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

My initial reaction is that if it is a completely new story set in a different time frame then it would be okay. So for Mass Effect, if they had chosen, say, synthesis then that would be the norm for that era and they could even account for the other choices by implying that, just as the catalyst suggested, the cycle would always end up with synthetics and organics at war, so eventually someone would have agreed the solution was to merge them together.

With Dragon Age it is difficult to say without knowing the world state that was going to be canonised. In some ways, if the decision is big enough that it is world changing, like tearing down the Veil or not, then it is hard to see how the actual decision is something that can be subject to player choice because it has such an impact on the nature of the world going forward. Essentially, as with the example I gave for Mass Effect, if they decided the world state was without the Veil, then there would have to be some fudge explanation to account for the choice by the player not to remove it. Otherwise, if they know that is the outcome they would prefer, just don't give the player the choice in the first place. Multiple endings should really only apply to self contained stories where future installments are not planned set in the same world that is impacted by that decision or the next story is far enough in the future that anomalies can be accounted for.

Up to now our decisions haven't really be world changing. Whether or not we chose to do the dark ritual with Morrigan could have been significant but they seemed to have minimised its impact with the events involving him in DAI. The decision at the end of Trespasser was implied to be important but it is clear from the comics and novels that the decision whether to disband the Inquisition or not has been largely irrelevant to its ongoing presence and involvement in plots going forward. Also, the story involving Solas did seem to assume a world state where he and the Inquisitor were on good terms. Otherwise, why would he continue to apologise for his actions to an Inquisitor where there was mutual emnity?

It is curious that DG should be asking this as though opting for a canon choice is not something that has been done in the past, particularly with regard to the associated comics and books. In DG's comic series Alistair is King of Ferelden, Sten is Arishok and on good terms with him (so presumably freed by the HoF). In Asunder Wynne is alive, also Shale and of course Leliana (although her survival had already been established in DA2 and it took to the end of Trespasser to explain why). In the latest comic books Fenris survived but no longer with Hawke or even with good memories of his friends in Kirkwall. I've already mentioned how the decision about whether to disband the Inquisition or not has proven largely irrelevant in associated media.

What I will say is that DG claimed the story in DAI was only half told and that it would be down to his successor, PW, to complete it. Assuming the team has stuck to the original plan for the story, and they could easily have changed direction since he left, DG knows how it was meant to have ended. May be the player will be asked to make a world changing decision as huge as the one at the end of ME3. I'm mindful of the words of Morrigan at the end of the original DAI trailer in 2013: "Will you stand against the darkness or lead this world to its bitter end?" That could mean that ultimately the decision whether or not to remove the Veil is going to be down to us.

There are things, I could live with and things, I would hate.
The worst example is Revan from the KOTOR games. Revan is a black female, totally light side and sane in my games and in SWTOR and the novels we get a white, totally unhinged male. Don't mess with my player characters.
I guess the same is true for bloodmage Hawkes and DAI.
I can live with some decisions that are made canon, but it never should affect my character.

Choices? Who cares? Leliana can die in DAO, but shows up in DA2/DAI. No big deal.  I'm sure there are others.   

Would I have a problem with the choices Bioware uses for the next DA game? Probably not.

On the old forum, Mike Gamble tweeted we respect players choice when asked about the ME3 ending. That tweet was incorrect. The guy telling the story to the kid changed the story when the cut was released. He also said the details have changed over time. He can change the story again. I doubt his story told to the kid is the same as the story told to him. The teaser suggests Bioware already has made a couple of choices canon. Dead reapers are shown suggesting red is the ending. Showing t'soni who can die in ME3.

It is totally fucked up in licensed franchises. Many people narrating the same story at their own take doesnt play out.
In the end Bioware is the narrator. In how the player's immersion to the protag breaks authorship is hard to say but if you live, enjoy and suffer wth the protag while commanding their actions you take a bit authorship.

I don't have a canon pt among the dozens I've played. There are choices I make more often than others, but no canon Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor.

Do I want to be able to import a world-state and have my choices respected? Yes. That said, if in the interests of a better story some of those choices are either nullified or set in concrete, I'm okay with that. Especially if those instances are kept to a minimum AND there's a good/logical reason. Be nice if there was some codex entry explaining how they got there. For instance, say Bioware wants Leliana to be Divine. If your choice was different, then explain how she got there. Maybe Cassandra stepped down, realizing she was not the best suited for the job. Or there were too many assassination attempts against Vivienne, resulting in many deaths of other Chantry members as collateral damage. At least acknowledge our choices via some sort of logical story telling.

Otherwise, the Warden lives? He's off somewhere on a special project in DAI. His relationship with his companions colors DAI via dialog or codex/epilogs. The same can be said for other choices. Works for me. One choice that didn't matter in DAI, and I wish it had, was siding with either the mages or the templars in DA2. Seems to me that could have at least flavored the Hinterlands more as well as the dialog surrounding whose help you were seeking to seal the Breach.

Well, this is the creator of Morrigan and Shale after all.

I can sort of tolerate the minor canonizations on the fringe but very anti anything major.
I hope dragon age never make the sort of bad decisions that left mass effect in its horrible quagmire of having to decide on the scale of the canonization rather than whether to or not.

The game summerfall studios is working on and which is being published by humble, Stray Gods: The Role-playing Musical, involves choices and dialogue trees (or rather lyric trees). So he's probably asking because he's writing that.

Don't care about retcons and forced canon if the result is a good story. Never cared for Leliana in DAO, found her interesting in DAI, so I'm glad they brought her back. I wish Morrigan's kid could have played a bigger role. Such a waste. Shouldn't have made it a player choice. Bad call.

Too many choices cripple the freedom of future narratives. As much as I like all the little details in BioWare games that can change, or even bigger choices, I'm fine with fewer of them in favor of a great story.

While I hope they pick destroy for the next Mass Effect game, I'd play green or blue too. I really don't care. I never expected there to be another Mass Effect game after THAT ending however. And I was fine with that. I love wildly different outcomes at the end of a game or franchise for replay value. Trying to keep going after that to make more money is stupid. So tough luck, BioWare. If you want a post reaper war game you have to pick a canon. I doubt too many fans would mind. So they might as well do it, I guess.

The question only makes sense at the start of a franchise. After the marketing promised time after time that decisions are carried over to next titles, the question becomes irrelevant.