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

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

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. ^^

 

[Kakashi on crack]

-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.

 

[mireko]

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?

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

 

[The Furbinator]

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.

 

[Eponet]

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.

 

[ecoho]

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

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Just to put some of this into perspective:

Spoiler

There are 9 companions in DA:O (not counting dog, as he's not crucial to any of the plot), each with a number of outcomes (counting relationships with the Warden in the Warden's options)

Alistair (4):
King
Stays with the Wardens
Executed
Dies to the Archdemon

Leliana (4):
Not recruited
Killed
Leaves party midway
Lives

Zevran (3):
Killed
Betrays Warden
Stays with Warden

Morrigan (2):
Leaves without ritual
Does ritual

Sten (3):
Not recruited
Leaves the party
Stays with the warden

Wynne (3):
Killed
Leaves party
Stays with the Warden

Oghren (3):
Not recruited
Leaves party
Stays with the warden

Shale (4):
Not recruited
Killed
Stays with Warden
Leaves the party

Loghain (3):
Killed at Landsmeet
Dies to the Archdemon
Lives

The Warden (7):
Lives Alone (no romance)
Becomes royal consort
Romances Alistair or Morrigan (based on Gender)
Romances Leliana
Romances Zevran
Survives Archdemon
Dies to the Archdemon

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.

 

[Slycne]

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.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

 

[Bek359]

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.

 

[IceStar100]

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.)

 

[Krantos]

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.

 

[SpaceCop]

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!

 

[Internet Kraken]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

 

[Slycne]

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.

Spoiler: Thread has been chalked with spoilers but it doesn't hurt to be safe.

So where is this same outcry for Flemeth? You kill her in Origins and yet she's able to circumvent her death through the Champion.

It's practically a very similar situation, but it seems pretty clear that when presented properly people don't mind have some decisions countered as an fully realized NPC might and should act outside the knowledge of the player, as long as it is not taken to excess and all sense of player agency is eroded.

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?

 

[RuralGamer]

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.

 

[Rayne870]

Dear lord. I just thought of something. What if they decide to just throw the Suicide Mission out the window? Now I'm afraid.

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.

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.)