David Gaider asks: if a future sequel of Dragon Age required making a previous decision canon, would

It is difficult to answer without knowing the specifics of the choice and the way they handled it. In general, I feel like this should be a last resort and done sparingly.

ME3 endings immediately come to mind. In this very specific case, I'm ok with some kind of canon or coalescing of choices into one outcome. Otherwise, they can't really continue in the Milky Way galaxy and I feel like there is still so much I'd like to experience in that environment. But really I just wish they hadn't ended that way to begin with (did they really think they'd never want sequels?).

On the other hand, I wasn't super thrilled with Leliana coming back even though I love her character. They could have brought in a new character and it would have been fine IMO.

So it really depends if I buy the reason it had to be done and it improves the story enough that I can get over my choice not being respected.

Yeah, the Rachni queen might actually be the worst one now that you mention it.

It just occured to me to that this could also be mitigated depending on how you handle the choice in the first place. The idea being that if you have a choice the player makes where you *might* want to invalidate it in the future or you *will* invalidate it in the future it is best to sort of set it up and make it clear that will happen. Like in Legacy you kill Corypheus (though this is a bad example since you had no choice there but I think the idea still checks out ) and he possesses the Warden you choose which leads to the events of Inquisition...well you can do something like that. Granted again this couls till ruffle some feathers but again could have easily had Anderson say something like 'you know don't expect me to stay, I'll go back to the fleet if you have to'. Or include a bit of dialogue or a brief cutscene indicating that a character might have survived you killing them if you intend on bringing them back later (yes I know Leiliana was because of a glitch, work with me here)

Not anymore he isn’t. The moment he left the company, he shouldn’t make posts like this. It’d be like if someone left Coca-Cola and then posted “How would people feel if Coke changed their flavor?”

If his own projects, then he should ask in an universal way rather than BioWare specifically.

I'm all for it. Devs don't have insight into the future and don't know how certain decisions they've made will pan out. Some choices they've presented to players may end up being more difficult to implement than they presumed, sometimes it doesn't fit in with the story of future games, and so on and so forth.

Personally, I've always thought the ability to carry over decisions you've made in one game to carry on into future games was a cute feature at best, but not one necessary to my enjoyment of a game. The way people frothed at the mouth regarding Leliana, for example, has always come across as peak weirdo behavior to me, sorry, especially since there was a reasonable enough explanation the devs could concoct for bringing her back.

For me, I'd rather the devs trample over players' individual canon to create a coherent, tightly woven story for the whole. Ideally, they'd try and preserve as many choices as they could, but I think they should do whatever to create a good story even if it means canceling all carryover decisions.

I tend to agree.  As much as I like everything and the idea of everything ultimatley it comes down to 'what creates the better game/ story' and sometimes the more choice you give players the more you risk loosing narrative, character, or thematic cohesion.  And Bio, or any video games objective, should be to tell a good story first and include things like player choice if you can get away with it.  

And to be fair I think BioWare has done pretty ok in this regard overall.

I don't care as long as the game is good, i could care less what they make canon. I'll get over it i am sure if it was something i did not choose.

The good news is this is obviously a new game about Beerfish teaming up with sister/mother Petrice to purge the Qunari from the continent.

David Gaider @davidgaider
I ask because there was talk, back in the day, as to whether choices in an RPG were better intended for reactivity *within* a game as opposed to *between* games. The latter is super difficult to maintain in a satisfying way over multiple titles... which is why few games do it.

Naturally, when it comes to Dragon Age and Mass Effect specifically, the fact they've already done it perhaps means that ship has sailed... once the promise of continuity between games has been made, it's probably difficult to go back on it without making many fans angry.

I do wonder, however, whether a *new* title would have that expectation. If an RPG has choices - especially choices that lead to multiple endings - do you, as a player, automatically expect that any follow-up should honor those choices? No matter what the developer says?

I imagine the answer for most would be "no" -- again, most games don't do this, for good reason. Then again, perhaps BioWare's games have created an ideal expectation as to what an RPG (or, at least, an ongoing RPG world) *should* be. It's an interesting question.

Personally, I remember how difficult to was to let go of the Old God Baby being a major plot thing, as it existed in a quantum state that was too expensive to have the divergence I'd originally imagined. I also feel for the Mass Effect developers wrestling with the ME3 endings.

I've always felt there's a big difference between following through on choices in a *satisfying* way. The fans imagine these huge divergences we can't deliver on... so we ultimately end up disappointing most even as we limit our options. So is such continuity *really* worth it?

The answer to that question likely rests with the individual fan. I doubt there's consensus, and the poll reflects that. 20% of the fan base being upset makes for a VERY loud reaction, especially online where every tweet is like a missile fired. So it remains a pickle, I guess.

Patrick Weekes @patrickweekes
Read this thread hoping you had a magical answer I had heretofore not considered, but thanks for the pickle.

This is pretty much the crux of the problem and a great little pickle.  Fan expectation and imagings can lead to unrealistic expectations (especially when waiting for a decade these things just tend to get worse) so there is that factor...

And I think a games internal continuity should be maintained at all costs and is really a lot more possible to matter.  Decisions like 'to keep the Wardens or not' is a lot easier to keep track of within the game and not say two or three games down the road...which such a choice could also be flat ignored.  And well planning also tends to be a lot more grandiose then reality either because of author limits or limits enforced by lack of resources.

This is the point I'd highlight.

For me, setting aside budget and time constraints for a moment, this is the ideal for an ongoing RPG. And not just for BW, but all big-budget RPG series. Having your choices respected game after game makes the world/universe is one of the big reasons they're so engaging. I mean, just messing around in the DA Keep can be fun...

Now, because of budget/time/resource constraints, how those choices are respected/acknowledged can be... uneven. But IMO even a small effort can be impactful and is definitely better than none at all.

I would rather have a purely scripted, no choice/branching path, Action-Adventure game series over an RPG series that offers you various choices/big branching paths that aren't respected at all in later games.

In some ways, even partially canonizing your PTs can be... oof... if it touches on a major choice or something important to you. Could you imagine: Due to budget constraints, all Inquisitors are hereby assumed to have romanced no one and are recognized as faith-based "Heralds of Andraste". Okay, obviously there's virtually no chance of that happening, but you get the idea. But then that brings us to the Mass Effect series... which is certainly in a tougher spot. I really, REALLY hope they can work it out in such a way that they won't have to impose a canon PT on the MET. Otherwise, it will not be pretty.

But back to DA, moving to the northern nations will help the franchise out a lot. So much of the prior games will have little impact in Tevinter, etc. and a lot could simply be dealt with in letters/lore/minor conversations. So, I think it will be manageable, even with 3 games behind them.