David Gaider says Bioware decides what 'dead' means in Dragon Age 2
- Thread starter secretsantaone
- Start date
Yeah, there have been enough threads about it.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
I'm a little worried about what Mac Walters will contribute to Mass Effect, since we don't really know who wrote what in ME2. If he wrote the T-1000 appearing, then we're all screwed. If Karpyshyn was responsible for that.. we're probably still screwed.
Bah, I'm going back to being pessimistic.
This is why, incredibly contrarily to so many opinions today, I am VASTLY against the "branching decision tree of choices" structure of storytelling. It happened from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2, making it such that if one character has a line "Hey, Joker, could you fetch Shepard and I some coffee?" it would need 10 different versions depending on who's alive, who doesn't hate who, etc. It also meant no specific storylines held significance in terms of foreshadowing, ironic twist, etc.
Bioware is learning that mistake, and accounting for it the wrong way, with things like this. They're realizing "You know what? The story sucks if that character dies, and it was a bad idea to give the player that choice. We could take the writing so many different ways if we just took away choices."
I really think the idea of a storyline hugely influenced by the player is overrated. You can still give the player some feeling of presence in the story, but you don't need massively overarching decisions to make that.
Bioware is learning that mistake, and accounting for it the wrong way, with things like this. They're realizing "You know what? The story sucks if that character dies, and it was a bad idea to give the player that choice. We could take the writing so many different ways if we just took away choices."
I really think the idea of a storyline hugely influenced by the player is overrated. You can still give the player some feeling of presence in the story, but you don't need massively overarching decisions to make that.
That would have been reasonable.secretsantaone said:
But, yet again, considering a number of games retcon their outcomes, is it just possible that because you didn't care for the game you're going overboard?
There is no point to it. It's a story and didn't actually happen.secretsantaone said:
Are you saying what's the point in universe? The point is whatever the storyteller wants it to be. That's not you. You are playing a part in the story, not telling or creating it.
The point of the choice is to make the player experience decision and emotion right there, at that moment, to draw the player into the story.secretsantaone said:
It is not, and never has been, meant to be indicative of "We will acknowledge every choice you ever made, ever, throughout the entire course of the series."
mireko said:
As a plot device, it worked. It showed that the Reapers have deemed humanity worthy of being what the next batch of Reapers will be based off of. But using it as an excuse to have a big, dumb fight at the end? Yeah, it sucked.
Apparently that gets brought up in Witch Hunt. (Haven't played it, but read the wiki on it)Sylocat said:
Yeah if it was my choice Shepard would be married to Joker by now...jus sayin. *teehee*Jaded Scribe said:
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.
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.
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.witness51 said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Is that what the [small]HUMAN REAPER!![/small] was about? I guess that makes sense to some extent. It doesn't quite explain why Sovereign thought that was beyond human comprehension, but I'll accept it for now.
I figure there must be something more to their galactic genocides than reproduction, since that would be kind of a letdown after two games. In a way, I hope they simply don't answer it.
No, hear me out, I mean I hope they imply something and leave enough room for interpretation. At this point I don't think the Reapers' motivations can be anything but disappointing, so it would probably lead to theories that are more interesting than a straightforward answer.
I figure there must be something more to their galactic genocides than reproduction, since that would be kind of a letdown after two games. In a way, I hope they simply don't answer it.
No, hear me out, I mean I hope they imply something and leave enough room for interpretation. At this point I don't think the Reapers' motivations can be anything but disappointing, so it would probably lead to theories that are more interesting than a straightforward answer.
While we're on the subject, have you played Arrival? If so, is it worth it?
There is also option number 3. The character wasn't dead in the first place.GotMalkAvian said: