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

[DragonsAteMyMarbles]

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.

 

[Internet Kraken]

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?

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

Spoiler

In Dragon Age: Origins, I distinctly remember Morrigan saying that Flemeth was not truly dead and that her powers allowed her to circumvent death. This means I was not surprised nor shocked to see her in the sequel. With Lelianna there's no foreshadowing to indicate her survival and nothing to explain how she survived. The fact that Bioware doesn't address any of this makes it feel like a hastily written part of the plot they hadn't planned ahead for.

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.

 

[CobraX]

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

 

[Axolotl]

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.

 

[Podunk]

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.

 

[Alandoril]

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.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Spoiler

(not counting dog, as he's not crucial to any of the plot)

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.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

snip

snip

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?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Spoiler

(not counting dog, as he's not crucial to any of the plot)

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.

 

[Devil's Due]

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

Spoiler: DA: Origins Spoiler

sacrifice yourself at the end

yet you can

Spoiler: DA: Awakening Spoiler

come back as the Warden Commander

.

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.

 

[Shadowkire]

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)

 

[SpaceCop]

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.

Sorry, but to me the unexplained cameos of previously-thought-deceased Leliana and Zevran just smacked more of lazy writing than of a desire to set up a further narrative. I think if BioWare had an explanation for their appearance they would have given it in-game--though, granted, there wouldn't be much of a canonical reason to explain their survival/resurrection to a bunch of strangers...

Much as I love BioWare I'm pretty reluctant to expect too much from their cross-game continuity at this point. It's impressive that they're trying it, but--as hard as it must be to write and program--the results thus far haven't exactly been inspiring. All but the absolute biggest decisions from the first Mass Effect were resolved in the second with "thanks for completing that side quest!" emails.

I mean, yeah, it's totally possible that BioWare is coming up with an actual plot to revive our potentially deceased party members beyond an irate forum handwave--and considering how much they seem willing to change their games based on their fans' reactions that doesn't seem like too unlikely. But I ain't holdin' my breath just yet.

 

[9Darksoul6]

Maybe in Dragon Age 3 they'll tell us that person wasn't Leliana, but in fact Zombie-Leliana (!). Someone glued her head / cloned her /reincarnated and, again, this whole thing has something to do with the witch of the wilds (somehow). And she's pregnant (!).

 

[Axolotl]

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

They're spending $300 million on TOR. But mmaking choices relevant and real doesn't cost money, it just requires havong compotent writers.

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

Why?

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."

Or they could juist write the sequel not to overwrite wnybodies choices? There's no reason for the charaqcters in DA1 to recur in DA2.

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?

It would make it a good game series? I would have thought that would be justification enough.

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?

But you won't be continueing your warden's story, that's the point, you'll be continueing Gaider's story with nothing but the thin illusion that you as a player are having any real impact on anything. The only thing that made Dragon Age: Origins any good was the few choices you made felt like they had real impact, if they remove that then it just becomes another shitty linear hack-and-slash game with nothing that makes the game different or interesting in any way.

 

[Internet Kraken]

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?

I don't expect Bioware to accomodate all of the choices they have put in the game, because there are dozens of them with tons of different outcomes. However that is why we shouldn't be able to make these choices in the first place. Don't give players the illusion of having an impact when your just going to ignore their choices. That defeats the purpose of having them. It's better for them to simply not be there than to let people think they will have an impact.

If Bioware had less major choices they could actually ensure that they all have meaningful impact. As it stands now they have to give all of them almost no impact or they ignore them completley. In this case we need quality over quantity. I don't want a dozen pointless choices that will have no impact. I'd rather have a handful of significant ones.

When one of your selling points is that the player's choices will have weight in the story, so many choices not doing so is a pretty big issue.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As mentioned, this is fantasy..

In real life, if someone sticks you with a sharp object to the point where you fall unconscious from blood loss and/or organ damage, that's probably it. You probably aren't going to acquire a magical Wolverine-esque mutant healing ability which allows your flesh to knit together in time to stop you bleeding to death.

In fantasy games this happens all the time. Heck, it's written into gameplay. Dragon Age: Origins was one of the few RPGs to acknowledge any kind of lasting damage from being knocked unconscious by being repeatedly hit with swords, and even then you can merrily keep fighting with a broken arm, heavy bleeding and a gouged eye anyway and a simple healing kit will make it all better..

Given this, you don't think it's remotely possible that Leliana might recover from having been mortally wounded by the Warden. You don't think it's kind of a cool thing to at least imagine her coming back to seek revenge, and yes, while the game doesn't keep track of whether she died it does keep track of whether you defiled the ashes. If Wynne could work it out just by listening to the other party members, I'm not sure a simple persuade check is going to stop a professional spy from ultimately finding out what you did.

Not to mention that you 'killed' Leliana, quite a devout person, in one of the holiest places in Thedas, a place full of exactly the kind of good spirits who really get off on faith and piety and all those human virtues.