suddenly being WAY more than an old witch and suddenly not interested in killing Morrigan, the kid -if he was born- not being important anymore...) are related to decisions made in the first game.

Flemeth was always designed to be more. Remember, you see her turn into a dragon in DAO. Her motivations were never clear, and it was always possible that Morrigan was mistaken.

 

However, I agree that DAO appears to have been made with little consideration of possible future games. That shows in the asymmetry of the decision design. It's why I call it "innocence lost". They didn't know at that time what kind of complexity they might have to deal with with all the permutations possible through the various decisions. They just told the story they wanted to tell. And that shows. That innocence has been irrevocably lost in the years of debate and new designs, and now we get decision setups carefully balanced to make them acceptable to everyone and carefully balanced to limit the kind of consequences in future games that would need to be dealt with on-screen.

[Catastrophy]

Why not the QCE? Or the KGB?

[Aren]

As I've said before, a decision does not derive its meaning by its outcome, but by its intent. 

 

The problem is, regardless of what the decision means to you, the story sends a message by implementing a certain outcome. Give it a bad outcome, that's akin to a slap in the face and the message "You chose poorly". Everyone hates that. Give it a very good outcome, that's a slap in the face and the message "Your sacrifice was unnecessary" to those who avoided the ritual. Everyone hates that, too. So they try to make balanced outcomes, sending the message "OK you get what you want here, but you'll have to pay for it somewhere else". As long as everyone gets the same message from their outcome, it is perceived as fair.

 

 

Alright then seems legit, however whats the point to take the Sacrifice path on DAO? In terms of contents you are penalized  you can loose the Main warden for Awakening and all DlC (do not consider a false resurrection)  thats a Big Sacrifice, or Loghain for Awakening cameos and DAI , or Alistair for DAA,DAII and DAI, if a bad outcome comes from the ritual can be justified, because actually whoever avoid that path have paid an high price for long term benefit. 

So basically bioware said whoever avoid the ritual chose poorly because we cannot hurt the feelings of the players, now if you well allow me may i ask  , what kind of logic is that?

[Ieldra]

 

Alright then seems legit, however whats the point to take the Sacrifice path on DAO? In terms of contents you are penalized  you can loose the Main warden for Awakening and all DlC (do not consider a false resurrection)  thats a Big Sacrifice, or Loghain for Awakening cameos and DAI , or Alistair for DAA,DAII and DAI, if a bad outcome comes from the ritual can be justified, because actually whoever avoid that path have paid an high price for long term benefit. 

So basically bioware said whoever avoid the ritual chose poorly because we cannot hurt the feelings of the players, now if you well allow me may i ask  , what kind of logic is that?

 

No, that's different. I don't know about others, but being locked out of content because of a decision I made, that's very much ok if I'm convinced my decision has merit or fits my character best. I won't exactly like it, but I can and will live with it. That also applies to design decisions. I argued heavily against LIs being playersexual and for them having fixed orientations on the grounds of plausibility, and now we have that and I find I hate that I can't romance Dorian with my female Inquisitor. Still, it's ok. I got what I wanted and i still think the design decision for fixed orientations is good. I am made to pay the price, but I feel it's worth it.

 

However, having the ideological basis of my decision undermined, for instance by saying "here, see the evil you caused by your decision and you should've seen that because this is a mainstream story where things always end like this", I really hate that, and usually I hate it more for I mostly do not agree that there is anything evil in the decision I made. In this case, you see, my main Warden is like me in a few things he thinks about the world. I think being human isn't all that great, and the attempt to make someone different in some fundamental way is, at the very least, interesting to me, and in many cases greatly appealing, especially if it's a fundamental empowerment. So after Morrigan reassured me that the child's personality wouldn't be overwritten, it wouldn't be infected with the Blight and it would just have some extra aspects, I wanted to do the ritual for more than self-preservation, and I wanted this to turn out well. Also, I agreed with Morrigan that some aspects of the old world need to be preserved.

 

In addition, I'm somewhat allergic against the heroic sacrifice trope. I will always avoid it if at all plausible and possible. So maybe it's just me, but implementing a very bad outcome might've tainted all of DA for me, by telling me "this is not the world that will encompass the ideas you put into your Warden", just as ME3's ending tainted the whole trilogy retroactively and poisoned even nostalgia.  

[Wulfram]

Imports mean no choice can really matter

[Ieldra]

Imports mean no choice can really matter

Yet again: a choice does not derive its meaning from the outcome, but from the intent. It always matter for your character. It is always important for roleplaying since it characterizes your character, and that characterization is independent from any outcome.

 

What outcomes can do is to validate your character and what they are thinking, or invalidate them. And there the necessity for balance comes in.

[Wulfram]

Yet again: a choice does not derive its meaning from the outcome, but from the intent. It always matter for your character. It is always important for roleplaying since it characterizes your character, and that characterization is independent from any outcome.
 
What outcomes can do is to validate your character and what they are thinking, or invalidate them. And there the necessity for balance comes in.

I meant it means no choice can matter in subsequent games.

[Ieldra]

I meant it means no choice can matter in subsequent games.

Also not true. It just means that the scope of the divergence is limited. If "it matters" means "the subsequence game will implement a plot fork dedicated to it exclusively", then ok, by that definition it doesn't matter, but I don't think it's usually understood in that way.