Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[DalekFlay]

The difference, I think, is that choices in Dragon Age and similar games are presented to the player as very clear, discrete and equally valid options, while in older games, including Fallout, it's more like "weird shit the player did for the lulz", or things that the player didn't do optimally.

It's the same hole in the end though. Someone's playthrough is contradicted.

Gaider acted super excited about the god-child Morrigan thing on the Bioware forums but they can never, ever actually use that idea unless they choose to make that ending canon. They made that bed, sure, but at the end of the day I'd rather let a creator use what he's excited for than not.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the question of whether it improves the game to have C&C carry through to sequels. I usually prefer to start a new character even when the import option is there, just b/c I like playing with a clean slate. But I like the option to import saves, as it gives a bit more weight to your choices in the game.

But I think that where Bioware goes wrong is by making promises to players and then breaking them. If Bioware never gave the player a reason to believe their choices would carry through, I think very few people would be dissappointed when they didn't. Aside from all the marketing BS and dev interviews, look at the games themselves: why bother allowing save imports, if the choices will be irrelevant? You can't have things both ways by promising that kind of continuity in order to encourage player investment in the game and then not give it to them.

 

[Rake]

Why would anyone want to have their choices outright invalidated? Canonizing players' choices sucks.

It's about choosing a better sequel over honoring the previous game. It's not about wanting them invalidated, Mr. Lawyerspeak, it's about thinking that is less important.

In a videogame, player agency is less important than the designer's glorious artistic sensibilities capriciousness? I strongly disagree.

Think of Fallout. I destroyed Sandy Sands and the game acknowledge it, but the sequel didn't. Should i throw a fit? From all the possible endings, Fallout devs chose one to be canon and built the rest of the series based on that ending. Player agency is good inside a single game, but it should never be resricting about the whole series.
Mind you, i don't defend Bioware here, their decisions are stupid, and themselves desided to market the whole"your choices and previous saves pass from one game to the other", so to contradict that is a fail. But i think it was a flewed idea from the start.
That's what i think. Take it with a grain of salt because my ideal game is PS:T, while you sound like you prefer more nonscripted, sandboxy, "emergent gameplay" type of games.

The difference, I think, is that choices in Dragon Age and similar games are presented to the player as very clear, discrete and equally valid options, while in older games, including Fallout, it's more like "weird shit the player did for the lulz", or things that the player didn't do optimally.

In Fallout 2 to support New Reno or Vault City instead of NCR were valid options, and more optimal from a personal standpoint. Yet NCR wins is the cannonical ending.

 

[Borelli]

Your choices being carried over to sequels is a nice thing in theory but in practice it often amounts to lip service or a tiny sidequest, a harmless thing but IMHO devs should focus on C&C that starts and ends with one game.

 

[Lancehead]

If developers only care about C&C that starts and ends with a single game, then I'd hope they have the decency to not speak seriously about the world they're creating, and to not reflect any choices from one game in another.

 

[Space Satan]

It all comes down to writer's skill. In worst cases we'll get eaware's "you tried to kill character X but he survived"

 

[Valestein]

Only way choices carrying over between games would work is if the duology or trilogy is so well planned that it's essentially one large game split into several parts. Otherwise you're just going to get underwhelming crap like with what you see with Bioware games or in TW2 where it does more harm than good.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

www.dragonage.com

 

[Infinitron]

LEAD THE INQUISITION
Hunt down the agents of chaos

In before Games Workshop lawsuit

 

[DalekFlay]

Dragons are back? OMG! Crazy idea!

 

[Micmu]

...herp derp derpn this upcoming video game from BioWare, makers of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Origins, you’ll make your mark in an ex herp derp...

I love how they omitted dragon fail 2

 

[Rivmusique]

Only way choices carrying over between games would work is if the duology or trilogy is so well planned that it's essentially one large game split into several parts.

TW2 in to TW3 could be like this. Or at least, TW2 felt like half a game.

 

[Grinolf]

TW2 in to TW3 could be like this. Or at least, TW2 felt like half a game.

It was more lack of budget, than planning.

And Witcher can have it much easier, since developers not created enterely new story, but reused and adapted already existing material. Well, they did it in previous two games and I don't think in third they choose to do something new.

 

[norolim]

TW2 in to TW3 could be like this. Or at least, TW2 felt like half a game.

It was more lack of budget, than planning.

And Witcher can have it much easier, since developers not created enterely new story, but reused and adapted already existing material. Well, they did it in previous two games and I don't think in third they choose to do something new.

The story in TW games is entirely new. It starts after the events described in the books.

 

[Grinolf]

The story in TW games is entirely new. It starts after the events described in the books.

Yes, it starts after, but it's not new.
Both TW games heavely reused conflicts and plots from the books with some alteration. There are plenty of reused dialogs also.
Story of the games can be called a standard unneeded sequel, that parasiting on original. But it existed in different medium and was created with some love towards books, so it called fanservice. And as fanservice it is pretty good.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Why would anyone want to have their choices outright invalidated? Canonizing players' choices sucks.

It's about choosing a better sequel over honoring the previous game. It's not about wanting them invalidated, Mr. Lawyerspeak, it's about thinking that is less important.

In a videogame, player agency is less important than the designer's glorious artistic sensibilities capriciousness? I strongly disagree.

Think of Fallout. I destroyed Sandy Sands and the game acknowledge it, but the sequel didn't. Should i throw a fit?.

It sucked when Fallout 2 did it, too.

 

[norolim]

Yes, it starts after, but it's not new.
Both TW games heavely reused conflicts and plots from the books with some alteration. There are plenty of reused dialogs also.
Story of the games can be called a standard unneeded sequel, that parasiting on original. But it existed in different medium and was created with some love towards books, so it called fanservice. And as fanservice it is pretty good.

Ok, please list the plots and conflicts and quote the dialogues that were reused. I read all the books and played TW1 and didn't notice any substantial reuse. Of course the conflict between humans and non-humans still exists in the games, but this is an element of the world. it's like the struggle between the light and dark side of the force in SW.

I didn't play TW2, so I might have missed something.

 

[Grinolf]

Ok, please list the plots and conflicts and quote the dialogues that were reused. I read all the books and played TW1 and didn't notice any substantial reuse. Of course the conflict between humans and non-humans still exists in the games, but this is an element of the world. it's like the struggle between the light and dark side of the force in SW.
I didn't play TW2, so I might have missed something.

Like, you know, main villian, who is basically mix between Emperor of Nilfgaard and Cirilla with exact same motivation of saving the world by hightly amoral means?
Or bonus story which retell first Witcher story?
On case of dialogs see conversation with Zoltan, when Gerald question his own principles or conversation with Shani about final battle in books.
And I play the game very long time ago. Books I read books also long time ago. So I don't know how can someone didn't notice that.

 

[norolim]

These are called references. The games don't reuse any particular dialogues. Soem conversations and plot elements refer to certain scenes or events in the books. That's understandable and rather minor.
Alvin is a source, like Ciri. That's all the similarities between them. And yes the "save the world at all cost" plot is similar but it's a popular fiction element. Reused in tones of movies, novels etc.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Liked KOTOR2 aproach; one Conversation at the start of the game sets plot flags for the rest of playthrough; Simple and doesn't force you to replay the Biowhore made prequel.

In Fallout 2 you could go from filthy outlander to Lord Captain of VC; it would be nice to play 1st game as RPG and sequel as Strategy leading armies of Factions you taken over in prequel. Wait Dragon Commander is sequel to DD2?

 

[Grinolf]

These are called references. The games don't reuse any particular dialogues. Soem conversations and plot elements refer to certain scenes or events in the books. That's understandable and rather minor.
Alvin is a source, like Ciri. That's all the similarities between them. And yes the "save the world at all cost" plot is similar but it's a popular fiction element. Reused in tones of movies, novels etc.

And after books closed subject of Sourses and prophecy about end of the world, why would it be needed to bring this again? Why new main villain must have same motivation as previous one? It is all looked like shit unneeded sequel to me, which parasited on original. Wait, I already write that, but it was ignored.

Game used this conversation for character development, so it is not minor.

 

[Lagole Gon]

Yes, it starts after, but it's not new.
Both TW games heavely reused conflicts and plots from the books with some alteration. There are plenty of reused dialogs also.
Story of the games can be called a standard unneeded sequel, that parasiting on original. But it existed in different medium and was created with some love towards books, so it called fanservice. And as fanservice it is pretty good.

Ok, please list the plots and conflicts and quote the dialogues that were reused. I read all the books and played TW1 and didn't notice any substantial reuse. Of course the conflict between humans and non-humans still exists in the games, but this is an element of the world. it's like the struggle between the light and dark side of the force in SW.

I didn't play TW2, so I might have missed something.

Bro, you must be fucking blind. Off the top of my head:
- Magister/Professor is exactly the same character as Professor from books.
- You are removing the curse from Adda again.
- You are chasing after super magical kid again. It seems Cirri is not unique after all.
- "progress as a herd of pigs", "Cerro and Vridank", "magically created orgasm".

 

[norolim]

Bro, you must be fucking blind. Off the top of my head:
- Magister/Professor is exactly the same character as Professor from books.
- You are removing the curse from Adda again.
- You are chasing after super magical kid again. It seems Cirri is not unique after all.
- "progress as a herd of pigs", "Cerro and Vridank", "magically created orgasm".

Fuck, you're right. How did I forget about all those things?

 

[Zeriel]

Wouldn't people be bitching up a storm if the Witcher games had departed heavily from the books, though?

 

[kris]

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the question of whether it improves the game to have C&C carry through to sequels. I usually prefer to start a new character even when the import option is there, just b/c I like playing with a clean slate. But I like the option to import saves, as it gives a bit more weight to your choices in the game.

I kind of prefer the old games were your character progresses from game to game. Even Bioware did that themselves with BG. Yet, in Mass effect your character is kind of restarted every time.

I think it would be cool with some game triology that have you make a character in which the first game is his youth, the second his middle age and then a third at a more advanced age. (so for the last one you will lose a bit in physical attributes, but still keep all the skills.)