1118 réponses à ce sujet

[Alandros]

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

What you are suggesting creates even a bigger plot and RP hole.  If you made the ultimate sacrifice then you are dead, you are done, end of it all, hope you had fun.  Why would you continue on if your representation in the world were gone?  All of a sudden you possess a new character.  Sure that could be fun, but honestly that's a bigger RP hole, if you are dead and gone then you are such, to continue on despite sacrificing is a hole and cheap, you should start a new characters story then, considering you are a character in this world not just a meta observer of it all.  If your story ends then it ends and you made the sacrifice, not somehow get to experience the world despite being dead.

I would argue for what you said as an option (since I don't fault those who don't mind moving on with an RP hole). That hole would be bigger than just "let's say you didn't die somehow" and more along the lines of "let's pretend death means nothing and you can continue on in a new person."

You are so confused.

The option people are discussing, and which they want included in Awakening is the following: import an ultimate sacrifice epilogue save and play as the new Orlesian Grey Warden with the decisions taken in the orginal game which led up to the Warden's death reflected in the new story. Think of it as watching a movie, a sequel, which continues the original story but with a new protagonist since the original protagonist died.

This does not create a "plot and RP hole" of any form, never mind a "bigger" one. Precisely the opposite: it rigorously preserves continuity.

If you still cannot understand the issue I am not sure how it could be made any clearer.

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

What is suggested would -keep- the death but remove the player consequence of actually sacrificing yourself and not being able to play any more.  On the other hand the other route smudges up events but removes a need for a consequence.  So what you say actually seems like a cop-out to me:

My character made the ultimate sacrifice!  Wait that means my character is dead and dead people can't play expansions?... hmm you're going to say they didn't actually die but happened to survive instead and let it go with that smudge?  That's a hole!  My character died, instead let me continue on as if my character died, but leave them dead!  That way I can get all the benefits of an "Ultimate" sacrifice without having to sacrifice much.  I mean in the real world if I sacrificed myself I could just become a new person right?

Again that seems like a much bigger RP hole to me, and yet again not that I don't think it shouldn't be an option.  I think everyone should have options to accept "holes" to better their experience.  Those who don't want it can simply not take it.

[Dave of Canada]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Dethanos wrote...

If you don't like it, don't do it. Why complain about something that is optional?

This. I don't see a problem with it really. You peeps blow everything way out of proportion.

Then you aren't much of a person who cares about storyline continuity, unlike most of the "original" Bioware fans.

Would it be nice to have Ultimate Sacrifice ending in there?  Sure would and this absolutely would have been considered (if it isn't the case already).  If not, well I suppose it gives me a chance to just straaight import my original character over and save myself the hassle of redoing a lot of the end game because I have so few saves.

Pre-Faq, all info given by Bioware hinted that the Orlesian Gray Warden storyline was to be used incase the player had killed his main character and they would still be able to live through the storyline with some sense of continuity. The statue at Vigil's Keep would be there, people would still mourn you and such.

Now they come along, say "yeah, we'll retcon it for you ;)"  and explain that the Orlesian Gray Warden is only for ****s & giggles. If we want continuity between both game's playthroughs, well that's just too bad. *Mass Effect Spoilers ahead* It's like if they made Mass Effect 1's council choice completely useless, if you decided to kill them that they managed to "escape" just in the nick of time and are there anyway.

If the option isn't there then there's a good reason for it and
people trying to act like internet revolutionaries or proclaiming their
preorder canceled and faith destroyed are making themselves seem
ridiculous.  Stop being over dramatic and either wait for confirmation
or look at it from a practical, reasonable viewpoint.  It's absolutely
mind boggling to me how much abuse of those poor ellipses and gnashing
of teeth there is over something unconfirmed.

So watching as Bioware explained that choices matter and care about the playerbase, only to alienate the characters who picked the Ultimate Sacrifice, and being completely fine with it, is being "practical" and "reasonable"?

[Rylor Tormtor]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

flem1 wrote...

Axis Swordarm wrote...

If the option isn't there then there's a good reason for it

Blind faith is not an argument.

Neither is expecting every single thing to go your way because you expect an expansion development team to have infinite resources.  I don't have blind faith, there's years of frank facts laid out on these boards about why certain things are done, and how they would have liked to do them.  Blind rage is even worse and that's what carries these threads for so many pages.

Really? If one is able to import the choices and play a character from Origins, it would stand to reason that same mechanics would be available to import choices and play a new Warden. To tell you the truth, I don't care so much how they explain Morrigan's darkspawn baby, there are a number of ways. I mean, taking the taint from the warden could have just been the easiest way, she could have been hiding around the corner and sucked up some soul residue or some other convenient crap like that.

There has been no explaination as to why this option, which was implied that we had, isn't included. The FAQ is confusing at best at the topic, and at worst the omission indicates that we are, in fact, SOL. Just because you don't care about these things does mean it is immaterial, or that indicates a change in the way that Bioware has been writing their stories. Is this over-reation? Maybe for you, but welcome to the intrawebz.

[Dave of Canada]

Alandros wrote...



Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.

You still have consequences, you're dead and every companion doesn't know you. The new Orlesian Gray Warden wouldn't stroll into Ferelden being best buds with Oghren, Alistair and such. You're hated by the people, but you still get to see how much the choices impacted the world - better or worse.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Alandros wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

What you are suggesting creates even a bigger plot and RP hole.  If you made the ultimate sacrifice then you are dead, you are done, end of it all, hope you had fun.  Why would you continue on if your representation in the world were gone?  All of a sudden you possess a new character.  Sure that could be fun, but honestly that's a bigger RP hole, if you are dead and gone then you are such, to continue on despite sacrificing is a hole and cheap, you should start a new characters story then, considering you are a character in this world not just a meta observer of it all.  If your story ends then it ends and you made the sacrifice, not somehow get to experience the world despite being dead.

I would argue for what you said as an option (since I don't fault those who don't mind moving on with an RP hole). That hole would be bigger than just "let's say you didn't die somehow" and more along the lines of "let's pretend death means nothing and you can continue on in a new person."

You are so confused.

The option people are discussing, and which they want included in Awakening is the following: import an ultimate sacrifice epilogue save and play as the new Orlesian Grey Warden with the decisions taken in the orginal game which led up to the Warden's death reflected in the new story. Think of it as watching a movie, a sequel, which continues the original story but with a new protagonist since the original protagonist died.

This does not create a "plot and RP hole" of any form, never mind a "bigger" one. Precisely the opposite: it rigorously preserves continuity.

If you still cannot understand the issue I am not sure how it could be made any clearer.

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

What is suggested would -keep- the death but remove the player consequence of actually sacrificing yourself and not being able to play any more.  On the other hand the other route smudges up events but removes a need for a consequence.  So what you say actually seems like a cop-out to me:

My character made the ultimate sacrifice!  Wait that means my character is dead and dead people can't play expansions?... hmm you're going to say they didn't actually die but happened to survive instead and let it go with that smudge?  That's a hole!  My character died, instead let me continue on as if my character died, but leave them dead!  That way I can get all the benefits of an "Ultimate" sacrifice without having to sacrifice much.  I mean in the real world if I sacrificed myself I could just become a new person right?

Again that seems like a much bigger RP hole to me, and yet again not that I don't think it shouldn't be an option.  I think everyone should have options to accept "holes" to better their experience.  Those who don't want it can simply not take it.

You don't really understand what role-playing is, do you?

[Skilled Seeker]

Have the devs confirmed that the Orlesian Warden can't carry over if the player dies? Or are people jumping to conclusions? Maybe you can import the dead warden but choose to play with the new character instead.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 16 février 2010 - 10:38 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Have the devs confirmed that the Orlesian Warden can't carry over if the player dies? Or are people jumping to conclusions? Maybe you can import the dead warden but choose to play with the new character instead.

This is what we hope is true, but the FAQ, either by accidental or purposeful omission, seems to contradict that. Normally I would be the first to give Bioware the benifit of the doubt, but these seems to be contrary to what was implied before.

[Axis Swordarm]

flem1 wrote...

 Your "Bio never bombs" credo shouldn't have survived Warden's Keep or RtO.

So I should abandon any logic and reason to instead ...post...like this about my slow loss...of faith :(

I'm not sitting here furiously F5ing for information, I'm going off all the details I've had in the past that though it may be a good idea there's always been a decent explanation given if it isn't the case.  I enjoyed Warden's Keep and RtO never had any issues for me, it came out just after  I finished ME2 and though I would have liked it to be longer still enjoyed what I got. 

I've been critical in the past when I thought improvements could be made but I've never seen the point in considering the dev's to be idiots. People don't have to be fanboys to feel embarassed reading over dramatic posts, I've said I like the idea and I'll be disappointed if it isn't in the expansion, but there's no need to believe the worst from the start and start blaming the usual Drama Bomb suspects such as Console Crowd, EA etc.

I'll leave you all to your anguish.

[Alandros]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

Alandros wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

What you are suggesting creates even a bigger plot and RP hole.  If you made the ultimate sacrifice then you are dead, you are done, end of it all, hope you had fun.  Why would you continue on if your representation in the world were gone?  All of a sudden you possess a new character.  Sure that could be fun, but honestly that's a bigger RP hole, if you are dead and gone then you are such, to continue on despite sacrificing is a hole and cheap, you should start a new characters story then, considering you are a character in this world not just a meta observer of it all.  If your story ends then it ends and you made the sacrifice, not somehow get to experience the world despite being dead.

I would argue for what you said as an option (since I don't fault those who don't mind moving on with an RP hole). That hole would be bigger than just "let's say you didn't die somehow" and more along the lines of "let's pretend death means nothing and you can continue on in a new person."

You are so confused.

The option people are discussing, and which they want included in Awakening is the following: import an ultimate sacrifice epilogue save and play as the new Orlesian Grey Warden with the decisions taken in the orginal game which led up to the Warden's death reflected in the new story. Think of it as watching a movie, a sequel, which continues the original story but with a new protagonist since the original protagonist died.

This does not create a "plot and RP hole" of any form, never mind a "bigger" one. Precisely the opposite: it rigorously preserves continuity.

If you still cannot understand the issue I am not sure how it could be made any clearer.

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

What is suggested would -keep- the death but remove the player consequence of actually sacrificing yourself and not being able to play any more.  On the other hand the other route smudges up events but removes a need for a consequence.  So what you say actually seems like a cop-out to me:

My character made the ultimate sacrifice!  Wait that means my character is dead and dead people can't play expansions?... hmm you're going to say they didn't actually die but happened to survive instead and let it go with that smudge?  That's a hole!  My character died, instead let me continue on as if my character died, but leave them dead!  That way I can get all the benefits of an "Ultimate" sacrifice without having to sacrifice much.  I mean in the real world if I sacrificed myself I could just become a new person right?

Again that seems like a much bigger RP hole to me, and yet again not that I don't think it shouldn't be an option.  I think everyone should have options to accept "holes" to better their experience.  Those who don't want it can simply not take it.

You don't really understand what role-playing is, do you?

Why, because I actually expect you to play your role?  I mean in a single player role-playing world in which your character sacrifices themselves and dies I would expect that story to end and for you to create a new story with a new character.  

Of course people should be able to smudge the RP a bit, just like in the many D&D games I've been in where someone dies and pops in with a new character (not that a single vs. multi-player RPG doesn't have some distinct differences).  

When your character dies in combat you have to re-load and try to survive, why would you expect to be able to survive beyond death?  Creating a new character in a different "version" of that world makes much more RP sense than being able to transfer to a new character (despite that previous character being your identity) within the same thread.  That is very anti-immersive and anti-rp in my book  Not that it shouldn't be allowed but call the kettle black.

[darrenr22]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

If you still cannot understand the issue I am not sure how it could be made any clearer.

People are getting bent out of shape because the reaction to this has been so melodramatic.  It makes sense and is a very good option for sure, it hasn't been confirmed or denied either.

But if it doesn't exist then there is a reason for it, either based on time, zots or difficulties reconciling certain things and claiming Bioware are doing this intentionally to screw people is ridiculous. 

That's as may be. However, it is not directly relevant to my post since my concern was to clarify... yet again... precisely what the issue is that is under discussion.

[darrenr22]

Alandros wrote...

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

I find that an utterly bizarre opinion.

We are talking about a computer game in which one takes the role of a character on a screen. "You" did not die. If the story continues in an expansion then it is not "story over". That is the nature of fiction, whether one is reading a book or playing a game. I fail to see how the term "cheating" has any relevance whatsoever. And as I have already intimated, it is utterly bizarre to claim that the option under discussion here creates a "bigger" RP hole than one in which the Warden is mysteriously alive with some kind of unfathomable retconning of previous events, as appears to be the plan.

When I said you were confused before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely had not read a clear exposition of what the issue was. I have revised my opinion in the wake of your latest post: it seems that you are aware of the issue but, worse, your entire position, illegitimately confusing story, game and metagame issues, is basically incoherent.

[Demx]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Siradix wrote...

Just take a deep breath and remember, "What Would Duncan Do?"

Kill them if they try to escape?

Now, now, I didn't say it was a peaceful action.

[Tsuga C]

Maria Caliban wrote...

How utterly stupid.

I recall during the development when one of the writers said they wanted a setting where death had meaning. So much for that. Apparently ‘ultimate sacrifice’ is more like ‘temporary inconvenience.’

Honestly, I’d have thought that ME 2 showed how little BioWare cares about choices and consequences, but this is a new low.

Way to stir the pot, Maria! 

Access to extra resources is a fine enough concept, but this may indeed be a case of the EA/BioWare graft bearing its predicted fruit...  

[Alandros]

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

I find that an utterly bizarre opinion.

We are talking about a computer game in which one takes the role of a character on a screen. "You" did not die. If the story continues in an expansion then it is not "story over". That is the nature of fiction, whether one is reading a book or playing a game. I fail to see how the term "cheating" has any relevance whatsoever. And as I have already intimated, it is utterly bizarre to claim that the option under discussion here creates a "bigger" RP hole than one in which the Warden is mysteriously alive with some kind of unfathomable retconning of previous events, as appears to be the plan.

When I said you were confused before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely had not read a clear exposition of what the issue was. I have revised my opinion in the wake of your latest post: it seems that you are aware of the issue but, worse, your entire position, illegitimately confusing story, game and metagame issues, is basically incoherent.

Is it really that bizarre considering the entire game hinges on the surviving PC in which you identify as yourself?  If you die the game doesn't go on as if you can assume another character, right?  What does it do, stop, end, and force you to load a save.  Obviously not quite as bizarre as you might want to imply in an attempt to demean me, but oh well.

Lol, well I'll just leave it at "we'll have to agree to disagree" and I'l not respond to insults with insults *shrug*

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Have the devs confirmed that the Orlesian Warden can't carry over if the player dies? Or are people jumping to conclusions? Maybe you can import the dead warden but choose to play with the new character instead.

Since this doesn't seem to be common knowledge on the forums, I'll reshow the proof that they aren't going to be importing a world state for a new character and the reasoning behind them not doing so.

Link

Fernando Melo wrote...

Can you import the world 'state', but start new in Awakening as the
Orlesian Cmdr?  No.  The world 'state' only exists and lives on as part
of your character's choices - most of the reactivity to events and
choices in Origins would simply not make sense if it wasn't 'you' that
did it.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Alandros wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

I find that an utterly bizarre opinion.

We are talking about a computer game in which one takes the role of a character on a screen. "You" did not die. If the story continues in an expansion then it is not "story over". That is the nature of fiction, whether one is reading a book or playing a game. I fail to see how the term "cheating" has any relevance whatsoever. And as I have already intimated, it is utterly bizarre to claim that the option under discussion here creates a "bigger" RP hole than one in which the Warden is mysteriously alive with some kind of unfathomable retconning of previous events, as appears to be the plan.

When I said you were confused before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely had not read a clear exposition of what the issue was. I have revised my opinion in the wake of your latest post: it seems that you are aware of the issue but, worse, your entire position, illegitimately confusing story, game and metagame issues, is basically incoherent.

Is it really that bizarre considering the entire game hinges on the surviving PC in which you identify as yourself?  If you die the game doesn't go on as if you can assume another character, right?  What does it do, stop, end, and force you to load a save.  Obviously not quite as bizarre as you might want to imply in an attempt to demean me, but oh well.

Lol, well I'll just leave it at "we'll have to agree to disagree" and I'l not respond to insults with insults *shrug*

Yes. Yes in fact it does. Any PnP session does, to use your example. So, hypothetically speaking, if your character dies, then you are kicked out of the group and not allowed to play anymore? Or, do you make another character that has no relationship to the previous deceased one. Yes, you assume a role. But your identity as a player is immaterial to the nature of the story. If your character dies, they narrative does end. Functionally, in ends for that character, but unless your character happens to be a god upon which the entirety of the ficticious world relies, most likely there is an understanding that life, indeed, goes on.

It is super bizarre.

[Rylor Tormtor]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Have the devs confirmed that the Orlesian Warden can't carry over if the player dies? Or are people jumping to conclusions? Maybe you can import the dead warden but choose to play with the new character instead.

Since this doesn't seem to be common knowledge on the forums, I'll reshow the proof that they aren't going to be importing a world state for a new character and the reasoning behind them not doing so.

Link

Fernando Melo wrote...

Can you import the world 'state', but start new in Awakening as the
Orlesian Cmdr?  No.  The world 'state' only exists and lives on as part
of your character's choices - most of the reactivity to events and
choices in Origins would simply not make sense if it wasn't 'you' that
did it.

Ugh, this is just horrible, Way to go.

[Maedryc]

Alandros wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

I find that an utterly bizarre opinion.

We are talking about a computer game in which one takes the role of a character on a screen. "You" did not die. If the story continues in an expansion then it is not "story over". That is the nature of fiction, whether one is reading a book or playing a game. I fail to see how the term "cheating" has any relevance whatsoever. And as I have already intimated, it is utterly bizarre to claim that the option under discussion here creates a "bigger" RP hole than one in which the Warden is mysteriously alive with some kind of unfathomable retconning of previous events, as appears to be the plan.

When I said you were confused before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely had not read a clear exposition of what the issue was. I have revised my opinion in the wake of your latest post: it seems that you are aware of the issue but, worse, your entire position, illegitimately confusing story, game and metagame issues, is basically incoherent.

Is it really that bizarre considering the entire game hinges on the surviving PC in which you identify as yourself?  If you die the game doesn't go on as if you can assume another character, right?  What does it do, stop, end, and force you to load a save.  Obviously not quite as bizarre as you might want to imply in an attempt to demean me, but oh well.

Lol, well I'll just leave it at "we'll have to agree to disagree" and I'l not respond to insults with insults *shrug*

Ehm, man, nope. The first thing you learn when you start roleplaying is that player=\\= character.
Furthermore, unless the DM is trying to be a jerk, when your character dies in a campaign you're usually allowed to create a new one. So, the fact that you may be able to create a new character and still play in the same "world" where your first character died is neither cheating nor unheard for for roleplayers...in fact, it's standard practice.

[Vicious]

Right, so basically the only way the story moves forward is if you take the Dark Ritual path. Otherwise you get treated to an alternate reality involving an Orlesian Warden.



Got it!

[NKKKK]

God damn it

[Dave of Canada]

Vicious wrote...

Right, so basically the only way the story moves forward is if you take the Dark Ritual path. Otherwise you get treated to an alternate reality involving an Orlesian Warden.

Got it!

Or they could've just decided to not do the Dark Ritual path, but by some miracle you survived the thing.

Unfortunately, I think that makes it worse.

[Alandros]

Maedryc wrote...

Alandros wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Alandros wrote...

Nope, no confusion here, I completely understand and have in fact re-stated it (which should be evident).  I think what you don't understand is that in my opinion that creates a bigger hole.  You are that character, if you made the ultimate sacrifice then you died, story over, start a new one if you want to continue on.  To me being able to die and then continue on as a new character with all the choices you made in a previous character would be closer to cheating and a RP hole since it distills your sacrifice down to a minor inconvenience and no consequence to the player.  On the other hand if "somehow you survive" then the death never happened and the plot hole is a minor change to what happened, which removed a consequence to dying since you never did.  

I find that an utterly bizarre opinion.

We are talking about a computer game in which one takes the role of a character on a screen. "You" did not die. If the story continues in an expansion then it is not "story over". That is the nature of fiction, whether one is reading a book or playing a game. I fail to see how the term "cheating" has any relevance whatsoever. And as I have already intimated, it is utterly bizarre to claim that the option under discussion here creates a "bigger" RP hole than one in which the Warden is mysteriously alive with some kind of unfathomable retconning of previous events, as appears to be the plan.

When I said you were confused before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely had not read a clear exposition of what the issue was. I have revised my opinion in the wake of your latest post: it seems that you are aware of the issue but, worse, your entire position, illegitimately confusing story, game and metagame issues, is basically incoherent.

Is it really that bizarre considering the entire game hinges on the surviving PC in which you identify as yourself?  If you die the game doesn't go on as if you can assume another character, right?  What does it do, stop, end, and force you to load a save.  Obviously not quite as bizarre as you might want to imply in an attempt to demean me, but oh well.

Lol, well I'll just leave it at "we'll have to agree to disagree" and I'l not respond to insults with insults *shrug*

Ehm, man, nope. The first thing you learn when you start roleplaying is that player=\\\\= character.
Furthermore, unless the DM is trying to be a jerk, when your character dies in a campaign you're usually allowed to create a new one. So, the fact that you may be able to create a new character and still play in the same "world" where your first character died is neither cheating nor unheard for for roleplayers...in fact, it's standard practice.

Right, except the DM in Dragon Age forces you to re-start at a previous point or roll a new character... if you don't adapt it to Dragon Age applying concepts in other RPs mean nothing.

[Maferath]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Have the devs confirmed that the Orlesian Warden can't carry over if the player dies? Or are people jumping to conclusions? Maybe you can import the dead warden but choose to play with the new character instead.

Since this doesn't seem to be common knowledge on the forums, I'll reshow the proof that they aren't going to be importing a world state for a new character and the reasoning behind them not doing so.

Link

Fernando Melo wrote...

Can you import the world 'state', but start new in Awakening as the
Orlesian Cmdr?  No.  The world 'state' only exists and lives on as part
of your character's choices - most of the reactivity to events and
choices in Origins would simply not make sense if it wasn't 'you' that
did it.

wow, so it's confirmed then. 

[Madriker]

Dead Warden is dead. At least, s/he should be. Allowing one to import their Warden that made the sacrifice, without any explanation as to how they came back to life, just doesn't make sense story-wise. You want to use your Origins character in Awakening? There're options towards the end of the game that help you avoid death, I suggest choosing 'em.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...


Since this doesn't seem to be common knowledge on the forums, I'll reshow the proof that they aren't going to be importing a world state for a new character and the reasoning behind them not doing so.

Link

Wonderful.