Bioware choices (here we go again)

[Saviordd1]

Good.

I'm sick of them trying and failing to bend over backwards to allow the players to have that small little scene that they may remember from the previous game show up in a minor way.

Just say theres a Dragon Age canon, I wont burn down your studio for it.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

Can we wait until we see what Bioware is actually doing with the character and story before we get angry? I mean, I understand that is asking a lot from some people, but honestly.

I understand the appeal for reason, but does Bioware really deserve the benefit of the doubt?

After Dragon Age 2's general suckieness and going out of it's way to retcon the choices you made in the original for the sake of cheep fan service.
And Mass Effect 3's blatant disregard for everything that happened in the first two games.

They brought back a character after giving us the choice to kill her. Biwoare has made it painfully clear how exactly they feel about the people who play their games. If there was ever a group that deserves the internet's typical kneejerk hatred it's them.

I didn't mean to sound like I don't understand, in a way, why people are upset. But I think you have to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the development of these titles before you really get upset.

I mean, if you look at Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, you'll see two games that tried as best as they could to make the decision thing matter. I mean, there are umpteen references to the decisions made in Mass Effect that occur in ME2.

BUT between Mass Effect 2 and 3, the lead writer of the game changed. Now, when you're collectively working on a story, the lead writer is the person that not only presents ideas, but takes ideas given to them, and weaves them into a cohesive narrative that considers the past, present, and future of the story they're telling. When the lead writer of the series changed, a large part of the story's structure would have gone with it, because there were ideas brewing that wouldn't have been presented. That being the case, it's unsurprising that Mass Effect 3 felt, in many ways, disconnected from the previous games.

When you look at Dragon Age, that kind of shift hasn't, to my knowledge (i.e a quick Google search) occurred. The writing team is still largely the same. What you had in Dragon Age II was a game hampered by the fact that a.)key portions of it were occurring concurrently to the previous title, and b.)the stories were largely unconnected even besides that. Even further than that, it felt simultaneously like a narrative experiment, and like something that was pushed rapidly out of the gate to capitalize on the success of Origins.

Inquisition isn't hampered in the same way. The team has had plenty of time to work on it, and the writing team have had time to flesh out whatever visions they originally had for the series, without[\b] having to cope with anyone who had a significant amount of that lore stored away leaving the project. If Morrigan is making a reappearance, I have faith that, regardless of how she has to reappear due to past choices made, Bioware have had enough time to make any possible variances make narrative sense.

I'm just saying that the situation here isn't equal to that of Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age II, so preemptively calling them out on it isn't really fair. Yeah, they've stumbled in the past, but they've also hit it out of the park on more than one occasion.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

But.... she said the energy would go into the nearest warden killing them immediately. So if the warden refused her and Alistair hates her and they were the only two living wardens in Ferelden then how the hell did she make her god-child? Unless DA3 is going to take place after another blight that they skipped over between games...

That being said having every quest change the game in a meaningful way is a fucking absolute nightmare from a development standpoint. You track 50 things each game in a trilogy and you'd end up with 125,000 different endings/experiences. Even if you only bother with 5 major decisions in each game. That is still 125 different endings to make appear 'meaningful.' The efforts Mass Effect went to, to simply mention things from previous games, was extremely impressive.

 

[Rack]

What are they supposed to do? Have 2 massive and differing plots based on 1 choice made at the tail end of a game? It's simply not possible at this point in gaming. Maybe someday when an RPG gets a huge and inflated budget and multiple years of development time it will happen.

Witcher 2 would like a word with you.
Yeah, the plot converges eventually, but right from the end of the first chapter it changes based off your choices. You get an entirely different second chapter dependent on who you side with.

But that's a choice made in the same game, not even CD Projekt Red would section off a massive section of the game based on a choice you made in a completely different game that's several years old now and effectively in a different genre.

When it comes down to it consequences can only be things that reflect back on the player you can have the odd exception but given the cost of developing games you can't exponentially add in real gameplay consequences for everything the player does in every game.

 

[Joccaren]

But that's a choice made in the same game, not even CD Projekt Red would section off a massive section of the game based on a choice you made in a completely different game that's several years old now and effectively in a different genre.

I don't know. IIRC they wanted your choices in W2 to do something in W3, and it will be interesting to see how they handle that.
Of course, CDPR wouldn't pointlessly change the genre of their game though. That's one of Bioware's traits that I really hate.

When it comes down to it consequences can only be things that reflect back on the player you can have the odd exception but given the cost of developing games you can't exponentially add in real gameplay consequences for everything the player does in every game.

Oh, of course not everything the player does has to have consequences. That'd be ridiculous. The major choices you give the player, and say "THIS IS A MAJOR CHOICE" to them about, however, should result in branching outcomes. Its not hard to do when you have maybe 4-5 major choices, and if you can't do it you shouldn't play up those choices.

 

[Batman]

Didn't we just recently have someone from Bioware say how our choices will matter in Dragon Age: Inquisition?

Don't count on it. Read this very informative text about Morrigan: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/08/12/dragon-age-inquisition-s-morrigan-past-and-present.aspx

And this is the best part

Male players are given the option of conceiving a child with Morrigan themselves, but even if they refuse, the other Grey Wardens of the world may not have the same resolve.

And

?The most important thing for me when I wrote [Origins] was that at the end even if Morrigan loved the player, she had this thing that she believed in, that was so important that she would do it regardless of the player..."

The last big choice you get to make in Dragon Age: Origins doesn't even matter. It's the Collector base all over again. Fuck your choices, we'll just do what we want. But please, buy our game. It's all about you and the choices. Choices matter. Unless when they don't. But they do. And don't. At the same time. IT'S A MIRACLE!

Not trying to play the devil's advocate here (since bioware is pretty unpopular around these parts) but the first quote you posted was just the journalists own speculation. Devs since then have claimed on the forum that that particular plot wasn't going to be forced on players who didn't go down that path. Give them some credit guys, at least they are trying.

Edit: A lot of people don't seem to realise that bioware games never had much choice. They had the illusion of choice, and for the most part it did a good enough job that it passed for the real thing and people were happy. But an illusion is an illusion and sooner or later people suss out the trick. Then it becomes not so magical and more "why did I spend my money on that", or depending on what kind of person you are: "that was pretty clever, you earned my money". Besides, who buys bioware games for choice and "consequence"? can anyone even remember a single noteworthy "consequence" in a bioware game past decade? These games get sold because people love the lore, the world and the inhabitants that populate their games. The lore in these games are masterpieces of craftsmanship and that alone is enough to force my wallet open.

 

[hatok]

And at thsi point all I'm thinking is
What was wrong with the Collector Base?

 

[dementis]

They already pulled this shit in Dragon age 2 will leliana re-attaching her head if you killed her in the second game.
I've had to accept the fact that Bioware is nowhere near the great developer it used to be, I haven't really enjoyed a Bioware game since Origins.

 

[GoGoFrenzy]

I gave up on Bioware since Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. Those were the points that I realized that they have transcended into AAA bullshit and will never deliver the classic RPG feeling that I grew fond of...

Ditto here. I am actually flabbergasted that people are even considering buying this game after the poop of Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3.

No it won't get any better.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Player agency does not have to be expressed through binary plot choices. A game does not need to have real plot choices to be a good game.

I have never liked any of the Dragon Age games but after Mass Effect and their focus on player choice, meaning plot choice not game play choices like which path to take, how to build your character, whether to kill or bypass enemies, etc., I think a lot of people get hung up on this.

Sometimes a lack of reactivity is best. Imagine Bioshock where the story wasn't the story if the character made some choices along the way. Those were games all about a tightly crafted narrative.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

It's interesting how when we talk about Bioware choices we mean "Morrigan's OGB". They are going to retcon it so she always gets pregnant, I have no doubt about it. It's obvious because the only thing they are talking about is her and her baby and stroking their egos. It's just a matter of how in-your-face and brutally crowbared in it's going to be. Also how much of a deus ex machina it's going to be.

EDIT: Actually, the lead writer has said that if there is no ritual there is no OGB period. My bad.

All *choices* in Bioware games are arbitrary and change so very little as to be almost completely unnecessary. They think up a story and then try to wedge in choices, but the story is already laid out so they can't really deviate from it. They just have bad writers in general. The only thing they do somewhat goodish is world building and then fail to use that world for something truly interesting or meaningful.

 

[Rack]

But that's a choice made in the same game, not even CD Projekt Red would section off a massive section of the game based on a choice you made in a completely different game that's several years old now and effectively in a different genre.

I don't know. IIRC they wanted your choices in W2 to do something in W3, and it will be interesting to see how they handle that.
Of course, CDPR wouldn't pointlessly change the genre of their game though. That's one of Bioware's traits that I really hate.

When it comes down to it consequences can only be things that reflect back on the player you can have the odd exception but given the cost of developing games you can't exponentially add in real gameplay consequences for everything the player does in every game.

Oh, of course not everything the player does has to have consequences. That'd be ridiculous. The major choices you give the player, and say "THIS IS A MAJOR CHOICE" to them about, however, should result in branching outcomes. Its not hard to do when you have maybe 4-5 major choices, and if you can't do it you shouldn't play up those choices.

Time will tell on the Witcher 3 but I wouldn't expect anything all that drastic to game to game. It's the same thing with Dragon Age Inquisition, the choices at the end of Dragon Age 1 were played up but they were really only meant to change the epilogues. I suppose they did do some fairly substantial changes in between Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 but that only left them in a position where they only had resources for a "choose the colour of your ending". If they'd tied up any major plot threads at the end of ME2 they could have put all that effort into branches in the game itself. I just think that's a better way of handling the limited resources you can have for this kind of thing.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I'm just saying that the situation here isn't equal to that of Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age II, so preemptively calling them out on it isn't really fair. Yeah, they've stumbled in the past, but they've also hit it out of the park on more than one occasion.

Dragon Age 2 still makes me skeptical about the Dragon Age writing team.

DAO gave us the choice to kill Anders and Justice.
(In the playthrough I imported they had never met eachother) They still possessed eachother.
They gave us the chance to kill Nathan Howe, he is back regardless.

They gave us the opportunity to kill Lelianna, she's back
50% chance to kill Zeveran and he's back regardless
You could have killed Alistar and he only makes a cameo if you chose to kill him (?)
(I guess he makes a late game cameo if you made him king too)

None of those retcons had a decent explanation (or any form of explanation at all) I seriously doubt they'll pay more mind to using Morrigan again.

(I'll look the other way if they put Wynne back in the game)
I don't care if it's the biggest Retcon they ever pulled Wynne is my favorite Dragon Age Character, and as long as they're bringing people back from the dead she should be there.

 

[Raikas]

I am actually flabbergasted that people are even considering buying this game after the poop of Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3.

You're flabbergasted that different people have different tastes in entertainment?

Seriously, fair enough if the games aren't to your taste now (whether it's gameplay or choices or whatever), but that hardly means that other people aren't going to feel differently (FTR: I loved 95% of ME3, and enjoyed enough of DA2 that I had no problem overlooking the recycled environments and the absurdity of the ending).

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

I'm just saying that the situation here isn't equal to that of Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age II, so preemptively calling them out on it isn't really fair. Yeah, they've stumbled in the past, but they've also hit it out of the park on more than one occasion.

Dragon Age 2 still makes me skeptical about the Dragon Age writing team.

DAO gave us the choice to kill Anders and Justice.
(In the playthrough I imported they had never met eachother) They still possessed eachother.
They gave us the chance to kill Nathan Howe, he is back regardless.

They gave us the opportunity to kill Lelianna, she's back
50% chance to kill Zeveran and he's back regardless
You could have killed Alistar and he only makes a cameo if you chose to kill him (?)
(I guess he makes a late game cameo if you made him king too)

None of those retcons had a decent explanation (or any form of explanation at all) I seriously doubt they'll pay more mind to using Morrigan again.

(I'll look the other way if they put Wynne back in the game)
I don't care if it's the biggest Retcon they ever pulled Wynne is my favorite Dragon Age Character, and as long as they're bringing people back from the dead she should be there.

Hmm... You know, I've played both Dragon Age Origins and DAII, but I may have to go back and play through them again. Honestly, the only Origins characters I remember making an appearance in DAII were Alistair and Leliana, both right around the climax as I recall. And I got the feeling that Alistair was only in Kirkwall because I didn't make him king in Origins, and after the Archdemon was killed, he didn't have anything else to do. I don't remember the context of Leliana's appearance: just that she appeared briefly. It was really just long enough for me to go "hey!" From the sounds of it, though, I'm forgetting some things.

Maybe I should come up with some kind of disclaimer.

*This opinion may be subject to change without notice.