David Gaider says Bioware decides what 'dead' means in Dragon Age 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

mireko:

While we're on the subject, have you played Arrival? If so, is it worth it?

I have not. I am planning on just watching a non-commentary LP.

witness51:
You just summed up my argument whenever someone complains about Merrill. Also, I don't get the second part. A play on the card name, being sarcastic...? I'm confused.

No, I'm serious. You have a fan.[/quote]
Thanks. I feel honored. ^^

secretsantaone:
-snip-

Read through that forum, and to be frank, even though I didn't play DA: 2, I can tell that the writer is being a dick about it...

A simple "We kept the character alive because they are important to the plot, and there is a valid reason for their being alive" would have ended the whole arguement, they wouldn't even have to explain WHY, but instead his attitude led to this whole thing.

If your going to be a public face for a company, be smart about it. Unless someone actually directly verbally attacks you, don't be an ass.

GotMalkAvian:
There are two possibilities here:

1. BioWare are really being petulant and insisting on retconning a character's possible death just because they want to force the character on every player later.

2. In a fantasy world where we can turn people into blocks of ice at will or drink magic potions that cure anything from a concussion to total deafness, it may actually be possible for a dead person to be resurrected. It doesn't seem to happen very much in the DA universe, but that's not to say that it's completely impossible.

3. They'll justify it as 2, but it will never be referenced in-game, making it 1, a retcon.

He really is pretty tetchy in that link, maybe that's what being a writer does to people, maybe he really is arrogant, who knows?

I still respect him for his work and the "straight male gamer" smackdown, so I'll just keep calm and carry on.

What everyone is missing is that what the lead writer is saying is that in the majority of the playthroughs, Leliana was not killed, and just because some people THINK that she is because of THEIR playthrough, doesn't stop Bioware from saying that's not what actually happened in the lore of the dragon age world, everyone is just skimming over his words and foaming from the mouth before thinking it through.

Dragon Age was advertised as a spiritual sequel to Baldur's Gate. They're only giving people what they originally said it would be.

How many Baldur's Gate characters came back from the dead to join you, or give you quests in Baldur's Gate II?

Quite a few.

Samechiel:

We're supposed to be wondering where Hawke and The Warden buggered off to at the end.

I liked that in the meeting with Alistair and Teegan, the way they talked gave the impression that the Hero was around quite a bit.

Teegan: ...the Hero of Ferelden should be back in Denerim by now.
Alistair: Why are you always so formal? She has a name, you know.

Hey you know, something just occurred to me. How long do you think it could be between Leliana's visit, and Alistair's visit? Weeks? Months? Depending on the time frame, it's entirely possible that the Hero accompanied Leliana on her chantry work and was kickin' around some bar somewhere while she did what she had to do.

Goddammit, my Origins Hero could have been walking around Kirkwall the whole time. She and Hawke totally could have gone bandit-smashing together.

umm just to inform you if you played witch hunt this is pretty much taken care of...... but since i cant do the dam spoiler tag thing i cant tell you what happens. shame thats not free dlc:(

Just to put some of this into perspective:

That provides 36 options alone (yes, some are mutually exclusive, but many are not) to try to support.

That's not counting all the other choices your character makes in Origins, or anything from Awakening or DA2.

Can you honestly expect BioWare to be able to support all of these choices, while creating a world that's cohesive in story? (i.e. the events of one game are not completely disjoint from the others, creating a building story with recurring characters)

There comes a point where, as a player, you have to accept that your decision was one given meaning at the given time and place, in the context of that specific game's story, but was later bypassed in the greater story at work.

secretsantaone:
This seems a bit contradictary, especially considering Bioware had been playing up the 'big choices that matter' in regards to their games and especially especially in how they didn't pull this in Mass Effect 2.

I'm not advocating that it should be overlay abused, but having NPCs act and behave behind the scenes and occasionally interfering with some of the players choices can sometimes be a good thing. It brings a lot of depth to the world by making it seem like there is more going on than what happens in a 50m bubble around you.

Bringing her back from the dead doesn't invalidate the choice, it simply changes the situation. I'm sure she won't be very happy to see the Warden if he/she didn't die.

Now will Bioware commit to that level of depth or will 'canon' simply be smoothed over will remain to be seen.

Slycne:

secretsantaone:
This seems a bit contradictary, especially considering Bioware had been playing up the 'big choices that matter' in regards to their games and especially especially in how they didn't pull this in Mass Effect 2.

I'm not advocating that it should be overlay abused, but having NPCs act and behave behind the scenes and occasionally interfering with some of the players choices can sometimes be a good thing. It brings a lot of depth to the world by making it seem like there is more going on than what happens in a 50m bubble around you.

Bringing her back from the dead doesn't invalidate the choice, it simply changes the situation. I'm sure she won't be very happy to see the Warden if he/she didn't die.

Now will Bioware commit to that level of depth or will 'canon' simply be smoothed over will remain to be seen.

My god that would be an awkward conversation. XD
Warden: "Aren't you...."
Leliana: "Dead? "
Warden: "Well....yeah...I..mean.."
Leliana: "Please, do continue."
That would be hilarious.

Jaded Scribe:

secretsantaone:

Jaded Scribe:
Reasonable explanations:

1) Brother Genitivi (who could well have explored a bit more before leaving for Denerim) finds Leliana and manages to save her with the ashes (we only have the cultist's word that defiling them has any effect. And come on, they aren't exactly reliable sources of info).

2) After hearing rumors etc, a mage with the spirit healer specialization stumbles across her body and revives her.

And if it is a bit of hand-waving/retconning, what of it? It doesn't change DA:O, and if DA3 comes out, and the Warden runs into Leliana again, you just have her set to hate the Warden. Minor plot holes happen. /shrug

1). It only heals, doesn't bring back from the dead.

2.) Your characters get 'knocked out' not killed. Spirit healers aren't necromancers.

Killing Leliana was a huge factor in Origins, choosing to bump off one of YOUR OWN party members felt like a massive decision. This basically says your decision doesn't matter and Bioware reserves the right to do it again in DA3

It feels like a major decision, but think about it... is it really?

Take away the emotional context of killing a comrade. What change did it have to the story? None. Zero. Zilch.

A little hand-waving and retconning is almost required with a game with as many choices as DA. To build scenarios for every single possible choice ever made while maintaining 100% linearity in the story requires a massive amount content to be added, and that's just going to grow exponentially with each new game.

They have to have some wiggle room, or it spirals out of control, or completely precludes characters from ever appearing again.

They pulled it off in Mass Effect 2, and are going to do it again in Mass Effect 3, so I'm calling bullshit.

I know what happend Charil Sheen was cruising by on one of this amusome trips. He saw this hotty red head an decided he had to sleep with her. So he did a blood trancefusion o tiger blood and win bring her back an undoing any damage to her. Then after the Sheenman did his thing and left Lelianna was still had so much win in hr still she was able to shake to comos and undid all the stuff she and (Bioware)the maker didn't like.

How that for a reason why?

(All spelling mistake wil be ignored becuase I a why to hyped up on caffin.)

It's saying "we're going to give you choices but when your choices contradict what we want to happen, they don't matter."

In another type of game, this wouldn't matter, but in a game like this? Yeah, big no-no.

On the other hand, this is further proof that DA2 is not actually a sequel to DA:O. It's more of an alternate reality. The events from Origins happened (Blight, Warden Commander etc.) but they're not necessarily the events that happened in your game. The new writers seem to be taking the stance that how you played Origins didn't matter because there's a separate, canonical series of events that overrule it.

Another slap in the face to those who played and loved Origins, but certainly not the worst thing BioWare has done as of late.

On a side note, I'd keep this guy off the forums if I were in charge over there. The company is suffering from enough of a PR nightmare as it is; this is only exacerbating it.

Slycne:

secretsantaone:
This seems a bit contradictary, especially considering Bioware had been playing up the 'big choices that matter' in regards to their games and especially especially in how they didn't pull this in Mass Effect 2.

I'm not advocating that it should be overlay abused, but having NPCs act and behave behind the scenes and occasionally interfering with some of the players choices can sometimes be a good thing. It brings a lot of depth to the world by making it seem like there is more going on than what happens in a 50m bubble around you.

Bringing her back from the dead doesn't invalidate the choice, it simply changes the situation. I'm sure she won't be very happy to see the Warden if he/she didn't die.

Now will Bioware commit to that level of depth or will 'canon' simply be smoothed over will remain to be seen.

Will BioWare commit to that level of depth? If the currently discussed situation is any indicator, prooooobably not. Easy way out that preserves writers' beloved characters for the winnnnn!

Jaded Scribe:

Can you honestly expect BioWare to be able to support all of these choices, while creating a world that's cohesive in story? (i.e. the events of one game are not completely disjoint from the others, creating a building story with recurring characters)

I think this means that BioWare needs to stop giving the player so many huge choices. It's nice that we get all these choices but it only becomes frustrating when the sequel makes them incredibly minor or flat out ignores them. There's no point to giving the player such a huge choice if it has almost no impact on the story. This is more about Mass Effect than Dragon Age, but this thread has kind of branched to be about their story telling overall anyways.

Here's an example from Mass Effect; Garrus is a character of undecided morality. When you recruit him he's currently lying between paragon and renegade. The actions of your character can influence him to lean to one side or the other. It was one of the things I really liked about the game becuase it felt good to steer him away from the renegade path which my character was firmly against.

Then we come to Mass Effect 2 and none of this matters. Garrus is completley renegade and nothing at all is said about how I influenced him in the first game. They don't even attempt to address this and just ignore it completley. Well then why give me the choice in the first place? Why make me think I'm influencing a character when none of it will actually matter? It's pointless and frustrating. Had Garrus not shown any signs of being influenced in Mass Effect this would not have bothered me.

I don't want Bioware to give me choices when they just end up ignoring them. I'm legitimately worried about Mass Effect 3 in this regard. Mass Effect 2 had a ton of huge choices, way more than the first game. And Bioware's going to give all of them meaningful impact in under a year? I just don't see that happening. Simply put, they have bitten off more than they can chew in regards to player choices.

Wow. This Gaider dude sounds like a right twat.
Puts out a rushed, poor quality game. Takes the fake moral highground when someone pointed out his characters were ham handed and now tries to claim he is the lord and master and gets to decide what he wants with the Dragon Age universe.
Fuck him. They really should fire him.

One of these days, someone's gonna post something that will make me actually want to play DA2. These past months all I've seen is people screaming about it; and previous to that- screaming for it.

No wonder Gabe's dragging his heels on Episode 3.

SuperChurl:
Will BioWare commit to that level of depth? If the currently discussed situation is any indicator, prooooobably not. Easy way out that preserves writers' beloved characters for the winnnnn!

Wait how has it been indicator that they are not trying to achieve that? Gaider flat out said that if you made the choice of killing her that it still happened.

If I had choosen to kill Leliana, my first thought when seeing her wouldn't have been "omg plot error" *post on the forums, it would have been "crap, how is she still alive?". Or are we all so curmudgeon that we refuse to let a game surprise us?

secretsantaone:

This seems a bit contradictary, especially considering Bioware had been playing up the 'big choices that matter' in regards to their games and especially especially in how they didn't pull this in Mass Effect 2. Wrex STAYED dead.

Simple reason; Bioware is a pretty large company, with several facilities and different teams making Dragon Age and Mass Effect, therefore, in my books anyway

Mass Effect Dev team > Dragon Age Dev team.

Shaoken:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Shaoken:

Why would they? They're clearly going to add new characters to ME3, and any main characters that died in 1 stay dead in 2. Not to mention that Mass Effect 1 through 3 is Sheppard's story and has a tighter cohession, whereas DA:O was Grey Warden's story and DA2 was Hawke's story. Different situations.

Garrus and Tali are more popular among the fans than Jesus. I can see them warming up the magic retcon wand again.

Again, Bioware = best storytellers today. The fact that both characters are more popular than Jesus would be a hell of a reason to keep them dead, so it'd have more of an impact on the fans if they stayed dead next game. More of an incentive to go back and launch another playthrough so they still live.

secretsantaone:

I'm not so much miffed about Leliana being in DA2, when I saw her, I just thought 'Huh, didn't I kill you? Oh well.' it's more about the response from Gaider, that you're an idiot for thinking having your head chopped off means the character's dead and that any choice you think you've made can pretty much be negated by Bioware if they feel like it.

Again, this boils down to story and gameplay seperation. In the script for Origins, Leliana is only "killed" with no specifics attached to it. Getting decapitated is a random occurance which is entirely situational. So out of all of Lelina's deaths in origins she wouldn't be decapitated in the majority of them. So at the end of it, what he's bascially saying is "Lelina was not decapitated in Origins, and thus the Warden only thought she was dead."

I would like to point out that this example, "never checked the pulse" has been used in so many stories across all media that going after Bioware for it is slightly hypocritcal.

Hell throw in changes to first aid, no one checks for pulse anymore because it is usually too weak or difficult to find.

But yeah decapitation is an animation mechanic not a plot event. I refuse to believe anything dies in games anymore unless there is a cut-scene for it. And then WoW just pisses me off because it seems like an infinite world of killing the resurrected, damn spirit healers and necromancers are all over the place.

poiumty:
This is why you plan your sequels in advance.

Like Lucas did? ;)

(He retconned most of his decisions. Star Wars was a singular film, that was then 9, then 6, now 9 again - and Darth Vader was just a boss fight in the original.)

Jaded Scribe:
Just to put some of this into perspective:

That provides 36 options alone (yes, some are mutually exclusive, but many are not) to try to support.

That's not counting all the other choices your character makes in Origins, or anything from Awakening or DA2.

Can you honestly expect BioWare to be able to support all of these choices, while creating a world that's cohesive in story? (i.e. the events of one game are not completely disjoint from the others, creating a building story with recurring characters)

There comes a point where, as a player, you have to accept that your decision was one given meaning at the given time and place, in the context of that specific game's story, but was later bypassed in the greater story at work.

Honestly, yes. Bioware is a triple-A company with millions of dollars at their disposal. Considering every appearance by the DAO companions in DA2 were little more than cameos, it's not asking a lot for them to not just disregard our actions. It would've been simple (and consistent) to simply swap in some fill in character. Leliana's dead? Someone else is the Chantry assassin chick (That would even give them a chance to make a potentially interesting new character, if they want). Zev's dead? Well then he just doesn't show up and you don't get that quest.

As I said before, if they can't do the choice transfer properly, should they even be doing it at all? I'd have been fine with the game being set in a 'far away place', removed from the events of the first game. At least then the devs wouldn't have to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Mcoffey:
Now that I think about it, does this mean that the Ultimate Sacrifice ending is just bullshitted away too?

Not necessarily. If you don't import a character into Awakening it is assumed that the Origins Warden was killed fighting the Archdemon, which necessitates sending a Warden from Orlais to Amaranthine to command the forces there. So the Warden Leliana is looking for would be the Orlesian one.

As far as Leliana's own presence goes, there's the sacred ashes argument (mentioned above). There's also another possibility - Wynne will leave/turn on you for the same reasons Leliana does, and as far as we know she can't be killed until the spirit keeping her alive loses its power. If Leliana's only mostly dead, Wynne's spirit may have a couple of tricks up its sleeve it could use to bring her back from the brink.

EDIT: Regarding Flemeth, she gives that amulet to Hawke just after Ostagar, before Lothering is destroyed - which is before Morrigan could have discovered the grimoire in the Circle tower. So she may have suspected Morrigan would try to have the Warden kill her and set up the means of revival in advance.

Slycne:

SuperChurl:
Will BioWare commit to that level of depth? If the currently discussed situation is any indicator, prooooobably not. Easy way out that preserves writers' beloved characters for the winnnnn!

Wait how has it been indicator that they are not trying to achieve that? Gaider flat out said that if you made the choice of killing her that it still happened.

If I had choosen to kill Leliana, my first thought when seeing her wouldn't have been "omg plot error" *post on the forums, it would have been "crap, how is she still alive?". Or are we all so curmudgeon that we refuse to let a game surprise us?

If I had to guess, the problem is more that Dragon Age 2 does not even attempt to address how Lelianna is still present.

Though I haven't played the game myself, this is just going on what other people have said. I think if Bioware had actually addressed how Lelianna was present or foreshadowed it somehow in the original nobody would be bothered by this. Or better yet, don't shove a character from the old game into the new one when it can create these problems. The fact that they make no attempt to do this doesn't result in the player being curious about her existence but rather confused.

mireko:

secretsantaone:

David Gaider, lead writer on Dragon Age 2, has declared that being 'dead' isn't such a big deal in Dragon Age 2.

Apparently Leliana was just pretending when I chopped her head off. Alrighty then.

This seems a bit contradictary, especially considering Bioware had been playing up the 'big choices that matter' in regards to their games and especially especially in how they didn't pull this in Mass Effect 2. Wrex STAYED dead.

Seems like a big retcon cover to me. Thoughts?

Source: http://social.bioware.com/%20http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6589945/2

Different writers.

But yes, that is a retcon.

Same writer look at the bottom of his post

DragonsAteMyMarbles:

Mcoffey:
Now that I think about it, does this mean that the Ultimate Sacrifice ending is just bullshitted away too?

Not necessarily. If you don't import a character into Awakening it is assumed that the Origins Warden was killed fighting the Archdemon, which necessitates sending a Warden from Orlais to Amaranthine to command the forces there. So the Warden Leliana is looking for would be the Orlesian one.

As far as Leliana's own presence goes, there's the sacred ashes argument (mentioned above). There's also another possibility - Wynne will leave/turn on you for the same reasons Leliana does, and as far as we know she can't be killed until the spirit keeping her alive loses its power. If Leliana's only mostly dead, Wynne's spirit may have a couple of tricks up its sleeve it could use to bring her back from the brink.

That is true I suppose. I always wondered why they didn't let you carry over the Sacrifice Warden's world into an Orlesian Warden playthrough.

As far as Lel getting the spirit, that seems like kind of a grab. They make it clear that Wynne's spirit was something that watched over her personally, not to mention how rare it is at all. Plus it's apparently weakening and can only sustain her for a year or two. Plus if Wynne isn't in the party and, thus, doesn't die there as well then the spirit would have no reason to leave.

secretsantaone:
Post

It's a little bit irritating but they only did it for two characters (Leliana and technically Anders) and both of them have somewhat if not a bit half assed explanations.

Hopefully they don't keep doing this though and I bloody hope they don't pull this in Mass Effect 3 and have people that died in the suicide mission come back.

I wish they could have done some extra dialog though (or did they? I haven't checked it myself) for Leliana saying something like "I was left to die by the Warden" or something like that...

Jaded Scribe:
Can you honestly expect BioWare to be able to support all of these choices, while creating a world that's cohesive in story? (i.e. the events of one game are not completely disjoint from the others, creating a building story with recurring characters)

If they don't have the will or talent to allow our choices to stay then why allow us to make them in the first place? Or if they don't want to provide consequences to our choices why not simply not have anybody interact with these characters? Just leave it ambiguous. Haveing characters you could have killed show up in a not dead state in the sequel is just rubbing the players face in the fact that they don't have any real power and are just following a predetermined linear plot.

BioWare certainly haven't been winning any popularity contests lately.

Except, you know, that big one that's going on on this site right now.

Bottom line is if a character dies you don't just bring them back to life.

The only way characters should carry over is if they're alive in the save you import. If you don't import one then that's that.

The only other way to avoid things like this would be to give you a simple multiple choice questionnaire to determine exactly what you want to have happened prior to you starting the sequel. Either that or DON'T just bring characters back to life unless you actually write in a suitable explanation.

Jaded Scribe:

You sir, have offended me by not considering the dog a potentially crucial character, that dog could turn out to be king of... umm... Dogs some day! D= /joking

In all actuality, I don't think its that Bioware brought Leliana back that pissed everyone off, its how he explained why. He basically said "we can bring back whoever we want because we're the writers" which, yes, is true, but the arguement wasn't that they could do so, but that they could do so without any reasonable explanation whatsoever. If he had taken the time to say "Lelianna was important to the plot and she was raised from the dead in a plausible manner" then no one would get butt-hurt about the whole situation. No one would even question what said plausible manner is probably. (at least not to a large extent)

I realize bioware can't make -every- decision important, but even adding in a couple lines of text saying what happened, or how something was effected is actually quite simple. I'm speaking from an O.O.P. designing perspective. It's litterally just a few buttons and a message on the keyboard. In code its a little more, but not much. I'd say maybe if you have what they'll say down and all that, it would take maybe 2-5 minutes. :)

Axolotl:
snip

Internet Kraken:
snip

Mcoffey:
snip

BioWare doesn't have that much money. They've been laying off people for months.

Also, it seems those that cry about perfect continuity (at least among people I know) are in the minority.

I like having choices being made available to me, even if some get retconned.

They are relevant in the immediate story, and I (and many others) would rather have those choices available in the game for the sake of that chapter of the story and see it get retconned than "Oh, we might decide to continue the franchise at a later date, we better make it a linear adventure game to guarantee we don't change anything in the story that might get someone's panties in a knot."

Again, you all say "oh, just add in a new Chantry Seeker". Fine. But how do you justify changing the entirety of DA3's prospective plot to accomodate those that chose the Ultimate Sacrifice? Your Orlesian Warden in Awakenings didn't do enough to warrant the search for them to help put the world back together. Should they just nix the Warden altogether and never finish that story, or allow the Warden to join in the rest of the story to keep the literalist fanboys happy?

Sorry, but one of the things I am looking forward to MOST about DA3 is continuing my Warden's story. Why should I, and those like me, have to suffer because you can't wrap your head around the idea of canon retconning?

Kakashi on crack:

Jaded Scribe:

You sir, have offended me by not considering the dog a potentially crucial character, that dog could turn out to be king of... umm... Dogs some day! D= /joking

In all actuality, I don't think its that Bioware brought Leliana back that pissed everyone off, its how he explained why. He basically said "we can bring back whoever we want because we're the writers" which, yes, is true, but the arguement wasn't that they could do so, but that they could do so without any reasonable explanation whatsoever. If he had taken the time to say "Lelianna was important to the plot and she was raised from the dead in a plausible manner" then no one would get butt-hurt about the whole situation. No one would even question what said plausible manner is probably. (at least not to a large extent)

I realize bioware can't make -every- decision important, but even adding in a couple lines of text saying what happened, or how something was effected is actually quite simple. I'm speaking from an O.O.P. designing perspective. It's litterally just a few buttons and a message on the keyboard. In code its a little more, but not much. I'd say maybe if you have what they'll say down and all that, it would take maybe 2-5 minutes. :)

Again, I've said this before, Gaider seems to be a douche. And someone above came up with a decent line for covering it over without feeling out of place.

But at the same time, it is a lot of work (I'm in programming and game design at school) and there is actually a lot that goes into even simple things, that can raise the cost quite a bit, and of course, the more you add in, the more likely you'll get bugs that set flags wrong and screw things up.

I would also, for some things, would rather go "ok, it was retconned" than some involuted explanation about why such-and-such still happened even though the player didn't choose options X, Y and Z.

Zakarath:
Protip: Its better to own your mistakes than it is to just call the person pointing them out wrong.

(And if anyone says that I need an apostrophe in "Its" then SHUT UP YOU ARE WRONG.)

No, you're wrong. General rule of thumb is if the saying can be "it is" then it is "it's." If it does not have to say "it is" then it's just "its." Your post is "it is better" not "it better," as the not using the apostrophe is just using the plural version of it. That's not a big deal in the end, but when you start using caps-lock telling people to shut up and they're wrong then you yourself become an open target. Though I'm sure someone will spot some grammar issue in my post, but I at least admit that I have the possibility of being wrong and not try to tell them to "shut up."

As for the thread; Bioware has two versions of storytelling. Mass Effect's "what happens, happens" and Dragon Age's "if it dies, it'll be back later." Come on people, you have the option to

yet you can .

This is just one of many flaws in Dragon Age's story. They've had a few other occasions where they'll kill someone off and bring them right back. It doesn't really matter though, as from what you see from the posts, the writers will just tell you to kindly screw off if you point out their comic book logic. Just learn to accept it, and only care about it in the Mass Effect series. They rarely get something messed up, and if they do they tend to try and fix it.

Summary of thread:
"I killed Leliana but she showed up in the sequel!/cry. Why doesn't Bioware bend over backwards to make everything I do matter?/crymore"

And the people saying the Mass Effect saga is better because it doesn't declare what is canon are not thinking it through. Dieing in ME2 is a direct effect of your choices, and a pretty big effect. Yet by the very existence of a third game with the same character all your important choices are rendered void.

And was killing either Zevran or Leliana really that important? One is a crow assassin, if he didn't have a name there would be no difference between him or the HUNDREDS of other crows I killed. So who the f*** cares if he shows up and gives me a quest, think of him as some other rogue assassin. And then there is Leliana, a retired spy... yeah killing her is sooooo important and therefore should never appear again.

When this happens in the next DA or ME game, read/imagine the characters' names backwards and envision my middle finger where their faces are and you won't be so butt-hurt about it.(probably not though)

Jaded Scribe:

Axolotl:
snip

Internet Kraken:
snip

Mcoffey:
snip

BioWare doesn't have that much money. They've been laying off people for months.

Also, it seems those that cry about perfect continuity (at least among people I know) are in the minority.

I like having choices being made available to me, even if some get retconned.

They are relevant in the immediate story, and I (and many others) would rather have those choices available in the game for the sake of that chapter of the story and see it get retconned than "Oh, we might decide to continue the franchise at a later date, we better make it a linear adventure game to guarantee we don't change anything in the story that might get someone's panties in a knot."

Again, you all say "oh, just add in a new Chantry Seeker". Fine. But how do you justify changing the entirety of DA3's prospective plot to accomodate those that chose the Ultimate Sacrifice? Your Orlesian Warden in Awakenings didn't do enough to warrant the search for them to help put the world back together. Should they just nix the Warden altogether and never finish that story, or allow the Warden to join in the rest of the story to keep the literalist fanboys happy?

Sorry, but one of the things I am looking forward to MOST about DA3 is continuing my Warden's story. Why should I, and those like me, have to suffer because you can't wrap your head around the idea of canon retconning?

You're assuming a great deal regarding what may occur in Dragon Age 3. You don't seem to mind because they retconned a decision you don't care about. What will you say if they retcon the Warden into always being Human Noble, or always killing Connor, or always being a woman? Will you be okay with it, just so others don't have to suffer your decisions?

If they're deciding for us what choices we made "actually happened", what's the point of making them in the first place? If the choice only matters when you don't know the outcome, then it never really mattered at all. Choice without consequence, without even the illusion of consequence, is fundamentally meaningless.

If they can't make the decisions matter across multiple games, then they need to stop trying because all it's done so far is trivialize them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here