260 réponses à ce sujet

[Abelas Forever!]

If the devs have already developed interesting characters I don't see why they couldn't bring them back even if those characters could have died in previous games. There are benefits for bringing them back instead of just developing new characters. People already know these characters and it's interesting to see how these old characters have changed after the events of previous games. If some other character replaces this old character in world states when this old character have died then playing the game with the old character changes the overall feeling of the game comparing the situation when the replacement is there and I think this adds the replayability.

Of course it's not a good idea to bring back a lot of old characters in one game but I don't see why they couldn't bring back one or two for example.

[Lady Artifice]

Yeah, I know.

 

It's all about the money and not about making a good game.

 

I think it's about both. Time and money are essential factors in making a quality game.

[Qun00]

Shale can't return. Her fate can't even be chosen in the Keep.

[TK514]

The Hero of Ferelden.  Long may they rot.

[Former_Fiend]

An example of when this is done right and when this is done wrong;

 

Alistair's cameo as a warden in DA2 was fine. Served a purpose. Alistair's cameo as king in DA2 was pointless and a waste of time.

[Xilizhra]

You know, I admit, I don't see much wrong with doing it like Mass Effect, where you get non-critical but pleasant bonuses for keeping people alive between games.

[Former_Fiend]

You know, I admit, I don't see much wrong with doing it like Mass Effect, where you get non-critical but pleasant bonuses for keeping people alive between games.

 

My issue there is strictly in line with taking non-companion characters who can die and then making them companions in a later game. 

 

I don't consider, hypothetically, going from nine to six companions because you chose to off a few seemingly unimportant people the last time around to be "non-critical".

 

When applied to pre-established companions, I have less of a problem with it, but I'm opposed to carry over companions in general. I prefer to see new character concepts.

[Xilizhra]

 

My issue there is strictly in line with taking non-companion characters who can die and then making them companions in a later game. 

 

I don't consider, hypothetically, going from nine to six companions because you chose to off a few seemingly unimportant people the last time around to be "non-critical".

 

When applied to pre-established companions, I have less of a problem with it, but I'm opposed to carry over companions in general. I prefer to see new character concepts.

Oh, I definitely wouldn't advocate them returning as companions.

 

New character concepts are nice, but sometimes, old character concepts just work better for plot points that you've come up with.

[Former_Fiend]

Oh, I definitely wouldn't advocate them returning as companions.

 

New character concepts are nice, but sometimes, old character concepts just work better for plot points that you've come up with.

 

True. I get the need for it sometimes. 

 

I'm just hoping that with DA4, with the break to Tevinter, that any role they'd require of a previous companion - be it Dorian, Cole, or whoever - can be satisfied by placing that person as a major NPC.

[Aren]

It is more believable that the person who we never saw die is alive when compared to the person who we saw killed on screen and then heard characters talk about how he was dead.  So, yes, you are correct that it is definitely more believable that Calpernia, who we never saw die, is alive than Abelas, who was killed and confirmed dead in game.

I honestly don't see the issue for Abelas ,2:36 that spark seems his soul who abandon the body,kinda what Corypheus did in DAII.

Solas said

first of my people don't die so easily.

This is just another Corypheus situation

[AresKeith]

I honestly don't see the issue for Abelas ,2:36 that spark seems his soul who abandon the body,kinda what Corypheus did in DAII.

Solas said

first of my people don't die so easily.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Solas was referring to the Elven "gods"

[Abelas Forever!]

I'm pretty sure Solas was referring to the Elven "gods"

Spoilers for tresspasser

Spoiler

Elven gods are just powerful mages and we know that at least they don't die easily. Abelas is the leader of the sentinels and because of that he most likely has more power than the rest of the sentinels. He most likely isn't as powerful as the elven gods but he could easily be powerful enought to survive that stabbing.

[daveliam]

As usual, there's a lot of "most likely"'s and hypotheticals in that explanation.  We see Abelas get stabbed.  He stops his spell.  Blood flows from his mouth.  He falls down onto the ground dead.  And then characters talk about how he's dead while standing over his dead body.  The reality that we know is that Abelas is a guardian and that the guardians can be killed.  We've had zero indication that he's anything more special than the rest of the mobs that we slice through and who's deaths are not in question.  Why is Abelas different?  Because he's 'the leader'?  Or because people find him dreamy?  I'm all for crushing on a character, but that crushing shouldn't supercede the story.

[Panda]

I think this bringing back characters is quite problematic, since it goes against players choices in the game. Bioware could counter it with making less options for characters to die, especially if they are planning to bring them back or are unsure if they want to bring them back for example Leliana and Anders. Though this might be seen as negative too, if less people die there is less drama.

 

It can be too hard for Bioware to do what happened in ME3 which is making alternative character for most ME2 companions that could have died, it just takes lot of resources or so I would think and if the list of returning-dead characters is long it can be draining. Then it would be good to make returns of characters more as unimportant cameos that could be just missing in the game if characters have died.

 

What becomes to Abelas, well if Morrigan stabbed him I think he's dead. I'm still mad that we couldn't call Morrigan out for that at all, she just murdered someone in cold blood and you can't even get angry.

[Aren]

I'm pretty sure Solas was referring to the Elven "gods"

People tend too often to underestimate the power behind the pray of Mythal.

Flemeth was killed in body in DAO,and yet Merril with her knowledge about an ancient elven pray to Mythal resurrected her

(i don't even know who taught to her,maybe Flemeth)

Same here,before to die Abelas said something to Mythal,and then his soul escaped from his body instead to reach the fade like what happen in all normal cases.

[Aren]

As usual, there's a lot of "most likely"'s and hypotheticals in that explanation.  We see Abelas get stabbed.  He stops his spell.  Blood flows from his mouth.  He falls down onto the ground dead.  And then characters talk about how he's dead while standing over his dead body.  The reality that we know is that Abelas is a guardian and that the guardians can be killed.  We've had zero indication that he's anything more special than the rest of the mobs that we slice through and who's deaths are not in question.  Why is Abelas different?  Because he's 'the leader'?  Or because people find him dreamy?  I'm all for crushing on a character, but that crushing shouldn't supercede the story.

He is different because he is associated to Mythal,who proved already to possess the quality to allow to her affiliates to return into the world,if certain condition are resolved.

Abelas said that others sentinels died over the centuries due to intrusions,but this was due to the fact that Mythal was absent,she only returned 400 years before of the Dragon age.

 

[Andromelek]

He is different because he is associated to Mythal,who proved already to possess the quality to allow to her affiliates to return into the world,if certain condition are resolved.
Abelas said that others sentinels died over the centuries due to intrusions,but this was due to the fact that Mythal was absent,she only returned 400 years before of the Dragon age.

Wait, wasn't Flemeth born on Towers Age? that would be 600.

[Abelas Forever!]

As usual, there's a lot of "most likely"'s and hypotheticals in that explanation.  We see Abelas get stabbed.  He stops his spell.  Blood flows from his mouth.  He falls down onto the ground dead.  And then characters talk about how he's dead while standing over his dead body.  The reality that we know is that Abelas is a guardian and that the guardians can be killed.  We've had zero indication that he's anything more special than the rest of the mobs that we slice through and who's deaths are not in question.  Why is Abelas different?  Because he's 'the leader'?  Or because people find him dreamy?  I'm all for crushing on a character, but that crushing shouldn't supercede the story.

I use a lot of words like "most likely" because there are a lot of possibilities how the devs can explain that Abelas actually didn't die if they want to do that or if they want to bring him back they can also choose some other way like replacing him with another character in those playtroughs when he is dead.

Characters talking about Abelas death doesn't mean that he actually died. Those characters just think he is dead. It's the same situation when Inky comes out of the Fade and says that the one who was left behind is dead even though it's hinted that the one who will be left behind might die. Whether that person is dead is unknown at this point. Inky believes that he/she is dead but I as a player see that it might not be the case.

Elven mages gathered power and by doing that they were able to convince others that they are gods and killing those gods is not easy. This didn't happen suddenly so I think it's safe to assume that the more higher one person's position was in elven empire the more powerful that person was and was harder to kill. Besides Mythal/Flemeth possessed a way to resurrect herself so it's not that far fetched to assume that the leader of her sentinels had the same ability.

The reality here is that ancient elves had means to do things that normal people or even mages these days couldn't do. We only know that they knew more about magic than the people these days and their magic was more powerful than the magic these days is We don't know all of their secrets but we know that they had them.

It's true that I like Abelas and because that I'm willing to see more ways that he actually didn't die. But isn't that always like that? I hate a character and I don't want to see that character in the future so I want to concentrate on things how that character can't be seen again? Or I don't like returning characters so concentrate on ways that characters can't be brought back?

How is my crushing superseding the story?

[daveliam]

Again, I don't mind returning characters.  If a character can't be killed, then I'm totally in favor of them returning.  If a character can be killed, then I'm still totally in favor of them returning, but in a minor role where their absence won't be missed or a substitute character can play the role.  I'm not in favor of characters that can be killed returning as companions or major (not excludable or replaceable) NPCs.  I'm not advocating that there should be less deaths.  I'm saying that if they devs think a character has potential to return, they leave a door open that doesn't require a deus ex machina.  And, if they haven't left a door open that doesn't require a handwaving "because of magic" explanation, then I'd prefer for the characters to not be companions/major NPCs. 

 

Fundamentally, it's the difference between Abelas and Calpernia.  Abelas is killed on screen.  We see him die and characters discuss how he's dead while standing over his dead body.  Calpernia's fate is ambiguous.  She jumps off a ledge into water.  She might be dead.  She might not be.  For Abelas to come back, we'd have to have an explanation that doesn't fit for the scene.  Either the well would have to restorative powers that we've never heard about.  Or Abelas would have to be a special snowflake Ancient Elf who can survive where others can't.  Or he has to have the ability for his soul to leave his body at will, which we've never seen evidence for.  Or he'd have to have a horocrux out there with part of his soul trapped in it, which we have no reason to think.  There's no good explanation for his survival other than "because of to be determined magic" and that's not a good enough reason for me.

 

I don't dislike Abelas (although I dislike some of his fans -- not you, though, since you are always polite).  If his fate was ambiguous, I'd be fine with his return.  Had he fallen into the Well or been stabbed and was 'dying' as we left his still living body behind or we saw him perform a spell at his death and seen magical spirit smoke leaving his body and traveling into another being or anything like that, I'd be cool with it.  But we don't.  We see a mortal get stabbed and die and then we stand around near his dead body discussing how he's dead.  It's not up for debate in my opinion and no one's been able to change my mind because of their arguments because there hasn't been an argument outside of "maybe because of to be determined magic?"

 

I understand liking a character.  Sigrun is one of my all time favorite characters (definitely top 3 of all time).  But I would never root for her to come back because she's dead in the majority of playthroughs.  I think there's more to explore about her character but I accept that the most I'll get is a passing reference or brief optional cameo.

[MadMadCarl]

Again, I don't mind returning characters.  If a character can't be killed, then I'm totally in favor of them returning.  If a character can be killed, then I'm still totally in favor of them returning, but in a minor role where their absence won't be missed or a substitute character can play the role.  I'm not in favor of characters that can be killed returning as companions or major (not excludable or replaceable) NPCs.  I'm not advocating that there should be less deaths.  I'm saying that if they devs think a character has potential to return, they leave a door open that doesn't require a deus ex machina.  And, if they haven't left a door open that doesn't require a handwaving "because of magic" explanation, then I'd prefer for the characters to not be companions/major NPCs. 

 

Fundamentally, it's the difference between Abelas and Calpernia.  Abelas is killed on screen.  We see him die and characters discuss how he's dead while standing over his dead body.  Calpernia's fate is ambiguous.  She jumps off a ledge into water.  She might be dead.  She might not be.  For Abelas to come back, we'd have to have an explanation that doesn't fit for the scene.  Either the well would have to restorative powers that we've never heard about.  Or Abelas would have to be a special snowflake Ancient Elf who can survive where others can't.  Or he has to have the ability for his soul to leave his body at will, which we've never seen evidence for.  Or he'd have to have a horocrux out there with part of his soul trapped in it, which we have no reason to think.  There's no good explanation for his survival other than "because of to be determined magic" and that's not a good enough reason for me.

 

I don't dislike Abelas (although I dislike some of his fans -- not you, though, since you are always polite).  If his fate was ambiguous, I'd be fine with his return.  Had he fallen into the Well or been stabbed and was 'dying' as we left his still living body behind or we saw him perform a spell at his death and seen magical spirit smoke leaving his body and traveling into another being or anything like that, I'd be cool with it.  But we don't.  We see a mortal get stabbed and die and then we stand around near his dead body discussing how he's dead.  It's not up for debate in my opinion and no one's been able to change my mind because of their arguments because there hasn't been an argument outside of "maybe because of to be determined magic?"

 

I understand liking a character.  Sigrun is one of my all time favorite characters (definitely top 3 of all time).  But I would never root for her to come back because she's dead in the majority of playthroughs.  I think there's more to explore about her character but I accept that the most I'll get is a passing reference or brief optional cameo.

Yavanna was killed on screen too, and I don't see why calpernia would be lucky with gravity if she was wound by the fight, why you are less against them returning? honestly i would not mind abelas returning either, he has the tattoos that solas say were for the slaves, and the well had the memory of the priests before him, so, that means they died too.

[vertigomez]

I understand liking a character.  Sigrun is one of my all time favorite characters (definitely top 3 of all time).  But I would never root for her to come back because she's dead in the majority of playthroughs.  I think there's more to explore about her character but I accept that the most I'll get is a passing reference or brief optional cameo.

*cries into whiskey*

[daveliam]

I was strongly against Yavana returning until I was told that she possesses dragons and, right after she was stabbed but was still alive, we see smoke rising from her body and transferring into a dragon.  I still think it's a little questionable, but at least the door is open.  And the pieces are all there already.  If people were making things up, like "What if she was able to possess dragons?" or "What if she happens to have an ability that we've never seen her do before?", then I'd be against her return again.  Maybe I'm not understanding the scene appropriately, though.

 

Calpernia jumps into water.  People survive leaps into water all the time.  There's no reason to make up reasons why she should survive because it's common sense.  Sometimes people die in leaps like that.  Sometimes they don't.  Again, the door is open.  If she leapt off the cliff and hit rocks on the way down and then her body floated away, I'd say that the door would be closed. 

[Abelas Forever!]

I think this bringing back characters is quite problematic, since it goes against players choices in the game. Bioware could counter it with making less options for characters to die, especially if they are planning to bring them back or are unsure if they want to bring them back for example Leliana and Anders. Though this might be seen as negative too, if less people die there is less drama.

 

It can be too hard for Bioware to do what happened in ME3 which is making alternative character for most ME2 companions that could have died, it just takes lot of resources or so I would think and if the list of returning-dead characters is long it can be draining. Then it would be good to make returns of characters more as unimportant cameos that could be just missing in the game if characters have died.

 

What becomes to Abelas, well if Morrigan stabbed him I think he's dead. I'm still mad that we couldn't call Morrigan out for that at all, she just murdered someone in cold blood and you can't even get angry.

I think bringing back any character is problematic even if they are always alive because the character's story might differ greatly depending on your actions so bringing back possible dead characters is not that much problematic when  comparing it to bringing back any character.

If the dead characters are brought back so that nobody will replace them in playthroughs when they are dead then the choices of those who decided to kill them are respected. Also if there is characters that replaces those possible dead characters then player's choices are respected again and there are consequences of your actions. If the possible dead character is your companion or your advisor then the consequences of killing him/her has more meaning comparing to the situation when he/she would make just a cameo.

I think the problem with ME3 was like you said that there was a need to create replacing characters for many original characters. But if the devs think that they will bring back one or two possible dead characters then I don't see that it will make things overly complicated.
 

[Panda]

I think bringing back any character is problematic even if they are always alive because the character's story might differ greatly depending on your actions so bringing back possible dead characters is not that much problematic when  comparing it to bringing back any character.

If the dead characters are brought back so that nobody will replace them in playthroughs when they are dead then the choices of those who decided to kill them are respected. Also if there is characters that replaces those possible dead characters then player's choices are respected again and there are consequences of your actions. If the possible dead character is your companion or your advisor then the consequences of killing him/her has more meaning comparing to the situation when he/she would make just a cameo.

I think the problem with ME3 was like you said that there was a need to create replacing characters for many original characters. But if the devs think that they will bring back one or two possible dead characters then I don't see that it will make things overly complicated.

 

Well I think there is own hardships in writing character in new game in way that makes sense, but I think it gives more to character development and I guess differences can be somewhat shown in characters in new game depending on what happened to them in previous games.