252 réponses à ce sujet

[AH37]

Here is my point of view on the discussion.

 

While I like all my wardens and would like to see them again; I would prefer another take to bring the warden back.

 

I understand that BioWare and several fans are against the idea. I am more inclined to support a new protagonist every game. However; I would like to have closure in regards to my favourite characters played.

 

What I would suggest is a short campaign to be played alongside the main story of the next game. Implemented by either switching between characters or phasing the switching depending on story progression [similar to what the Witcher is going to do with Cyril or what GTA did with switching]. Different sets of armour, non-restrictions to weapons, and skills similar to origins would add a good value to it. A much shorter story [different areas/ no need for the 2 characters to meet] with meaningful decisions even if linear [i.e. Gears of War/Inquisition type A or B]/[6 hours inclusive of everything -main quest, dialogue, cutscenes..etc], little exploration to do for the final quest for the warden before he/she hang the boots for good [cure/the calling itself]. After that; there would be no reason for mentioning the warden again as his/her story is fully wrapped up.

 

Certainly beats a text message received covering what seems to be an interesting quest. "Hey, inky; umm, I know u need my help but no can do bro/sis. busy w/ DS thing and finding cure, y'know; the usual secret warden thing. here is a lousy useless belt I found somewhere. Forward the following private text to Morrigan/Leliana please."

 

Jokes aside; a warden NPC is bad, it won't end well if happens. What's the best way to wrap up the warden storyline and give closure to everyone [HoF, Orleasean, other?] without imposing or changing the new game?

[Saphiron123]

Here is my point of view on the discussion.

While I like all my wardens and would like to see them again; I would prefer another take to bring the warden back.

I understand that BioWare and several fans are against the idea. I am more inclined to support a new protagonist every game. However; I would like to have closure in regards to my favourite characters played.

What I would suggest is a short campaign to be played alongside the main story of the next game. Implemented by either switching between characters or phasing the switching depending on story progression [similar to what the Witcher is going to do with Cyril or what GTA did with switching]. Different sets of armour, non-restrictions to weapons, and skills similar to origins would add a good value to it. A much shorter story [different areas/ no need for the 2 characters to meet] with meaningful decisions even if linear [i.e. Gears of War/Inquisition type A or B]/[6 hours inclusive of everything -main quest, dialogue, cutscenes..etc], little exploration to do for the final quest for the warden before he/she hang the boots for good [cure/the calling itself]. After that; there would be no reason for mentioning the warden again as his/her story is fully wrapped up.

Certainly beats a text message received covering what seems to be an interesting quest. "Hey, inky; umm, I know u need my help but no can do bro/sis. busy w/ DS thing and finding cure, y'know; the usual secret warden thing. here is a lousy useless belt I found somewhere. Forward the following private text to Morrigan/Leliana please."

Jokes aside; a warden NPC is bad, it won't end well if happens. What's the best way to wrap up the warden storyline and give closure to everyone [HoF, Orleasean, other?] without imposing or changing the new game?

Closure would be good.

Kind of impressed there's 150 replies to this already.

[Vault_Tec101]

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.

 

Firstly what then is the alternative? That no comprise is made and one side gets it all? Are you advocating that we go all in into one side of the debate thus screwing over those in disagreement? The very resentment you feel at Bioware going all in into a Warden PC is the same resentment we feel at going into a new PC (note it has been two games with your side gaining favour, imagine the resentment we harbour). That is to say that it is a useless argument (more like an opinion) which nullifies itself since it can be used by both sides thus bringing us back to the starting point.

 

Secondly though I very much would like to discuss ME3's ending disappointment I don't think this is the place. With that being said giving me an example of a failed comprise regardless of how restricting the conditions were (for example one of them being: it was the end game there's not a lot you can create to placate quite a vocal fan base when the game is already finished) does nothing against telling me that comprise is not a good idea in other games or respects. Or are you of the position no comprise can be made at all? If that is so then once again we fall down to which side should get screwed over the most.  And to answer that we would need to enter a numbers game hence my asking for actual statistics.

 

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."
 

 

It would since those against the proposition in this thread were bringing up salaries and "dollar signs", if that doesn't invite a financial analysis of the company in question I don't know what does.

 

Also, people who are against the proposition are pushing an alternate commitment; the next game not being the Warden. That is to say the next game having a new PC. You have yet to give an argument as to why the next PC shouldn't be the Warden other than those I have refuted above (mainly I don't want it and would rather Bio spend resources elsewhere). 

[AlanC9]

Firstly what then is the alternative? That no comprise is made and one side gets it all? Are you advocating that we go all in into one side of the debate thus screwing over those in disagreement? The very resentment you feel at Bioware going all in into a Warden PC is the same resentment we feel at going into a new PC (note it has been two games with your side gaining favour, imagine the resentment we harbour). That is to say that it is a useless argument (more like an opinion) which nullifies itself since it can be used by both sides thus bringing us back to the starting point.

Secondly though I very much would like to discuss ME3's ending disappointment I don't think this is the place. With that being said giving me an example of a failed comprise regardless of how restricting the conditions were (for example one of them being: it was the end game there's not a lot you can create to placate quite a vocal fan base when the game is already finished) does nothing against telling me that comprise is not a good idea in other games or respects. Or are you of the position no comprise can be made at all? If that is so then once again we fall down to which side should get screwed over the most. And to answer that we would need to enter a numbers game hence my asking for actual statistics.

It would since those against the proposition in this thread were bringing up salaries and "dollar signs", if that doesn't invite a financial analysis of the company in question I don't know what does.

(shrug) It all depends on the specific issue and the specific implementation. The point I was trying to make in that post was that sometimes compromise doesn't make things better. You pay the costs of the compromise but the compromise doesn't generate enough value to cover the costs. So far, the proposals about the Warden have made me feel that this is one of those cases.

And yes, this doesn't get us anywhere. I don't think there's anywhere for us to go. My read on this situation is that it's a zero-sum game.

Let's switch examples to a general RPG design issue where I'm on the losing side. I've always been a big fan of timed main quests, where the PC is under real pressure with a real chance of failure. You don't see those anymore -- except maybe in indie games, although I haven't played one with the feature. The typical RPG fan likes the feeling of leisurely exploration. Compromise here obviously won't do anything, since you either feel time pressure or you don't. So I lose. I just lose. End of line.
 

Also, people who are against the proposition are pushing an alternate commitment; the next game not being the Warden. That is to say the next game having a new PC. You have yet to give an argument as to why the next PC shouldn't be the Warden other than those I have refuted above (mainly I don't want it and would rather Bio spend resources elsewhere).

Like I said before, this wasn't the actual new game proposal being made. The proposal was to stick a Warden option on top of the ability to play a new character. If you want to debate going all-in on the ME route we can do that.

I prefer not to go the ME route. Would telling you my reasons -- more accurately, my tastes -- change anything? Arguments about personal taste simply can't go anywhere. Though they can be interesting as long as you don't expect a resolution.

[Mummy22kids]

If you want closure I have it- Every Warden (HoF or orlesian) fails to find the cure and dies on their calling. Done and Done.

[Vault_Tec101]

The point I was trying to make in that post was that sometimes compromise doesn't make things better.

 

That is to state the obvious. You must now show that this applies here to this scenario which has not been done, all I have been given is examples, which pose little relevance or similarity, of other games that have failed.

 

(shrug) It all depends on the specific issue and the specific implementation. The point I was trying to make in that post was that sometimes compromise doesn't make things better. You pay the costs of the compromise but the compromise doesn't generate enough value to cover the costs. So far, the proposals about the Warden have made me feel that this is one of those cases.

And yes, this doesn't get us anywhere. I don't think there's anywhere for us to go. My read on this situation is that it's a zero-sum game.

 

As for the rest, once again I pose the question, are you therefore proposing that no compromise be made? Which side should now be shafted and why?

 

As for the zero sum game sure one can see it as that but that would be somewhat misleading as for you it's been anything but a zero sum. The past three iterations have been what you have wanted while they were not so for me. Indeed they were a loss for me. If then no compromise may be struck, and barring no other arguments being included since none seem to be made, why then should the next game be a new PC? Again you expressed resentment at Bioware doing something you didn't wish for yet this has been our position for these past few games.

 

By the way the comprise gives me nothing but value, it is the lack of a comprise that gives me nothing but loss. For in my current position I am only losing. Perhaps you would incur a cost but so what? This would then be the first cost your position would be incurring in three games.

 

Let's switch examples to a general RPG design issue where I'm on the losing side. I've always been a big fan of timed main quests, where the PC is under real pressure with a real chance of failure. You don't see those anymore -- except maybe in indie games, although I haven't played one with the feature. The typical RPG fan likes the feeling of leisurely exploration. Compromise here obviously won't do anything, since you either feel time pressure or you don't. So I lose. I just lose. End of line.

 

The example is irrelevant for no comprise at all may be made (none that I can come up with), in our scenario, however, a comprise may be struck; it's not either or as has been suggested. Are you saying that even in our compromise you will lose? That even if your specific Warden doesn't make a return, while ours does, and you are given the option to make a new character you are still incurring a loss? Maybe you will, for your position is fully fulfilled, you're at the mountain top and there's no where to go but down while we nowhere to go but up.

 

 

Like I said before, this wasn't the actual new game proposal being made. The proposal was to stick a Warden option on top of the ability to play a new character. If you want to debate going all-in on the ME route we can do that.

 

 

Let's be absolutely clear the proposal is to bring back the Warden as a PC. As I stated earlier those in my position understand that some may not like our stance and so we attempted to strike a compromise.

 

Honestly had we had three games with the same characters I have no doubt many, myself included, will be clamouring for a new stance and direction; is it not time we head in this new direction? Have we not had enough?

[Il Divo]

hat is to state the obvious. You must now show that this applies here to this scenario which has not been done, all I have been given is examples, which pose little relevance or similarity, of other games that have failed.

 

 

Well, he could cite the resources required for such endeavors. Dragon Age: Inquisition certainly has come under fire for what certain players perceive as limited role-playing opportunities. Mass Effect also received criticism on these grounds. 

 

Other games have managed to fail pretty badly simply while trying to retain a single protagonist. 

 

As for the rest, once again I pose the question, are you therefore proposing that no compromise be made? Which side should now be shafted and why?

 

 

So let me counter your question with another: why does Alan have to be the one to answer that question? That's ultimately Bioware's call to make who to shaft. They're the ones making the game. 

 

s for the zero sum game sure one can see it as that but that would be somewhat misleading as for you it's been anything but a zero sum. The past three iterations have been what you have wanted while they were not so for me. Indeed they were a loss for me. If then no compromise may be struck, and barring no other arguments being included since none seem to be made, why then should the next game be a new PC? Again you expressed resentment at Bioware doing something you didn't wish for yet this has been our position for these past few games.

 

 

Because ultimately it's not his job to care about what anyone else wants. It would be equally the case if we had the reverse scenario if you had gotten your desired DA experience for 3 games. As a player, the goal is to obtain maximum value for their product. You wouldn't owe him anything any more than he owes you right now. 

 

Resources going to things you don't want aren't a benefit in that regard. You've also made the mistake of assuming that it's Bioware's job to cater to every displeased fan. This isn't a shift change at a job. Bioware is not obligated to make the first game for player A, the second game for player B, the third game for player C to balance out a displeased player base. Very likely, their decision making will be some combination of what they want to do from a creativity stand point and what they think will best sell their product. 

 

y the way the comprise gives me nothing but value, it is the lack of a comprise that gives me nothing but loss. For in my current position I am only losing. Perhaps you would incur a cost but so what? This would then be the first cost your position would be incurring in three games.

 

 

As above, this doesn't make for good reasoning. "You got what you wanted 3 times, now let me have a turn". As a consumer, he's going to be interested in his entertainment, not anyone else's. 

[Vault_Tec101]

Well, he could cite the resources required for such endeavors. Dragon Age: Inquisition certainly has come under fire for what certain players perceive as limited role-playing opportunities. Mass Effect also received criticism on these grounds. 

 

Other games have managed to fail pretty badly simply while trying to retain a single protagonist. 

 

Please do! I'd be more than happy to review them. But do elaborate to what endeavours are you referring.

 

Secondly the issue was that comprise was not a good idea in this situation, what on earth does DA:I or ME have to do with that? Was there a compromise featuring the Warden as a PC included in DA:I? Good God I think I've been playing the wrong game the entire time!

 

So let me counter your question with another: why does Alan have to be the one to answer that question? That's ultimately Bioware's call to make who to shaft. They're the ones making the game. 

 

 What kind of moronic reasoning is that? Did him and I not enter a debate and discourse regarding the matter? Was his position not ___, no matter what it actually is? Wouldn't he be expected to defend himself against counter arguments and possible consequences were his view to come into fruition? Were we to enter a debate into Plato's Forms can I near the end simply say: "It's Plato's Forms not mine! Why should I defend them?!" That is to say if you will not defend your position then why the hell enter a debate in the first place? He could've simply stated "well ultimately vault_tec it is Bioware's decision not ours so I won't argue my point" and saved us both the time and effort.

 

Why does Alan have to answer any question? Hell why do I for that matter? Why don't I just go ahead and state my position and at the very outset of rebukes reply: "well you know I don't have to answer your questions or respond after all it is Bioware's game..."

 

The question still stands.

 

Because ultimately it's not his job to care about what anyone else wants. It would be equally the case if we had the reverse scenario if you had gotten your desired DA experience for 3 games. As a player, the goal is to obtain maximum value for their product. You wouldn't owe him anything any more than he owes you right now. 

 

Not care about what anyone else wants? What are we petulant children in grade school? I will state again what I already said: "However I (and I think Dai Grepher is making this point as well) understand that not everyone wants what we want and so a [compromise] must be struck so that we can all get what we want". (pg.6, #127)

 

I shudder to think of the world if nobody cared about what others wanted. Indeed I would be quite confused at, say, heterosexual men joining gay pride parades or protests.

 

Further, I understand that I am unable to get everything I want, indeed shouldn't get everything I want as it would exclude many people and would like to take part in entertainment we both enjoy. Further I would owe him something if his position possessed merit and strong reasoning. I am not going to raise my hands and say "NO! I only get what I want no matter how compelling your reasoning is!"

 

 

Resources going to things you don't want aren't a benefit in that regard. You've also made the mistake of assuming that it's Bioware's job to cater to every displeased fan. This isn't a shift change at a job. Bioware is not obligated to make the first game for player A, the second game for player B, the third game for player C to balance out a displeased player base. Very likely, their decision making will be some combination of what they want to do from a creativity stand point and what they think will best sell their product. 

 

Oh I did did I? I have reviewed my posts and have found no indication of such an assumption. But you seem to be quite the perceptive sort so please do show me where I made such an assumption.

 

As above, this doesn't make for good reasoning. "You got what you wanted 3 times, now let me have a turn". As a consumer, he's going to be interested in his entertainment, not anyone else's. 

 

Most rebuttals followed the form of "I simply don't want what you want and find it would be a waste of resources if you got what you wanted." I was showing that this can be multiplied by three from my side and that in and of itself is not a worth while argument, more of an opinion. For if it was I would be in the victorious side. Again if it all boils down to: "I don't care what you want I simply want what I want and by God I'll get it" why even bother entering a debate? Why even attempt to persuade me or support your position?

[Saphiron123]

I am a little amused that I created this thread not just to suggest great ways to bring back the warden, but to attempt to do so in a way that would please both sides with alternative options that would let people with serious doubts have a great experience as well... but here we are, the pro warden side, those who doubt bioware could do it justice, and the occasional warden hater are back to arguing about resources and why it would be an affront to everything holy if the warden did or did not make an appearance in the future.

Can't bioware just shaft us all equally, and give us a few options that would led us roleplay our hero or a new one (even if the hero is alive and they just don't want to see him) according to our personal tastes? Can't we have a silent option to make the hero feel right if we're super attached to that using the subtitles in a list that they have to put into the game anyway? And can't we have hero specific dialogue and scene similar to having racial dialogue that would let some of us have our hero and others have their new PC (and vice versa, whenever we want to try the other option)?

Chances are Bioware isn't even reading this, but Mike Laidlaw and Patrick Weekes, if you are, I hope you can find a compromise that will work for both camps!

Be excellent to each other.

[Il Divo]

What kind of moronic reasoning is that? Did him and I not enter a debate and discourse regarding the matter? Was his position not ___, no matter what it actually is? Wouldn't he be expected to defend himself against counter arguments and possible consequences were his view to come into fruition? Were we to enter a debate into Plato's Forms can I near the end simply say: "It's Plato's Forms not mine! Why should I defend them?!" That is to say if you will not defend your position then why the hell enter a debate in the first place? He could've simply stated "well ultimately vault_tec it is Bioware's decision not ours so I won't argue my point" and saved us both the time and effort.

Why does Alan have to answer any question? Hell why do I for that matter? Why don't I just go ahead and state my position and at the very outset of rebukes reply: "well you know I don't have to answer your questions or respond after all it is Bioware's game..."

 

The faux-elite intellectualism is unneeded. What's puzzling about this is your righteous outrage at the idea that people oppose compromise. "How is Bioware to decide whom to favor?" as if that's a new criticism.

 

They'll do it the way they've always done: based on what they think will sell and what creatively interests them. If it helps you, maybe it's less accurate to say "Alan shouldn't have to answer the question" and more accurate to say that the answer to the question should be incredibly obvious, given that it's an issue that developers themselves have been dealing with since the dawn of gaming: limited resources, unlimited fan demands. Hell, it's an issue which they themselves already demonstrated their solution to in DA2 and DA:I. So expressing disapproval at how Bioware is to choose between the two positions probably isn't the way to go. 

 

Not care about what anyone else wants? What are we petulant children in grade school? I will state again what I already said: "However I (and I think Dai Grepher is making this point as well) understand that not everyone wants what we want and so a [compromise] must be struck so that we can all get what we want". (pg.6, #127)

 

I shudder to think of the world if nobody cared about what others wanted. Indeed I would be quite confused at, say, heterosexual men joining gay pride parades or protests.

 

 

I shudder to think of the world if everyone thought compromising with every movement was the solution to a problem. David Gaider made a similar point some time ago in response to fans asking for silent protagonists laid out along side voiced protagonists. 

 

I think this demonstrates a limited understanding of risk calculation. Compromise is not always the solution. Some number of fans complained that Mass Effect 3 should have concluded with a boss fight. Should Bioware have compromised with said fans, along with every other group demanding x, y, or z? Some fans would love some option to have Hawke as the DA4 protagonist. Or the Inquisitor as well. Hell, maybe the Orlesian Warden. Should DA4 compromise between the Warden, Hawke, Inquisitor, plus new protagonist? 

 

Your final comparison also isn't valid since it touches more on moral/ethical grounds regarding the treatment of minority groups in our society. I'd say that's an entire can of worms I'm not interested in opening compared to relatively straight forward consumers of entertainment. Far as I'm aware, there's nothing to attach behind your desire for the Warden besides pure entertainment. So let's keep the comparisons on that level. 

 

Further, I understand that I am unable to get everything I want, indeed shouldn't get everything I want as it would exclude many people and would like to take part in entertainment we both enjoy. Further I would owe him something if his position possessed merit and strong reasoning. I am not going to raise my hands and say "NO! I only get what I want no matter how compelling your reasoning is!"

 

 

No, you wouldn't. You would owe him the courtesy of treating him respectfully in an argument, no more, no less. You can try to express some sort of moral outrage over the idea that every consumer is in it for themselves in the entertainment industry. In my experience, people tend to dislike spending $60 on a product they may not enjoy. Compromising pushes those who dislike the Warden returning closer to that category. 

 

Oh I did did I? I have reviewed my posts and have found no indication of such an assumption. But you seem to be quite the perceptive sort so please do show me where I made such an assumption.

 

 

Fair so I'll rephrase: you have several times emphasized the importance of compromise to breed satisfaction for all. Why should Bioware give this particular position compromise compared to the millions of other requests for feature x, y, or z which they ignore on a day to day basis? 

 

Most rebuttals followed the form of "I simply don't want what you want and find it would be a waste of resources if you got what you wanted." I was showing that this can be multiplied by three from my side and that in and of itself is not a worth while argument, more of an opinion. For if it was I would be in the victorious side. Again if it all boils down to: "I don't care what you want I simply want what I want and by God I'll get it" why even bother entering a debate? Why even attempt to persuade me or support your position?

 

 

For your own intellectual development? For the fun of it? Just to outline, particularly for the developers, how you might feel about a particular issue? Hell, do you think Dai Grepher telling Bioware that every fan secretly wants the Warden back does a great job of persuading people? It would do the opposite, I'd say. 

 

Compromise, often times, can be the result of two groups coming into agreement so that they can both get what they want to satisfy some desire which would not be possible otherwise. 

 

Unfortunately, in this case, you drew the short straw. The ones who don't want the Warden back don't really need to compromise because that seems to be the route Bioware wants to go. Those who do want the Warden back are fighting what seems to be the flow of Bioware games. Compromise doesn't help the former group in any capacity: they're satisfied with Bioware doing what they're doing and compromise only serves to put that direction at risk. 

 

Secondly the issue was that comprise was not a good idea in this situation, what on earth does DA:I or ME have to do with that? Was there a compromise featuring the Warden as a PC included in DA:I? Good God I think I've been playing the wrong game the entire time!

 

 

Scenario: Bioware makes a game called Dragon Age: Inquisition, which involved offering players the ability to choose their own race. Some players decided that the game wasn't reactive enough to racial differences for it to be a worth while feature. Other players decided that Bioware forced their protagonist into a hero-like role and cut out all the cruel/evil options which they enjoyed doing.

 

Resources would obviously make this easier. More dialogue to show characters reacting to your race. More quest options to be an evil bastard. Resources that Bioware is now putting towards implementing your Warden PC will still leave players with limited role-playing options. Hell, it might now put all those who claim they could make their Warden a terrible villain pigeon-holed into a more heroic plot line.  

 

In short: DA:I and ME represented the difficulty of creating a satisfying role-playing experience without an additional protagonist added to the mix.

[Vault_Tec101]

I'm still waiting on those resources. Where are those citations?

 

The faux-elite intellecutalism is unneeded. What's puzzling about this is your righteous outrage at the idea that people oppose compromise. "How is Bioware to decide whom to favor?" as if that's a new criticism.

 

Faux-elite? What, would you rather I used the example with the latest Ford engine? How about the latest grain of wheat by Monsanto? Would that have been conforming to more of your perceived intellectual norm? Since this example seems to cause such incredulous outrage in yourself that one would include peculiar topics, which however peculiar to you are quite common to me, allow me to help you; replace "Plato's Forms" with "iI Divo's Facebook page". Are you getting it now?

 

They'll do it the way they've always done: based on what they think will sell and what creatively interests them. If it helps you, maybe it's less accurate to say "Alan shouldn't have to answer the question" and more accurate to say that the answer to the question should be incredibly obvious, given that it's an issue that developers themselves have been dealing with since the dawn of gaming: limited resources, unlimited fan demands. Hell, it's an issue which they themselves already demonstrated their solution to in DA2 and DA:I. So expressing disapproval at how Bioware is to choose between the two positions probably isn't the way to go. 

 

You seem quite apt in evading questions. Why should Alan or I have to answer any question at all if it is not our game? Why should we enter a debate? "For your own intellectual development? For the fun of it? Just to outline, particularly for the developers, how you might feel about a particular issue?" So why then shouldn't he answer the question? Unless of course you are from Bioware in which case now would be the time to reveal yourself.

 

I think this demonstrates a limited understanding of risk calculation. Compromise is not always the solution. Some number of fans complained that Mass Effect 3 should have concluded with a boss fight. Should Bioware have compromised with said fans, along with every other group demanding x, y, or z? Some fans would love some option to have Hawke as the DA4 protagonist. Or the Inquisitor as well. Hell, maybe the Orlesian Warden. Should DA4 compromise between the Warden, Hawke, Inquisitor, plus new protagonist? 

 

Oh "a limited understanding of risk calculation"? Please do enlighten with your risk analysis, once again I'd be more than happy to review the maths involved.

 

Secondly providing an example of a compromise that simply could not work (or that I do not know of a compromise) does nothing to state that a compromise in this situation would not work.

 

Some fans would love some option to have Hawke as the DA4 protagonist. Or the Inquisitor as well. Hell, maybe the Orlesian Warden. Should DA4 compromise between the Warden, Hawke, Inquisitor, plus new protagonist? 

 

Yes if the side not only provides strong reasoning for their proposition but strong reasoning against the opposition. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong I'd hate to make one of your baseless assumptions, that you view all sides as equal regardless of merit. That they should all be listened to even if I proclaimed "Sandal as the next PC!" that that argument would possess as equal weight as "Warden as the next PC!". Wait a minute is that what happens in a debate where we decide which side possess stronger merit? Well I'll be, who would've thought?

 

 

Your final comparison also isn't valid since it touches more on moral/ethical grounds regarding the treatment of minority groups in our society. I'd say that's an entire can of worms I'm not interested in opening compared to relatively straight forward consumers of entertainment. Far as I'm aware, there's nothing to attach behind your desire for the Warden besides pure entertainment. So let's keep the comparisons on that level.

 

Not valid? In the scenario was there not a group A who upon viewing that group B requested rights and privileges that A already possessed chose to join Bs protest because they thought it fair? But of course that is a fantasy world and in this one people only care about what they themselves want and do not care what others want after all their "job" (so granted by the great giver of employment iI Divo) entails is to not care about what others want. It's strange that when making your own examples you expect me to abstract yet when I make my own you seem wholly incapable of doing so. Let me help you once more; replace "heterosexual men" with group A and "gay pride" with group B.

 

 

No, you wouldn't. You would owe him the courtesy of treating him respectfully in an argument, no more, no less. You can try to express some sort of moral outrage over the idea that every consumer is in it for themselves in the entertainment industry. In my experience, people tend to dislike spending $60 on a product they may not enjoy. Compromising pushes those who dislike the Warden returning closer to that category. 

 

I wouldn't? My what divine powers of clairvoyance vested into you. For first not only do you grant employment to all the petty mortals but now you claim to see into the future! I was incorrect earlier you are not Bioware, no, you must be some sort of God. I, humbly, herein concede all points thus made.

 

Fair so I'll rephrase: you have several times emphasized the importance of compromise to breed satisfaction for all. Why should Bioware give this particular position compromise compared to the millions of other requests for feature x, y, or z which they ignore on a day to day basis? 

 

This seems to provide further evidence for my belief that you believe all positions are equal regardless of merit. For you ask why Bioware should not grant all other requests for whatever feature they may want without acknowledging that some are simply unreasonable. I will say again here this time in bold, it is getting tiring repeating this point, if the home side does not provide compelling arguments for their side and against the opposition then they will be given very low recognition or heed¹. I hope this time you will understand it. I will here define debate and discourse since they seem to be topics that wholly elude you:

 

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

 

Discourse: written or spoken communication or debate.

 

Do you think x,y,z should be included in the next game at the cost of a,b,c? By all means bring forth your proposition, support it, and counter the opposition. Don't sit there expecting that Bioware should look on you equally simply because you want something.²

 

Unfortunately, in this case, you drew the short straw. The ones who don't want the Warden back don't really need to compromise because that seems to be the route Bioware wants to go. Those who do want the Warden back are fighting what seems to be the flow of Bioware games. Compromise doesn't help the former group in any capacity: they're satisfied with Bioware doing what they're doing and compromise only serves to put that direction at risk. 

 

And what of drawing the short straw? Does that mean that somehow the proposition of new PCs every iteration is now a stronger one in terms of reason? My is that how minorities work, or majorities for that matter?

 

Second, compromise may not help the former group in any capacity but it does help my own. What now? Which side should now be granted this choice and why?

Do note the bold, this is where you provide clear and distinct arguments that your side is either better or more reasonable.

 

(Hey wait a minute did I not make this point with Alan? Strange it only took two posts for you to grasp the concept. Though that that remains to be seen.)

 

Resources would obviously make this easier. More dialogue to show characters reacting to your race. More quest options to be an evil bastard. Resources that Bioware is now putting towards implementing your Warden PC will still leave players with limited role-playing options. Hell, it might now put all those who claim they could make their Warden a terrible villain pigeon-holed into a more heroic plot line.  

 

In short: DA:I and ME represented the difficulty of creating a satisfying role-playing experience without an additional protagonist added to the mix.

 

See ¹ above. Further, note you in your example you already have what you wanted. The only issue now is that now you want more. I do not at all have anything. Further still see ² above.

 

And finally I will make this point since I get the feeling it is being alluded to by not just yourself, but regardless if you or others were or were not making it, simply stating that 'because Big Bro is on my side' does not mean that you no longer have to support your position. Were the President to take the country to war would those in favour of said war now no longer have to support their choice or proposition? Would it now be only me and those in opposition who now have to argue?

[Il Divo]

 

Faux-elite? What, would you rather I used the example with the latest Ford engine? How about the latest grain of wheat by Monsanto? Would that have been conforming to more of your perceived intellectual norm? Since this example seems to cause such incredulous outrage in yourself that one would include peculiar topics, which however peculiar to you are quite common to me, allow me to help you; replace "Plato's Forms" with "iI Divo's Facebook page". Are you getting it now?

 

 

<--studied Plato. I do have a degree in Philosophy, not that any of that crap matters on the internet. I still find your comparison more than a bit obnoxious, though. 

 

You seem quite apt in evading questions. Why should Alan or I have to answer any question at all if it is not our game? Why should we enter a debate? "For your own intellectual development? For the fun of it? Just to outline, particularly for the developers, how you might feel about a particular issue?" So why then shouldn't he answer the question? Unless of course you are from Bioware in which case now would be the time to reveal yourself.

 

 

You misunderstand. That you want to have an intellectual conversation about the merits of the Warden vs. any other character as the protagonist is not a problem. People engage in discussion for enjoyment, shocking as that might be to you. That you're expressing surprise that someone argues against compromise as a solution is a problem. Asking Alan "who should Bioware favor?" like they've never had to figure that out before. 

 

To put it another way: you seem to be using the "Who should Bioware choose?" as some sort of premise in favor of compromise, when it's one of the oldest issues of game development.

 

Oh "a limited understanding of risk calculation"? Please do enlighten with your risk analysis, once again I'd be more than happy to review the maths involved.

 

 

Sure, I'll use myself as an example. Maybe this applies to Alan, maybe not:

 

1) I do not have any interest in seeing the Warden return and very likely would not play such a character.

2) Implementing the Warden requires resources which would come at the expense of other aspects of game design.

3) In comparison to a blank slate protagonist, implementing the Warden shifts the game in a direction which I will not want it to go.

 

That's the risk analysis how someone who does not want the Warden sees it. It's certainly not complicated. Beyond  your desire for compromise which operates exclusively to your benefit, this does not offer me any advantages. 

 

Secondly providing an example of a compromise that simply could not work (or that I do not know of a compromise) does nothing to state that a compromise in this situation would not work.

 

 

See above, why as a consumer should I ever support an entertainment endeavor that has negative consequences for me? To use Inquisition itself as an example again, people complain about the lack of evil actions available to them as players. Implementing your Warden now means taking yet more resources away from dialogue, role-playing options, and general reactivity.

 

Hell, let's remove me from the equation. What about fans who were lukewarm towards Inquisition but also don't have any desire to see the Warden return? Compromise is even less in their interests since they have a far less positive reception of the experience. 

 

Yes if the side not only provides strong reasoning for their proposition but strong reasoning against the opposition. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong I'd hate to make one of your baseless assumptions, that you view all sides as equal regardless of merit. That they should all be listened to even if I proclaimed "Sandal as the next PC!" that that argument would possess as equal weight as "Warden as the next PC!". Wait a minute is that what happens in a debate where we decide which side possess stronger merit? Well I'll be, who would've thought?

 

 

What sort of argument do see yourself possessing to make your statements of higher value/priority in comparison to any other value judgment? Because you certainly have not provided anything via argumentation to illustrate why someone who is 100% behind a new protagonist should support your endeavor, beyond their putting your enjoyment above their own. 

 

It's funny in that you think this is simply my position, as opposed to something BIoware has expressed. Even if I conceded that your suggestion would require minimal resources (and I haven't), it would still be one of a million suggestions requiring minimal resources which inevitably adds to a significant investment. Gaider pointed out something similar when a few fans asked him to give them silent protagonist options, arguing that it would not be a resource hog. Implementing a million features requiring minimal resources put forth by reasonable forum goers still amounts to significant resources. 

 

Not valid? In the scenario was there not a group A who upon viewing that group B requested rights and privileges that A already possessed chose to join Bs protest because they thought it fair? But of course that is a fantasy world and in this one people only care about what they themselves want and do not care what others want after all their "job" (so granted by the great giver of employment iI Divo) entails is to not care about what others want. It's strange that when making your own examples you expect me to abstract yet when I make my own you seem wholly incapable of doing so. Let me help you once more; replace "heterosexual men" with group A and "gay pride" with group B.

 

 

Do you want to have a dialogue about equal rights movements? We could do that. Of course, that would be ignoring that it was up to those individuals to take part in the movement. 

 

But it is amusing that you think someone prioritizing their own enjoyment of a game product is in the same playing field as treatment of minority groups. I'd actually be a bit more sympathetic if you brought up homosexual romances as a counter point, where there's at least some discussion to be had regarding equal rights vs consumer entertainment, which is not in effect here.

 

You want something that's purely for entertainment purposes and are making a (pretty bad) comparison in order to do it. 

[Il Divo]

 

I wouldn't? My what divine powers of clairvoyance vested into you. For first not only do you grant employment to all the petty mortals but now you claim to see into the future! I was incorrect earlier you are not Bioware, no, you must be some sort of God. I, humbly, herein concede all points thus made.

 

 

Do you play video games for your own benefit, or for others, typically? I suspect for most gamers it's likely the former, rather than the latter. As a consumer, purchasing a product you would not enjoy is against your interests. 

 

If you want to give up that right and argue for features that you have no interest in, that's your perogative. But it's stupid that you're trying to frame this as a moral objection that people should be up for compromise while acknowledging that it has no distinct advantage for them, particularly in regard to a product with a $60 price point attached. 

 

This seems to provide further evidence for my belief that you believe all positions are equal regardless of merit. For you ask why Bioware should not grant all other requests for whatever feature they may want without acknowledging that some are simply unreasonable. I will say again here this time in bold, it is getting tiring repeating this point, if the home side does not provide compelling arguments for their side and against the opposition then they will be given very low recognition or heed¹. I hope this time you will understand it. I will here define debate anddiscourse since they seem to be topics that wholly elude you:

 

 

To which I will point to my above counter response: you would not be the first person to propose an idea that the developer disregards. 

 

It's based on multiple factors: what the developer wants creatively, what they expect will sell a reasonable number of units to be profitable, how many fans are actively behind this proposition.

 

Personally, I think your suggestion is laughable under two criteria: either implementing the Warden with such little resources that it will satisfy a very small number of gamers or that it will require significant resources, resulting in a dramatic reduction of other aspects of the game, while quite possibly compromising the entire experience for everyone involved. 

 

And what of drawing the short straw? Does that mean that somehow the proposition of new PCs every iteration is now a stronger one in terms of reason? My is that how minorities work, or majorities for that matter?

 

 

Depends on how you look at it. I think Bioware's own comments (Gaider among others) that they don't have any desire to return to the Warden, which can be seen by the Warden's non-existence in DA2 and DA:I, are pretty indicative of where things stand.

 

Why they won't implement the Warden could be for a number of reasons: creatively they are bored by it, they haven't seen enough support for the feature, it contradicts their overall vision of Thedas, etc.

 

Second, compromise may not help the former group in any capacity but it does help my own. What now? Which side should now be granted this choice and why?

Do note the bold, this is where you provide clear and distinct arguments that your side is either better or more reasonable.

 

 

See above. You're not a special snowflake in this regard. What exactly do you think game management is? It's resource manipulation based on a myriad of factors. Why should Bioware ignore your group? Well, if creatively they don't want to implement the Warden, while thinking they can generate sales without him, while considering your group a minority (maybe it's all these factors, maybe it's none of them), then they're less likely to bring him back.

 

Basically, it's not a coin flip. It's not about being better or more reasonable, as you oh so condescendingly put it. It's about following the direction which Bioware themselves have articulated to have wanted since the beginning. That doesn't mean my position is "special". It's simply that it happens to coincide with that devs themselves have expressed interest in and therefore requires less resistance. 

 

 

See ¹ above. Further, note you in your example you already have what you wanted. The only issue now is that now you want more. I do not at all have anything. Further still see ² above.

 

 

And that's typically where I would say "tough luck". That's game development. It's not my job to create enjoyment for every consumer of Bioware games.

 

I express interest in features I want, displeasure with features I don't want. And at the end of the day, Bioware will decide based on their inclination, market forces, and number of consumers what goes into a game and what doesn't. 

 

And finally I will make this point since I get the feeling it is being alluded to by not just yourself, but regardless if you or others were or were not making it, simply stating that 'because Big Bro is on my side' does not mean that you no longer have to support your position. Were the President to take the country to war would those in favour of said war now no longer have to support their choice or proposition? Would it now be only me and those in opposition who now have to argue?

 

 

Of course they can do that. Bioware will do what they creatively want to do. I don't ultimately have to put too much effort because at the end of the day - they're currently designing games (or at least this aspect of DA) how I want it. 

 

If that changes, well, it'll suck to be me. Of course, that would be an interesting shift given that Bioware's been pushing the "this is the story of Thedas" line and how we're moving farther from Ferelden and the South with future games. 

[AlanC9]

That is to state the obvious. You must now show that this applies here to this scenario which has not been done, all I have been given is examples, which pose little relevance or similarity, of other games that have failed.
 
As for the rest, once again I pose the question, are you therefore proposing that no compromise be made? Which side should now be shafted and why?

I haven't seen a compromise plan that actually works as a compromise; so far they're all diverting too many zots to a zero-value feature.. I don't want to rule the concept out, but what I've seen sounds like it will make the game very much worse. (For me, of course.) Starting with the whole plot being about the HoF and other characters being permitted to play it as a kind of afterthought. The necessity of incorporating high-level and low-level play meaning the return of level scaling. Lots of conversations I don't want to see taking the place of conversations I do want to see. And so forth. I suppose all of these things could be worked around in some fashion -- almost no conversations where it matters who the PC is, an ME2-style reboot so the PC starts at low level even if she is the HoF, a main plot where it doesn't matter who the PC is. But would that work for you guys?

And yes, if some side has to be shafted then I prefer that side to be yours, not mine. Why wouldn't I prefer that?
 

As for the zero sum game sure one can see it as that but that would be somewhat misleading as for you it's been anything but a zero sum. The past three iterations have been what you have wanted while they were not so for me. Indeed they were a loss for me. If then no compromise may be struck, and barring no other arguments being included since none seem to be made, why then should the next game be a new PC? Again you expressed resentment at Bioware doing something you didn't wish for yet this has been our position for these past few games.

Umm... you do know what zero-sum game means, right? The fact that I happened to be on the winning side of the game doesn't change the nature of the game. How do you figure that I was on the winning side for three iterations, anyway? Are you counting DA:A? And did I express resentment? I don't have anything to resent from Bio currently, since Bio already agrees with my position. And I don't resent you wanting what you want. I just don't want it.
 
 

By the way the comprise gives me nothing but value, it is the lack of a comprise that gives me nothing but loss. For in my current position I am only losing. Perhaps you would incur a cost but so what? This would then be the first cost your position would be incurring in three games.

As Il Divo says, that's simply not my problem. It's Bio's job to balance the competing desires of different parts of the fanbase, not mine. Or to just design the game they want to play without regard for our expressed desires and let us sort out whether we like the next game's approach or not. There's something to be said for either design approach.
 

The example is irrelevant for no comprise at all may be made (none that I can come up with), in our scenario, however, a comprise may be struck; it's not either or as has been suggested. Are you saying that even in our compromise you will lose? That even if your specific Warden doesn't make a return, while ours does, and you are given the option to make a new character you are still incurring a loss? Maybe you will, for your position is fully fulfilled, you're at the mountain top and there's no where to go but down while we nowhere to go but up.

Yes, this is essentially correct. I think Bio's current plan is just fine for me, and I want them to stick with it.

[turuzzusapatuttu]

If you want closure I have it- Every Warden (HoF or orlesian) fails to find the cure and dies on their calling. Done and Done.

 

[Vault_Tec101]

Umm... you do know what zero-sum game means, right? The fact that I happened to be on the winning side of the game doesn't change the nature of the game. How do you figure that I was on the winning side for three iterations, anyway? Are you counting DA:A? And did I express resentment? I don't have anything to resent from Bio currently, since Bio already agrees with my position. And I don't resent you wanting what you want. I just don't want it.

 

I do, I merely said that it can be somewhat misleading (least of all because it presumes your gain is equal to my loss) as in my past experience with discussions of zero sum games the unaware perception (even my own at some times) is that it is 'even', 'no body really wins', or '******-for-tat' scenario. I don't know why it's blocked, the word is T then I then T

 

<--studied Plato. I do have a degree in Philosophy, not that any of that crap matters on the internet. I still find your comparison more than a bit obnoxious, though. 

 

It is clear then the direction the debate is heading into is one of a d**k measuring contest. Is it my turn? Shall I respond with my supposed credentials? But I won't, that is the last thing I wanted this to become and it is been made abundantly clear that this is not heading in any direction regardless of what is said.

 

The argument seems to be heading in circles with no end in sight. I already said if we are to debate 'resources' we need a financial analysis of the company in question. Both you and I may hand wave and proclaim the opposition would be more costly, without numbers (which by the way you said could be cited, I will note this is the third time I am asking for said citations). With that being said I think it time to end it with some closing remarks.

 

We already agreed that both sides dislike the opposition, for that is trivial.  In my posts I asked for reasoning for why non returning protagonists are a better alternative or rather that it is better not to return the Warden (hence my underlining and bolding the why) since this side has been making all the arguments and compromises. And the responses?

 

A) Too many resources (Which statistics are you citing? I would like to very much review your comparison for and against)

B ) I don't want it (That's fair but I don't want what you want)

C) Someone is going to be disappointed (as opposed to now where the opposition is already disappointed?)

D) It's my job to absolutely decline compromise and push for my wish. Full stop.

E) If we compromise (or listen to) here why don't we compromise to any other view for that matter? The millions out there? (Perhaps alluding to a slippery slope? I am not too sure). 

 

or my personal favourite:

 

F) It's Bioware's job not mine, why should I answer? Which may I add is a poor response in and of itself, sure you may not be the head engineer at Ford doesn't mean you cant discuss its engines or say "that it would be better if..." and upon criticism that said engine addition or change would exclude an entire group, being asked one of many questions: "why, in your view, is this a better addition so much so that it would overwhelm the cost of the loss of that group?" replying "It's Ford's job not mine! Why are you asking me?!" or to say "Ford will do what they've always done" That is to state the obvious we were in a discussion amongst ourselves not Bioware execs. (By the way I was writing on Plato at the time of the example which is why it was the first to come to mind, I do not know why I ought to explain myself but you have made it a particular point so much so as to label it obnoxious or unneeded).

 

I will reiterate what I said earlier mainly; the above examples can be used for both sides of the debate thus neither said gaining favour and returning us to the origin.

 

I would have even accepted "well you may not like it now and indeed DA:I, DA:2 may be poorly executed versions (or not) of my position but I believe that were my position to be properly executed (and here's how) you would enjoy it because..." or "the notion of a returning protagonist is a poor one and inherently inferior to new protagonists because..." I was not looking for "because I want it" or an entire lecture on the job of a consumer for that matter.

 

Was that my fault for expecting different? Maybe, maybe I ought to have requested with greater specificity. I will not say this was a waste of time, I stated what I wished, defended my position and attacked the opposition  what more could I expect? That I get a personal response from Weekes? I think, however, it could have been more fruitful. As well I will say I have come out somewhat better understanding the other side. Whether it is continued further I don't know, after this many posts with nothing novel being proposed I think not. I look forward to your closing remarks or if you wish you may try to salvage the discussion.

[Zatche]

A) Too many resources (Which statistics are you citing? I would like to very much review your comparison for and against)

B ) I don't want it (That's fair but I don't want what you want)

C) Someone is going to be disappointed (as opposed to now where the opposition is already disappointed?)

D) It's my job to absolutely decline compromise and push for my wish. Full stop.

E) If we compromise (or listen to) here why don't we compromise to any other view for that matter? The millions out there? (Perhaps alluding to a slippery slope? I am not too sure). 

 

or my personal favourite:

 

F) It's Bioware's job not mine, why should I answer? Which may I add is a poor response in and of itself, sure you may not be the head engineer at Ford doesn't mean you cant discuss its engines or say "that it would be better if..." and upon criticism that said engine addition or change would exclude an entire group, being asked one of many questions: "why, in your view, is this a better addition so much so that it would overwhelm the cost of the loss of that group?" replying "It's Ford's job not mine! Why are you asking me?!" or to say "Ford will do what they've always done" That is to state the obvious we were in a discussion amongst ourselves not Bioware execs. (By the way I was writing on Plato at the time of the example which is why it was the first to come to mind, I do not know why I ought to explain myself but you have made it a particular point so much so as to label it obnoxious or unneeded).

 

A - No one here knows the actual numbers behind Bioware's resource costs. Doesn't mean we can't discuss them from a high level view. Implementing stuff costs resources. We can make educated guesses as to what things costs more resources than other things. If we disagree on those points, we come to impasse on it. So be it.

 

So, I agree with Alan and IlDivo. If there is something I don't care for, and it could cost resources that could go into something else, than I might argue against it.

 

C and F are not arguments against bringing the Warden back. They are arguments not to use the fairness argument, regardless of what side you're on.

 

D and E are straw men. No one argued that compromise is never an option. It was argued that the compromise is not always beneficial for some involved, or in some cases no one involved benefits. And for this case specifically, those who don't want the Warden back would not get anything from a compromise.

 

As to why I would prefer just a new PC: because the story would have to be adjusted to allow for a scenario in which the HoF fits the story and that the new PC could also fit the story. With just a new PC, the only adjustments that would need to be made would be to allow multiple races/genders/classes, which seems to be a daunting enough task on it's own.

 

Since we don't know what Bioware wants to do with the next installment, let's try to imagine if they tried to allow the HoF to be an optional protagonist for DAI. Regardless of whether you liked the story about a unintentional religious figure with themes about faith, the faithful, and power, that was the story Bioware wanted to tell. So, with regards to plots structure and narrative themes, how would the HoF fit into being cast as Herald of Andraste? Would people still distrust him/her and accuse them of murdering the Divine? Would all the relationships between the PC and all the characters still makes sense? How much would BioWare have to add to the word budget to accommodate different types of relationships (one for HoF and one for new PC) for each companion and advisor some of the NPCs. Would the amount of support from which factions that the Inquisition receives still make sense? Are any of these divergences interesting enough to support the cost of implementing them?

 

So, for the next installment, I'd rather Bioware just create a story with just a new PC, and not have to shoehorn the HoF in as an option or tell a story that they are not inspired to tell.

[In Exile]

Bioware does not have unlimited resources. It is not a controversial position to say that - at some point - certain things cannot be realized due to a lack of resources. This is why DA:I does not have infinite content. So we can talk about the relatively cost of features at a high level, as Zatche says, at least on the notional idea that certain investments of resources will have to replace others.

 

More importantly, this is not an issue about compromise. A compromise requires quid pro quo. To ask people to give up something for nothing in return is silly. That's not a compromise. That's just asking for a gift. 

[sleeping heart]

Personally. I think they should split the series. Continue doing.... whatever it is they are doing with Dragon Age: Numeric, and come out with an actual sequel to Origins with everything we loved about Origins (particularly gameplay) in tact.

 

Perhaps even a continuations to the wardens story. Some people say the Wardens story is over, but you know what. When i played DA:I i had felt from the start of the game to about the middle (which is when i quite both times i tried, because i got bored) that my Warden would have actually made a better more realistic and rich main character than this random dude. I felt the warden would have fit the role/story better. So, i can't say i agree with that.

 

Anyways. if they did that they'd both sell. If i where to wager a guess i'd say a sequel to DA:O wouldn't probably even sell better than Dragon Age 4 would, just a guess.

[Il Divo]

The argument seems to be heading in circles with no end in sight. I already said if we are to debate 'resources' we need a financial analysis of the company in question. Both you and I may hand wave and proclaim the opposition would be more costly, without numbers (which by the way you said could be cited, I will note this is the third time I am asking for said citations). With that being said I think it time to end it with some closing remarks.

 

 

 

Others have mentioned this, but we don't need precise numbers to have a base discussion regarding cost. We might not be able to settle down with exact figures, but everything we want costs resources, hence why we have the zero sum game in the first place. I said we could cite Gaider's insistence that even low costing features when added up lead to a significant cost of resources, though that would require a good bit of digging. 

 

The point isn't to convince you to support my endeavor, but rather to point out that there isn't technically speaking a reason for me to support your endeavor. As you pointed out to Alan, we're at the top of the mountain (at least in regard to this feature if not others). 

 

We already agreed that both sides dislike the opposition, for that is trivial.  In my posts I asked for reasoning for why non returning protagonists are a better alternative or rather that it is better not to return the Warden (hence my underlining and bolding the why) since this side has been making all the arguments and compromises. And the responses?

 

 

There really isn't any particular reasoning beyond personal preference for why I prefer a new protagonist. I think Zatche did a great job of summing up some issues I have. 

 

The issue in your case however isn't related to why you think the Warden coming back is a better alternative. Your personal preference is no more or less value than mine. It's making that desire a reality where you're going to run into difficulty, at least based on Bioware's comments thus far. I've said this a few times but if they're not interested in bringing the Warden back to the narrative creatively, if they don't believe there is a large enough interest in said feature, and if they're confident they can sell unites without the Warden, why as a developer do you believe they would do such a thing? 

 

A) Too many resources (Which statistics are you citing? I would like to very much review your comparison for and against)

B ) I don't want it (That's fair but I don't want what you want)

C) Someone is going to be disappointed (as opposed to now where the opposition is already disappointed?)

D) It's my job to absolutely decline compromise and push for my wish. Full stop.

E) If we compromise (or listen to) here why don't we compromise to any other view for that matter? The millions out there? (Perhaps alluding to a slippery slope? I am not too sure). 

 

 

Well, let's open this a bit more. 

 

The "too many resources" is in reference to the idea of doing them both well. The phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind. Compromise is an option. But compromise isn't always THE option. We've seen before that compromising can mean no party ends up happy. And if as you said, some of us are at the top of the mountain, support for compromise means risk for essentially nothing. Again as an example: Inquisition didn't have to worry about supporting a Warden protagonist, and I'm still unimpressed with the multiple races added in the game due to the lack of reactivity. 

 

In regard to B, I definitely do not expect you to want what I want, that would be silly. C is similar to the above. Technically Bioware can compromise and if they pull it off, you get to be happy, I might still be happy, and it all works out. But this could be the case for any compromise. What BIoware likely needs to also pull this off is the creative inclination to want to do this and for them to believe there is sufficient desire for the Warden to warrant resources in the first place. If they believe most gamers want a new protagonist (maybe true, maybe not), it would be risky to compromise in said instance.

 

And I don't inherently think you should give up compromise or the Warden simply because other people dislike it. I express desire for features/different resources all the time (I don't really love romances too much). It's more that I don't see Bioware caving on this point any more than I see them removing romances. 

 

 

F) It's Bioware's job not mine, why should I answer? Which may I add is a poor response in and of itself, sure you may not be the head engineer at Ford doesn't mean you cant discuss its engines or say "that it would be better if..." and upon criticism that said engine addition or change would exclude an entire group, being asked one of many questions: "why, in your view, is this a better addition so much so that it would overwhelm the cost of the loss of that group?" replying "It's Ford's job not mine! Why are you asking me?!" or to say "Ford will do what they've always done" That is to state the obvious we were in a discussion amongst ourselves not Bioware execs. (By the way I was writing on Plato at the time of the example which is why it was the first to come to mind, I do not know why I ought to explain myself but you have made it a particular point so much so as to label it obnoxious or unneeded).

 

 

I think you misunderstand what was meant by this or maybe I did a poor job of expressing it. The point was that you raised the "How does Bioware choose a side?" argument apparently as a premise against Alan to illustrate that compromise is a better alternative, because they now would not have to choose a side. This avoids two issues:

 

1) Game development inherently involves manipulating limited resources. Developers are *always* making decisions to cut or add certain features which will excite or disappoint some fans.

 

2) Even if Bioware chose compromise, it doesn't remove the question, just frames it in a different context. Instead of "Whom does Bioware choose?" from the broad category of Warden vs. new protagonist, the question shifts to "how much does Bioware add/cut for each protagonist to ideally keep both groups happy?" We're still asking something resembling the same question, at the end of the day which will leave some pleased and others disappointed. 

 

That's why I find the question odd because it's not a new problem for the game industry nor does it have a unique solution attached. How Bioware makes that decision is based on all those factors we have become accustomed to in game development: creativity, fan demand, cost, etc. 

 

It's not really a matter of my position being better than yours as much as circumstances have been laid such that I happen to be on the same side as Bioware, much like how I'm on the opposite end regarding romances. 

[dsl08002]

I think that people need to answer this.: would you buy a product that involved the warden as PC.

Simple answer YES.

cause you still want to experience Lore of dragon age

[Mummy22kids]

I think that people need to answer this.: would you buy a product that involved the warden as PC.

Simple answer YES. NO

cause you still want to experience Lore of dragon age Because you've already had the Warden as PC, and that story is over, so you want to explore new lore with a new PC.

 

Fixed it.

[In Exile]

I think that people need to answer this.: would you buy a product that involved the warden as PC.

Simple answer YES.

cause you still want to experience Lore of dragon age

 

DA:A doesn't necessarily suggest that this is the case. Even DA2 outsold it, at least based on most vague sales figures we have. Obviously not as much as DA:O, but certainly the HOF wasn't it. 

[M_Helder]

[xkg]

DA:A doesn't necessarily suggest that this is the case. Even DA2 outsold it, at least based on most vague sales figures we have. Obviously not as much as DA:O, but certainly the HOF wasn't it. 

 

That comparison looks kinda not fair IMO. One is a standalone game and the other is an expansion pack. 

If you insist of comparing them wouldn't it be more fair to make comparison like - units sold vs potential customers base ?

 

Potential customers base for:

 

DA:A -> DA:O owners -> 4-5 millions vs ~1 million sold. (1/5 of potential customers bought it)

DA2 -> X360, PS3, PC owners -> tenths of millions vs 2-3 millions sold.

 

So yeah, DA2 outsold DA:A but looking at the potential customers base for both games that proves nothing.