So now that Gaider isn't working for Bioware, is this the time to pester him to reveal all of the cut content, canceled expansion content, behind the scenes drama?
I wouldn't be surprised that his contract with Bioware contained a "What drama unfolds in Edmonton, stays in Edmonton" non-disclosure clause.
I wouldn't be surprised that his contract with Bioware contained a "What drama unfolds in Edmonton, stays in Edmonton" non-disclosure clause.
He can write it in code and leave it to us to decipher 
I don't know why developers have the penchant feeling that we hate unexpected deaths, one of the reasons Game of Thrones is so damn popular is because of the unexpected deaths. I love Varric, but I would have been happy with his death, but also sad.
'A metric butt-ton' is probably a good estimate. Stuff that we know was cut:
- The entire multiplayer option.
- Two origin stories, specifically an Avvar barbarian and a human commoner. The Avvar story was cut early because it didn't really connect to anything else, the commoner story was cut late because it was terrible.
- Jowan was going to be a full companion.
- The original plot outline involved an appearance from Celene, who would have been visiting Denerim. This would have further expanded on the idea that Cailan planning to divorce Anora and marry the Empress.
- Your non-Warden companions were originally meant to start suffering from the taint and be turned into Wardens towards the end of the game. I think it's a real shame that they didn't go through with this, although it would have caused plot problems for some characters down the line, notably Leliana.
- I believe some kind of lyrium addiction mechanic was also mooted at some point, but proved difficult to implement.
- We also know about some side quests that were planned but not implemented, as well as some plot options that didn't happen like having Alistair and Loghain in the party at the same time and denouncing Morrigan as an apostate at the Circle tower.
So Origins may not have had half its original storyline moved forward into a whole different game, but there was certainly hacking and slashing going on. Just like with every other BioWare game. (I love the story David Gaider told once about how they cut so much stuff out of BG2 he was convinced it was terrible and everybody would hate it. You can tell it was the first video game he worked on ...)
A qunari race option was cut, and the addiction mechanic was going to apply to all potions. There was also going to be a "nemesis" system (not like he famed one from that not quite so LOTR game) where each origin had a personal nemesis that would follow you through the game. So think Arl Howe.
A qunari race option was cut, and the addiction mechanic was going to apply to all potions. There was also going to be a "nemesis" system (not like he famed one from that not quite so LOTR game) where each origin had a personal nemesis that would follow you through the game. So think Arl Howe.
Huh, I'd somehow never heard about the nemesis system! That would have been interesting. Especially for the Dalish elf, whose origin otherwise has no connection to the rest of the game. (Ironically, given the ongoing importance of eluvians to the story, it's turned out to be the most connected in hindsight.)
That's the difference between Inquisition and Origins. In Origins, you can be the regent, the bastard son of the king, s***, even the protagonist of the f****** game itself and still be killed. There are no special snowflakes. Danger is shown as it is: unpredictable and potentially lethal.
In Inquisition, it's like every companion is untouchable, funny, witty and charming and too precious to lose. And if you disagree with it, you're a d***. F*** it. The game has to feel real. You don't walk straight into the jaws of death and no one comes out unscathed and making jokes about it, as it nothing happened.
There's too much political correctedness. Everybody's perfect. Everything happens as it should. The world revolves around you as if your actions don't matter and the Inquisitor is just a king/queen sitting on a throne. It's sickening.
A qunari race option was cut, and the addiction mechanic was going to apply to all potions. There was also going to be a "nemesis" system (not like he famed one from that not quite so LOTR game) where each origin had a personal nemesis that would follow you through the game. So think Arl Howe.
What's your source on the nemesis? That sounds really interesting.
I guarantee she would have had better hair
And I thought Jowan might have been intended to be a companion.
Jowan is interesting because he's the only origin!companion to have a coloured background to his portrait (like the recruitable companions) and his battle dialogue isn't origin specific, so it works in any context. I'm wondering just how late he was cut as companion. It seems like he was planned to be a party members until pretty late.
Jowan is interesting because he's the only origin!companion to have a coloured background to his portrait (like the recruitable companions) and his battle dialogue isn't origin specific, so it works in any context. I'm wondering just how late he was cut as companion. It seems like he was planned to be a party members until pretty late.
That's interesting. I didn't know that since I haven't done the mage Origin. I bet he was cut pretty late.
Another agonizing reminder of the fact that the world shall never know the Exalted March. It is interesting to read that Varric would have died and in many ways it makes sense. While DA2 was Hawke's story, Varric was the one telling it, so it would be symbolic for his death to end it. For some reason I've suspected that Merrill would be one of the other companions to die as it would fit her story really well in a sense of seeking redemption for her actions. Especially if the Elven ruins were supposed to be in a prominent role in the expansion. Fenris and Isabela, in turn, were very unlikely to die and not just because they could be easily removed in the base game. Both of them can too easily play a major role when the game goes to Tevinter.
As for the cuts from DAO, it is still to me really interesting how differently Gaider spoke of them in his interviews compared to the stuff not in DA2. With DAO he sounded matter-of-fact and just stating that cut content is the reality of development, with DA2 there was a lot wistfullness there. In a weird way I've always thought DA2 had probably the most managable of scope for the production, but their timetable just got squeezed to be insanely short.
That's the difference between Inquisition and Origins. In Origins, you can be the regent, the bastard son of the king, s***, even the protagonist of the f****** game itself and still be killed. There are no special snowflakes. Danger is shown as it is: unpredictable and potentially lethal.
In Inquisition, it's like every companion is untouchable, funny, witty and charming and too precious to lose. And if you disagree with it, you're a d***. F*** it. The game has to feel real. You don't walk straight into the jaws of death and no one comes out unscathed and making jokes about it, as it nothing happened.
There's too much political correctedness. Everybody's perfect. Everything happens as it should. The world revolves around you as if your actions don't matter and the Inquisitor is just a king/queen sitting on a throne. It's sickening.
Nail on the head.
I love Inquisition, but there's no real danger to the game. I hope future Bioware games look at Mass Effect 2 and Origins when they create future games.
Did we play the same Origins game? Because the one I played had the most special snowflake protagonist of all time, and every "hard" decision in the game had a third easy way out where no one had to die.
A qunari race option was cut, and the addiction mechanic was going to apply to all potions. There was also going to be a "nemesis" system (not like he famed one from that not quite so LOTR game) where each origin had a personal nemesis that would follow you through the game. So think Arl Howe.
Did we play the same Origins game? Because the one I played had the most special snowflake protagonist of all time, and every "hard" decision in the game had a third easy way out where no one had to die.
Well the addiction angle would have decreased complaints about endlessly spamming healing potions. To be replaced with complaints about addiction.
I am glad the nemesis system didn't remain, as that might feel a bit too gamey. Having some Origins reappear in the game but not all at least made them feel more unique and less formulaic. I would have enjoyed having more references to Origing in dialing options, though. I did like the background dialogue options in DAI, that was one of my favorite features.
I don't know how a Grey Warden who has to abandon their old life, drink slow acting poison which will lead to an early death if they aren't killed by darkspawn, witness two comrades be killed in their Joining, see the carnage of Ostagar is a special snowflake. Plus, it's not like other Wardens couldn't stop the Blight, they were just not in Ferelden at the time. The PC was the only person who could prevent the Blight from destroying the country, but the other Wardens would have prevented the Blight from taking over the world, like they had four times before.
The Inquisitor is the only person who can close the world-ending Breach, close hundreds of rifts across the world, is proclaimed a religious figure and exonerated from blame within the first half hour of the game, and is not able to die by the end of Trespasser.
Plus, The Warden doesn't even have to land the winning blow, which in that sense makes them a decoy protagonist to Alistair (less so Loghain).
Should've happened... and I like Varric.
If anything, I prefer people sticking to a vision rather than being pressured by "market realities". Which is really what this boils down to. And it's why game stories still suck compared to the average novel.
Oh no I don't find it odd at all. I still hold a grudge against them for the cancellation of Exalted March (and against all that caused it) I really wish they could have gone with the story they had in mind no matter what. Sadly it was impossibile because of marketing/budget/whatever reason...
And I still wonder how Inquisition story would have been if they could have properly finished Hawke's story in the previous installation.
I'm not sure it would have changes things all that much, other than perhaps affecting the way Hawke is introduced in the story (and obviously eliminating Varic). Inquisition sort of feels like it begins at the end of the mage rebellion. We are essentially in a state of armistice, both sides are coming to the table to talk, and then we introduce a new plot point that spins the narrative toward a new focus (quizzy, Cory, and the breach). The sad thing about the lost Exalted March DLC is it feels like an essential piece of story sort of got lost in the vapor.
Heck, if it went through, then the events of Trespasser might have been the mid point of DAI and the rest of the content being reserved for DA4 been included.
I'm actually really happy with the place, and manner, that Trespasser ended. It was a pleasant way to end the inquisitor's adventuring, with just enough sadness to make it feel earned, and the right amount of sequel baiting. For my money, this ending is in the conversation for the best ending to a Bioware game, so I'm happy it occurs where it does. I'm not convinced it would have worked better in the middle, but who knows.
This is a good reminder @Hrungr. Design is always a negotiation, especially when there is a lot of money involved. Something important to the creators, and probably the fans, is going to be lost in that process. As a few people have hinted, we tend to be more aware of this with sequels, since with DA:O (a game that also lost an enormous amount of original content) we didn't really have any expectations yet.
I don't know how a Grey Warden who has to abandon their old life, drink slow acting poison which will lead to an early death if they aren't killed by darkspawn, witness two comrades be killed in their Joining, see the carnage of Ostagar is a special snowflake. Plus, it's not like other Wardens couldn't stop the Blight, they were just not in Ferelden at the time. The PC was the only person who could prevent the Blight from destroying the country, but the other Wardens would have prevented the Blight from taking over the world, like they had four times before.
The Inquisitor is the only person who can close the world-ending Breach, close hundreds of rifts across the world, is proclaimed a religious figure and exonerated from blame within the first half hour of the game, and is not able to die by the end of Trespasser.
- The player hasn't experienced the characters old life, so that's not a loss for the player, and half the origins have absolutely terrible lives, so it's no loss for the character either.
- Witness comrades die? You mean the NPC who was in your team for 10 minutes? I'm sure they were real broken up about that. Whilst every single character you recruit conveniently never gets infected despite fighting darkspawn even though the lore states they should.
- What's so special about Ostagar? Every character in any game goes through bad battles, this was just a another version of the Haven attack. You don't know anyone who dies in that battle, they were all people you met an hour ago.
- Your character does nothing special, but gets chosen to become a Warden, every other Warden then conveniently gets killed, and the only other Warden despite having more experience puts you in charge after knowing you for half a day.
- Every single time you have to make a "hard" choice, you are given a way out. Werewolves vs Elves - make peace between them, Conner or Isolde - just go to the circle, someone has to die to defeat the archdeacon - just have a baby. Every choice has a way for you to get through with no loss.
- The Inquisitor is always maimed after being played for a fool the entire game. They don't achieve anything by it, and are now disabled for life. The Warden can choose to die in a way that shows they are a great hero that will be remembered and loved by everyone for all eternity.
- The Inquisitor is a "snowflake" in the sense they are the only one who can stop the breach, but they are a snowflake on purpose. The game gives you a power you have done nothing to deserve, and makes people worship you when you don't deserve it, and makes sure you are aware you don't deserve it. That's an interesting and horrifying situation to role-play in. Unless you are an Andrastian human you have no reason to believe what anyone says, and if you do believe it than the game shows you are completely wrong. Playing a character who has to deal with that is the most interesting situation a Bioware game has ever put me in. The Warden has to deal with everyone thinking they are great, because they are just that great.
I hope future Bioware games look at Mass Effect 2 and Origins when they create future games.
I hope not. Those are my least favorite games in their respective franchises.
I'm actually really happy with the place, and manner, that Trespasser ended. It was a pleasant way to end the inquisitor's adventuring, with just enough sadness to make it feel earned, and the right amount of sequel baiting. For my money, this ending is in the conversation for the best ending to a Bioware game, so I'm happy it occurs where it does. I'm not convinced it would have worked better in the middle, but who knows.
- The player hasn't experienced the characters old life, so that's not a loss for the player, and half the origins have absolutely terrible lives, so it's no loss for the character either.
- Witness comrades die? You mean the NPC who was in your team for 10 minutes? I'm sure they were real broken up about that. Whilst every single character you recruit conveniently never gets infected despite fighting darkspawn even though the lore states they should.
- What's so special about Ostagar? Every character in any game goes through bad battles, this was just a another version of the Haven attack. You don't know anyone who dies in that battle, they were all people you met an hour ago.
- Your character does nothing special, but gets chosen to become a Warden, every other Warden then conveniently gets killed, and the only other Warden despite having more experience puts you in charge after knowing you for half a day.
- Every single time you have to make a "hard" choice, you are given a way out. Werewolves vs Elves - make peace between them, Conner or Isolde - just go to the circle, someone has to die to defeat the archdeacon - just have a baby. Every choice has a way for you to get through with no loss.
- The Inquisitor is always maimed after being played for a fool the entire game. They don't achieve anything by it, and are now disabled for life. The Warden can choose to die in a way that shows they are a great hero that will be remembered and loved by everyone for all eternity.
- The Inquisitor is a "snowflake" in the sense they are the only one who can stop the breach, but they are a snowflake on purpose. The game gives you a power you have done nothing to deserve, and makes people worship you when you don't deserve it, and makes sure you are aware you don't deserve it. That's an interesting and horrifying situation to role-play in. Unless you are an Andrastian human you have no reason to believe what anyone says, and if you do believe it than the game shows you are completely wrong. Playing a character who has to deal with that is the most interesting situation a Bioware game has ever put me in. The Warden has to deal with everyone thinking they are great, because they are just that great.
None of the things you mention has any effect on the Warden. The game gives you one 20 second cutscene of a dragon and goes "oooo scary dreams". But these dreams never affect your character in any way. Compare them to Baldur's Gate, where you have detailed nightmares throughout the entire game, and sleeping can literally turn you into a monster in 2. In Origins, absolutely nothing. The Calling is 30 years removed. A potential consequence 30 years after the game ends, which only occurs if you don't find another option and your character is been shown looking and making progress towards another option does not count as something bad. That's so far removed it's irrelevant.
Why are you asking why the Herald isn't a snowflake, when I explicitly explain in my post that they are a snowflake and it was done on purpose? The entire premise of the game is that you thrust into a role from nothing and everyone thinks you are something you are not.
Are you going to tell someone who lost a limb in a war that's its no big deal, and wasn't a great loss for them? Should they just shrug it off and not be affected? When have I ever said someone with a disability can't live a great life? Being able to live a great life does not mean a loss of a limb is just no big deal.
You can say "oh but maybe God was still there in some way" all you want, there's nothing to back it up. A quite mundane explanation is given in game, and if you are going to claim it was God then every other event could also have been cause by God and all your heroes are chosen.
The Warden hardly did anything to get Duncan's attention, they just killed a few low level enemies that anyone else could have done. If they did more then that, then I guess they were just so super amazingly awesome before the game even started.
I don't like the way the Inquisitors is leading from the start, but that's gameplay-story segregation. You are not supposed to be in charge and making decisions until Skyhold, but it was badly handled. Whilst the plotin Origins explicitly has everyone else put you in charge despite being the least experienced.
You have to go out of your way to get anyone killed in Origins. The game occasionally giving you psychotically evil options does not make it difficult to keep your companions alive. And how can you defend Origins with the fact that you can kill your companions for really stupid reasons, whilst complaining that you can kill Bull as a logical consequence of a choice you made? You chose for Bull to follow the Qun, when the Qun attacks he follows. Makes sense. But I guess our choices aren't allowed to have bad consequences now? Bull should be willing to murder his friends for the Qun, but not you, you have to be more special than his entire crew?
None of the things you mention has any effect on the Warden. The game gives you one 20 second cutscene of a dragon and goes "oooo scary dreams". But these dreams never affect your character in any way. Compare them to Baldur's Gate, where you have detailed nightmares throughout the entire game, and sleeping can literally turn you into a monster in 2. In Origins, absolutely nothing. The Calling is 30 years removed. A potential consequence 30 years after the game ends, which only occurs if you don't find another option and your character is been shown looking and making progress towards another option does not count as something bad. That's so far removed it's irrelevant.
Your criteria for special snowflake is very narrow: it's only things that you feel a personal connection to which you consider valid criteria. This is a roleplaying game, we're supposed to be putting ourselves in the character's shoes and imagining how the events in game are affecting them. So you liked BG1's dreams better than DAO's. Because you liked one style more than the other, DAO's doesn't count? And because the game doesn't fast forward to the Warden dying a horrible death, it's not valid to consider? It's not a "potential consequence," it's a certainty at this point. Yes, if there is a cure for the Calling then the situation will change, but apart from Avernus, every Warden in history has either turned into a ghoul like Larius or gone into the Deep Roads for suicide by combat.
Why are you asking why the Herald isn't a snowflake, when I explicitly explain in my post that they are a snowflake and it was done on purpose? The entire premise of the game is that you thrust into a role from nothing and everyone thinks you are something you are not.
Because you are claiming the Warden is more of a special snowflake than the Inquisitor, and you even say the Inquisitor is a "snowflake" who turns out not to be special at all when they find out they weren't Andraste's Herald.
"Did we play the same Origins game? Because the one I played had the most special snowflake protagonist of all time"
Are you going to tell someone who lost a limb in a war that's its no big deal, and wasn't a great loss for them? Should they just shrug it off and not be affected? When have I ever said someone with a disability can't live a great life? Being able to live a great life does not mean a loss of a limb is just no big deal.
You implied that because the Warden can die, they are seen as more of a hero with a heroic sacrifice than someone who was "merely" wounded and disabled.
You can say "oh but maybe God was still there in some way" all you want, there's nothing to back it up. A quite mundane explanation is given in game, and if you are going to claim it was God then every other event could also have been cause by God and all your heroes are chosen.
This is how religion works, especially the Chant of Light, which explicitly states that the Maker won't return to Thedas until the four corners of the world speak the Chant. It's actually heretical to the Chantry to claim that we're the Herald of Andraste, as doctrine says that there is no divine intervention.
And the spirit in the Fade mentions that just because it wasn't directly Andraste intervening doesn't mean the Inquisitor can't be an instrument of the Maker.
IQ: Then neither the Maker nor Andraste were in any way involved in this! I'm just..."
DJ: If you believe in the Maker, then you believe He made this world and everything in it, including your accident. And if you do not, then nothing has changed.
The quest deliberately leaves this ambiguous: people can decide if the spirit was just a spirit of faith or some remnant of Justinia, and they can decide if we're doing the Maker's plan even if we're not directly touched by Andraste.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof
dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
The Warden hardly did anything to get Duncan's attention, they just killed a few low level enemies that anyone else could have done. If they did more then that, then I guess they were just so super amazingly awesome before the game even started.
Now you're just ignoring fact for the sake of your argument, and basically making it "impossible" to prove your argument wrong. So either the Origins didn't show anything special, or if they did, then the Warden was a snowflake. So in what circumstance would the Warden not count as a special snowflake and still get Duncan's attention for you?
The Origins showed how they got Duncan's attention in a realistic manner. They used their resources available to get out of a bad situation and showed the resourcefulness, strength of character, and courage to become a Warden.
I don't like the way the Inquisitors is leading from the start, but that's gameplay-story segregation. You are not supposed to be in charge and making decisions until Skyhold, but it was badly handled. Whilst the plotin Origins explicitly has everyone else put you in charge despite being the least experienced.
So it's gameplay-story segregation for DAI but not for DAO. And while neither Cassandra nor the advisors challenge our decisions up until Skyhold, Sten does challenge our leadership in Haven, Alistair and Morrigan explicitly talk about why he's deferring to us, while Cassandra makes no mention of why she isn't taking control. The mission in DAO was to secure allies for the Grey Wardens. Why would anyone except the PC or Alistair be leading the group? Even if Wynne is more powerful and experienced, or Shale is more powerful, or Sten was the leader of troops, they willingly joined for their own reasons, not because they wanted to take charge of the mission. And why would allies listen to a non-Warden about conscripts against the Blight when there are two Wardens standing behind that non-Warden leader?
You have to go out of your way to get anyone killed in Origins. The game occasionally giving you psychotically evil options does not make it difficult to keep your companions alive. And how can you defend Origins with the fact that you can kill your companions for really stupid reasons, whilst complaining that you can kill Bull as a logical consequence of a choice you made? You chose for Bull to follow the Qun, when the Qun attacks he follows. Makes sense. But I guess our choices aren't allowed to have bad consequences now? Bull should be willing to murder his friends for the Qun, but not you, you have to be more special than his entire crew?
So because you don't think the reasons for why companions die in DAO are valid, the examples don't count. Your argument boils down to "even though it's in the game, I can rationalize why it doesn't count, unless it supports my argument."
Given that I didn't like Varric at all until DAI, killing him in a DA2 DLC (which I almost certainly wouldn't have played) would have rendered him wholly forgettable.
Again, you're trying too hard.
None of the DA2 NPCs were memorable. In fact, the names of only three of them immediately spring to mind (Varric, Fenris, Isabela - I came up with Anders after several seconds of thinking). It was just a boring game.Again, you're trying too hard.
None of the DA2 NPCs were memorable. In fact, the names of only three of them immediately spring to mind (Varric, Fenris, Isabela - I came up with Anders after several seconds of thinking). It was just a boring game.
I engage with characters by playing them, and I barely got to play the companions in DA2. I had to use a mod to be able to equip them with armour, I was unable to change their combat roles, and I couldn't have real conversations with them (because Hawke's paraphrases and that abysmal dominant personality system got in the way).
They weren't even fun to play in combat, because the combat was dull.
DA2 did some things well. I really liked the framed narrative and the unreliable narrator, and the addition of melee friendly fire was terrific. If only the combat mechanics weren't so asymmetrical as to make friendly fire a punishment rather than a fun bit of realism.
In fact, DA2's handling of friendly fire is actually better than DAI's, because the enemies in DAI are never subject to friendly fire.
How Anders is a forgettable character in DA2 is mind boggling 
Did you finish a playthrough in DA2 or stop before the end?
I gave up at the start of Act 3, because there was nothing left to do that wasn't wildly out of character. And it was a relief, because I wasn't enjoying it at all.How Anders is a forgettable character in DA2 is mind boggling
Did you finish a playthrough in DA2 or stop before the end?
Retour en haut
