252 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

@ Dai Grepher: If you want to make a case that they should have just dropped all consequences from the DR, go right ahead. Though the time for that is long past, of course. Personally, I'd have gone all the way to not doing save imports in the series at all. But that's a pretty big conceptual shift. As it stands, I'm OK with the way they handled the DR, mostly because I didn't expect much.

It looks like you're almost getting it. Possible features for the future games are in competition with each other. Bringing the Warden back means a big diversion of resources to something I don't think is worth doing. Proposing to make the diversion even bigger isn't a good way to sell the plan to someone who doesn't want it done at all. You're right to get away from all the stuff you want to see done and back onto how you think the plan is super-awesome.

[AlanC9]

Though I had to ask about this:
 

How does it undermine it? Every Hero will have at least one reason to return; the cure. That satisfies inclusion of all Heroes.
 
My point is that there are many more plots that fit certain Heroes as well. Thus making the Hero's reappearance even better!
 
If the Hero does not return then it will feel like something important is missing from the plot with NO reason for it to be missing. If the Hero is alive, then the Hero should be involved in some capacity. Why? Because it's the Hero. The savior! The amazing! The stupendous! ... The One!
 
♪ Iiii aaaam the One who can recouuuuunt whaaat we've lost... ♫
 
Iiii aaaam the One who will live ooooon!!! ♪ ♫
 
Yeah! The Hero has run through the fields of pain and sighs! The Hero has fought to see the other side! The Hero had a reason to not appear during Inquisition. The cure. After that, there is no reason to sit things out, unless we the players choose that reason ourselves through the option to leave the Hero out of it.

You're deliberately trying to sound ridiculous here, right?

[In Exile]

@ Dai Grepher: If you want to make a case that they should have just dropped all consequences from the DR, go right ahead. Though the time for that is long past, of course. Personally, I'd have gone all the way to not doing save imports in the series at all. But that's a pretty big conceptual shift. As it stands, I'm OK with the way they handled the DR, mostly because I didn't expect much.

It looks like you're almost getting it. Possible features for the future games are in competition with each other. Bringing the Warden back means a big diversion of resources to something I don't think is worth doing. Proposing to make the diversion even bigger isn't a good way to sell the plan to someone who doesn't want it done at all. You're right to get away from all the stuff you want to see done and back onto how you think the plan is super-awesome.

 

I think the only conclusion here is that there's obviously something wrong with us, being so unwilling to be persuaded by arguments that open with offering us substantially less of the things we enjoy in return for a great deal more of things we don't want. 

 

Agreed, no shortage of resources here. Maybe cut down the giant empty map size by 15%, they'd have enough resources leftover for four new PCs, haha.

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but resources that go into level design clearly have no connection (except at the absolutely highest and most abstract/detached level) to the resources related to dialogue/plot/characters. 

[dsl08002]

Agreed, no shortage of resources here. Maybe cut down the giant empty map size by 15%, they'd have enough resources leftover for four new PCs, haha.
In the end it's dialogue, something bioware is supposed to do very well... the plot is what would matter most, but hell, if they focused more on story telling and less on delivering flowers across the hinterlands, I say anything that pushes them in that direction is a giant flashing win.
Plus I want to kill a broodmother in glorious HD, which requires a warden )preferably THE warden) so our characters don't just get corrupted by blood and die.

Indeed biowares focus was most in for the graphics and big enviroment rather on the actuall story, dont get me wrong all of the main campaign missions are great ( apart from the last one which was very rushed) but way to short. 15 hours thats how long it took me to finish the game.

We have all seen what bioware can do when they give it 100 %. Here in DAI they worked on 75 %. But most of it was misplaced

[AlanC9]

I think the only conclusion here is that there's obviously something wrong with us, being so unwilling to be persuaded by arguments that open with offering us substantially less of the things we enjoy in return for a great deal more of things we don't want.

Thanks. I knew there had to be a logical explanation for it.

[dsl08002]

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but resources that go into level design clearly have no connection (except at the absolutely highest and most abstract/detached level) to the resources related to dialogue/plot/characters.

Resources are always tied together. The question is how they distribute it.

[Il Divo]

Does that mean you're against Kieran being in the game, since many of us didn't do the Dark Ritual and in this case represents a "waste of resources"?

 

What about Samson and Calpernia? We only get to see one depending on the path we chose.

 

Why all the companions characters if we can choose to not recruit them? Wasted resources!

 

No, because those to some extent represent choices that at any one point, I would be interested in making. I may not recruit Iron Bull on a playthrough as a role-playing decision. Then I may recruit him on a subsequent playthrough = not wasted resources.

 

What you're suggesting is more akin to having someone ask me if I want to role-play a coward and want Bioware to divert resources to that end. I'm not interested in that sort of character concept any more than I'm interested in seeing the Warden return. 

 

It's not mutually exclusive content that's the problem. It's mutually exclusive content that I can confirm I don't want to engage in. The two scenarios are not equivalent as I see. 

[In Exile]

Resources are always tied together. The question is how they distribute it.

Not exactly. At the highest level everything is a dollar figure cost. That cost however is most commonly expressed in salary. To reallocate resources you have to fire some people and hire others and that's not an easy shift to make on a massive scale.

You can't start asking the level designer to write NPC dialogue.

[AlanC9]

Right. This stuff's only fungible in the long-term. Though Bio does have a bit more flexibility now that they have enough size to do internal transfers. Using the same engine will help with that.

[Zatche]

How does it undermine it? Every Hero will have at least one reason to return; the cure. That satisfies inclusion of all Heroes.

 

My point is that there are many more plots that fit certain Heroes as well. Thus making the Hero's reappearance even better!

 

If the Hero does not return then it will feel like something important is missing from the plot with NO reason for it to be missing. If the Hero is alive, then the Hero should be involved in some capacity. Why? Because it's the Hero. The savior! The amazing! The stupendous! ... The One!

 

♪ Iiii aaaam the One who can recouuuuunt whaaat we've lost... ♫

 

Iiii aaaam the One who will live ooooon!!! ♪ ♫

 

Yeah! The Hero has run through the fields of pain and sighs! The Hero has fought to see the other side! The Hero had a reason to not appear during Inquisition. The cure. After that, there is no reason to sit things out, unless we the players choose that reason ourselves through the option to leave the Hero out of it.

 

Well, this would be a perfect depiction of what I don't want.

 

The idea of the Warden "getting the gang back together for one last adventure" just seems silly. It would be like the Citadel DLC, except not so self aware.

[General TSAR]

The Warden is dead and buried. 

 

Don't disrupt their grave or else you'll face a big ass Grey Wolf wielding a big ass Greatsword. 

[Dai Grepher]

@ Dai Grepher: If you want to make a case that they should have just dropped all consequences from the DR, go right ahead. Though the time for that is long past, of course. Personally, I'd have gone all the way to not doing save imports in the series at all. But that's a pretty big conceptual shift. As it stands, I'm OK with the way they handled the DR, mostly because I didn't expect much.

It looks like you're almost getting it. Possible features for the future games are in competition with each other. Bringing the Warden back means a big diversion of resources to something I don't think is worth doing. Proposing to make the diversion even bigger isn't a good way to sell the plan to someone who doesn't want it done at all. You're right to get away from all the stuff you want to see done and back onto how you think the plan is super-awesome.

 

I'm not making that case, you are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument for not bringing the Hero back is that it would be a waste of resources, as many Ultimate Sacrificed the Hero or otherwise don't want to see the Hero again. Well the same would apply to Kieran then. Many did not create him in Origins. Many would not want to see him. So why have him in the game? Now you could argue that the Hero has many complexities that have to be accounted for, which would mean the Hero would require a lot of resources, but Kieran also had some complexities. Old god soul, or no? Who is the father? And to that point, shouldn't Kieran have looked different depending on who is father was? Instead he was given a default appearance, which is sort of canon-breaking. So again, why include him? Why include Morrigan? Why include Flemeth? Why include Leliana? Why include Alistair? Why include LOGHAIN? A character who is pretty much fated to die in Origins? Why include any character who comes with multiple destinies/backstories? The reason is because fans want to see past characters return. We want to see what they have become since we last saw them. We want to interact with them again. We want their storyline to build and mingle with others. And that's why we want the Hero back. It's why you should too.

 

They aren't in competition with each other. They stack. They intertwine. They could even effect each other.

 

That isn't how I'm selling it to you though. My main sales pitch to you is that you would have the option of leaving your Hero out of it. Just pick that tile in the Keep or ignore that option in the next game. No worries. As for arguing in the affirmative for a new grand epic with the Hero, that is to answer your concerns about resources being wasted. Great things could be accomplished with the Hero without devoting all that much to the next game's design.

 

Other topics have already talked about how to implement the Hero in the new engine. Custom character creator for the Hero, same as Hawke in DA:I. Minor tweak to classes to allow everyone to dual wield, archer, two hand, or sword and board. Silent Hero or bring back the old voice actors, or reuse and sample the voiced lines from Origins. Allow for personality, motives, and skills to be customized in Dragon Age Keep.

 

From there it is simply a matter of writing a few stories to match each of the possible outcomes for the Hero, all of which would run through the search for the cure. And those who made the US would also be able to get a grand customized tomb at Weisshaupt to honor them. And if not them, then Alistair, or Loghain... or... maybe Riordan if the Dark Ritual was performed.

[Dai Grepher]

Though I had to ask about this:
 

You're deliberately trying to sound ridiculous here, right?

 

No. If the Hero doesn't return for crucial events then it will feel like something is missing. UNLESS you are the one to choose the reason for the Hero's absence, in which case you will fully expect that the Hero will not return. It won't feel like the Hero is missing, it will feel like the Hero is exactly where he or she should be.
 

[Dai Grepher]

No, because those to some extent represent choices that at any one point, I would be interested in making. I may not recruit Iron Bull on a playthrough as a role-playing decision. Then I may recruit him on a subsequent playthrough = not wasted resources.

 

What you're suggesting is more akin to having someone ask me if I want to role-play a coward and want Bioware to divert resources to that end. I'm not interested in that sort of character concept any more than I'm interested in seeing the Warden return. 

 

It's not mutually exclusive content that's the problem. It's mutually exclusive content that I can confirm I don't want to engage in. The two scenarios are not equivalent as I see. 

 

Ah, so the options have to be interesting to YOU first before you approve their return in future titles. Well then would you at least support the Hero returning for those of us who find that option to be interesting?

 

Also, your answer doesn't really address the point. I understand you seeing a potential party member interesting and wanting to recruit the character at some point, but the argument against the Hero is one of resources. Why devote resources to a character that many won't want to utilize? The same could be said of any companion character. So either you disapprove of the companions, or you believe they should be mandatory so as not to let the resources go to waste.

 

Others might be interested in playing a coward. So would you deny them that option just because you don't want to play as one?

 

This topic includes the option to not have your Hero return. So it isn't like it would be forced on you.

[Dai Grepher]

Well, this would be a perfect depiction of what I don't want.

 

The idea of the Warden "getting the gang back together for one last adventure" just seems silly. It would be like the Citadel DLC, except not so self aware.

 

What? I didn't write anything of the sort. The Hero would join up with new characters, and possibly the Inquisitor and Hawke.
 

[SvenMcSvenington]

I do not know if this idea was posted already as I had not read everything... but I thought about the Hero of Ferelden's mute aspect and what they would do about that IF they brought him/her back..... my answer to that is... the warden was muted in battle... maybe add a scar to the neck, that way the Warden is still a mute. communication and why bring back the Warden is up to them... if they do it haha... just thought I would throw in my two cents.

[Zatche]

What? I didn't write anything of the sort. The Hero would join up with new characters, and possibly the Inquisitor and Hawke.

True. Some may have said those words, but you didn't.

But the whole spirit around the idea that HoF should take part in the next big conflict in Thedas just 'cause he or she is so awesomesauce is just...silly...and not at all compelling to me.

[AlanC9]

No. If the Hero doesn't return for crucial events then it will feel like something is missing. UNLESS you are the one to choose the reason for the Hero's absence, in which case you will fully expect that the Hero will not return. It won't feel like the Hero is missing, it will feel like the Hero is exactly where he or she should be.

I meant all of that singing stuff. That was serious?

[AlanC9]

I'm not making that case, you are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument for not bringing the Hero back is that it would be a waste of resources, as many Ultimate Sacrificed the Hero or otherwise don't want to see the Hero again.

That's essentially correct. But you should also include people who think that the expected payout for bringing back the Warden is negative because of the chance that Bio will screw something up. I won't try to do the math for them myself since I'm personally in the "indifferent" camp.

As for Kieran; sure, it's the same thing in the sense that both design elements bring stuff from past games into the future games. The difference is that adding Kieran didn't require Bio to rebuild the entire game around having him. And of course, the subjective thing that I was interested in seeing the DR play out but am not interested in more Warden.

That isn't how I'm selling it to you though. My main sales pitch to you is that you would have the option of leaving your Hero out of it. Just pick that tile in the Keep or ignore that option in the next game. No worries. As for arguing in the affirmative for a new grand epic with the Hero, that is to answer your concerns about resources being wasted. Great things could be accomplished with the Hero without devoting all that much to the next game's design.

How do you figure that? Either it really matters whether the next PC is the HoF, or it doesn't. Like I said upthread, a crappy implementation -- where there are only a handful of lines where it matters if the PC is the HoF or not -- is easier to sell. But it still sounds to me like you don't actually want the crappy implementation. You keep trying to throw more stuff into this.

I was wrong upthread. Trying to actually sell people on this is unworkable. The whole thing is about feelings, and if someone doesn't feel like there's something missing without more Warden, you're not going to be able to make him feel that way. What you need to sell is that bringing the Warden back will be cheap and unimportant.

[Qilune]

I have no problem bringing my warden back as an NPC you could recreate in the character creator.

[Mummy22kids]

I didn't want Hawke to come back and I wouldn't want the Warden to come back.  Normally I would just chalk this up to a "to each his own" thing, but after all the grief and rants about Hawke (even from people who really, really wanted Hawke back) and how it was implemented in DAI, I think bringing back the Warden in any capacity is doomed to fail.  I prefer to think my Warden will succumb to the Calling and leave for the deep roads (with Alistair by her side) and they'll die together fighting darkspawn. Of course then Anora would rule Ferelden, and nobody wants that.

[Vault_Tec101]

That's essentially correct. But you should also include people who think that the expected payout for bringing back the Warden is negative because of the chance that Bio will screw something up. I won't try to do the math for them myself since I'm personally in the "indifferent" camp.

 

I keep seeing people claiming that the majority (or that there n number of people who are ___ and are sizeable enough to warrant inclusion) are with them from both sides of the argument; does anyone have any actual statistics? Other wise the point is quite moot regarding how many people are on which side of the camp.

 

How do you figure that? Either it really matters whether the next PC is the HoF, or it doesn't. Like I said upthread, a crappy implementation -- where there are only a handful of lines where it matters if the PC is the HoF or not -- is easier to sell. But it still sounds to me like you don't actually want the crappy implementation. You keep trying to throw more stuff into this.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread I am for the HoF to be the PC in the next game and wouldn't necessarily mind if it really matters if it is the HoF (by that I take it you mean his achievements and exploits matter?) though I would prefer it. However I (and I think Dai Grepher is making this point as well) understand that not everyone wants what we want and so a comprise must be struck so that we can all get what we want, if not fully then partially. If no comprise is made then it falls down to which side has the fewest proponents so that we can screw them over with the least bit of upset.

 

Further the issue of 'resources' is also moot. One can argue that the most resource intensive path Bioware could've taken was making the game open world or semi open world. Yet I do not see any grievances regarding that matter. Indeed if Bioware can take their game into such a resource intensive path, so much so that other parts of the game have suffered, what's to say going HoF isn't more feasible?

 

As well unless we have some data to go on either side can claim that the opposite is more resource intensive. Any one here privy to the financial goings on of Bioware to, at the very least, make an educated guess? I think not but I leave the invitation open.

 

Bringing the Warden back means a big diversion of resources to something I don't think is worth doing. Proposing to make the diversion even bigger isn't a good way to sell the plan to someone who doesn't want it done at all. You're right to get away from all the stuff you want to see done and back onto how you think the plan is super-awesome.

 

Likewise this applies to yourself as well for proposing to make a new PC* in the next game as it has been three games with three different protagonists making our 'camp' facing the biggest diversion of resources we could think of! How are you selling to us that the next PC shouldn't be the Warden?

 

 

*I assume this is your position even though you say you are indifferent ("I'm personally in the "indifferent" camp") yet that before you claimed that it is not worth doing ("I find worthless. Either a lot of the next game's content will be stuff I don't want, or there will be a whole DLC I don't want.") as such I am confused, could you please define your position? It would be rude, not to mention foolish, of me to paint you in one side when you are not. 

[Vault_Tec101]

I didn't want Hawke to come back and I wouldn't want the Warden to come back.  Normally I would just chalk this up to a "to each his own" thing, but after all the grief and rants about Hawke (even from people who really, really wanted Hawke back) and how it was implemented in DAI, I think bringing back the Warden in any capacity is doomed to fail.  I prefer to think my Warden will succumb to the Calling and leave for the deep roads (with Alistair by her side) and they'll die together fighting darkspawn. Of course then Anora would rule Ferelden, and nobody wants that.

 

 A fair argument though my response would be: who is more competent to bring back the Warden than those who created him? Even if Bioware failed to bring back Hawke in an appreciable manner I wouldn't say that they are beyond getting it right. Sure we should be cautious of any attempt to bring him back but I don't think we should be so afraid that we would totally refuse the attempt. 

[AlanC9]

I keep seeing people claiming that the majority (or that there n number of people who are ___ and are sizeable enough to warrant inclusion) are with them from both sides of the argument; does anyone have any actual statistics? Other wise the point is quite moot regarding how many people are on which side of the camp.

Gosh, I have no idea. Someone upthread pointed to that survey about favorite party members as proving something. I certainly didn't mean to sound like I'm highly confident that I'm on the majority side.
 

As I stated earlier in the thread I am for the HoF to be the PC in the next game and wouldn't necessarily mind if it really matters if it is the HoF (by that I take it you mean his achievements and exploits matter?) though I would prefer it. However I (and I think Dai Grepher is making this point as well) understand that not everyone wants what we want and so a comprise must be struck so that we can all get what we want, if not fully then partially. If no comprise is made then it falls down to which side has the fewest proponents so that we can screw them over with the least bit of upset.

Not just the achievements and exploits, but also the personal relationships. Obviously the less any of this matters, the cheaper the implementation becomes.

But now I find myself thinking about the pre-EC ME3 Refuse debates. (I don't know if you're familiar with that. Are you new here, or were you once someone else? Anyway, I'll recap the relevant parts.) Basically, the ME3 endgame involved a set of choices that were outright offensive to many PCs, and many players argued that their PC would never pick any of these things; he would simply refuse to participate in that choice. As a matter of RP, this was very much right, and there was no serious opposition to the point. So the next question was what would happen when the PC refused. Some folks wanted there to be some way for the PC to win on that path, others argued that this would trash the integrity of the entire game, which was premised on that final choice being the only possible path to victory. In the end, the Extended Cut went with the latter group, and Refusing leads to (near) total defeat and extermination. And to this day, you can hear folks on the ME boards saying that "Refuse was a giant middle finger to the fans," or some such.

Sometimes compromise can't work, and you get a half-measure that doesn't satisfy anyone.
 

Further the issue of 'resources' is also moot. One can argue that the most resource intensive path Bioware could've taken was making the game open world or semi open world. Yet I do not see any grievances regarding that matter. Indeed if Bioware can take their game into such a resource intensive path, so much so that other parts of the game have suffered, what's to say going HoF isn't more feasible?

Actually, people question the basic direction of DAI here all the time. It's pretty much the opposite of moot. Though usually people question the OW implementation rather than the basic premises of the design. I think that's a mistake, personally, since most of the flaws in the DAI design strike me as being fairly inevitable given the design parameters --- unless we start fantasizing about a substantially inflated budget
 

As well unless we have some data to go on either side can claim that the opposite is more resource intensive. Any one here privy to the financial goings on of Bioware to, at the very least, make an educated guess? I think not but I leave the invitation open.

Actual cost data wouldn't really help here. People who don't want the Warden back aren't pushing an alternate commitment for the resources, so there's nothing to weigh the Warden's costs against. We haven't felt the need for that because Bio doesn't want the Warden back in the first place, so our alternate vision is simply "what Bio already feels like."
 

Likewise this applies to yourself as well for proposing to make a new PC* in the next game as it has been three games with three different protagonists making our 'camp' facing the biggest diversion of resources we could think of! How are you selling to us that the next PC shouldn't be the Warden?

I haven't been actively trying to sell having a new PC. It hasn't come up because all of the current full-game proposals have been about adding playing the Warden on top of having a new PC. We can certainly open that topic up, though. Should DA just go all-in on having the next PC be an existing character? (We can argue about which one later.)

Warden DLC proposals I'll lump in with ME3's Omega DLC. No interest, didn't buy, I wish they had made something else instead.

[Il Divo]

h, so the options have to be interesting to YOU first before you approve their return in future titles. Well then would you at least support the Hero returning for those of us who find that option to be interesting?

 

 

Generally speaking, I wouldn't do that. I approach game development in terms of how I want the game to be made and let everyone else argue for the features they want to see done.

 

Example: I don't hate romance content. But in terms of role-playing, I find it far less interesting than other avenues the creators could explore. If Bioware asked me would I want romance content at the expense of other role-playing features, I'm more than likely to say no. 

 

Any content that the player dislikes (or likes less than other features) represents an opportunity cost that could be devoted to features they're more likely to want to see. Of course, this works in reverse: I don't expect people who dislike features I love to support them for my benefit at their own expense. They're paying $60 for their entertainment, not Il Divo's. 

 

Also, your answer doesn't really address the point. I understand you seeing a potential party member interesting and wanting to recruit the character at some point, but the argument against the Hero is one of resources. Why devote resources to a character that many won't want to utilize? The same could be said of any companion character. So either you disapprove of the companions, or you believe they should be mandatory so as not to let the resources go to waste.

 

 

The difference here comes back to one of opportunity cost. Let's start from the role-playing perspective.

 

I could refuse to recruit Sera on playthrough A because it would be out of character for my concept to want her in the party. On playthrough B, I might recruit Sera. The content is not wasted because I have expressed an interest in experiencing it (and may have enjoyed it in the process). 

 

This is why I made the comparison to role-playing a coward. Bioware could potentially design a coward RP that I could completely avoid for the entire game. But it's not a concept I could ever see myself wanting to utilize under any circumstances. As a result, Bioware would have designed a key feature that I don't engage in, but still required some part of the budget that would impact my enjoyment. 

 

That's a key difference here: Sera may require substantial resources as a character, but there are character concepts which I could enjoy that involve recruiting Sera. If you know that you have no interest in playing a Coward, the Hero of Ferelden, or any other concept, it's actually against your interests to have Bioware divert resources to a feature you will not invest in.