inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 7, 2016 9:26:55 GMT
With that understanding, here are my answers: - Yes it is canon, although it would need an asterisk, much in the way a dream sequence would (e.g, DAO Warden Taint-inspired dreams). It's not an experience a character would define as reality, but since it is something the player can experience in-game, I think it meets the minimum definition of canon.
- No, I don't believe there is a significant difference. When all possible playthroughs are considered, it's just another timeline.
- Yes, as a consequence of #2, like any branch in the narrative, the dark future one is just as legit as any other path not taken. Meaning there is a branch in the narrative where Leliana dies holding the line. Nothing is "undone", that timeline exists in some way.
You have chosen a rather exotic topic, OP. I agree with your scenario and with these answers, and I would like to extend it: Just like the dark future or IHW as a whole are a path not taken, so does every decision you do not make, but that another player does make, result in one, even though you never get to see it. The whole of DA is a multiverse, and its set of universes is the one created by the permutation of all possible decisions. For the dark future scenario, I don't think it matters that this is a path not taken for everyone, since by merely existing as a one-element subset of the multiverse, it proves that it is possible to get there by a certain combination of decisions. You can die in IHW, for instance, the result of having made certain decisions in combat, and thus the dark future would come to pass. I should add that naturally this does not matter at all in the storytelling or in-world perspective, when you are on the path and make decisions, but it becomes important when considering what is and is not part of the canon in a branching story. The Bioware writers, as well as any fanfic writer, can write stories that require a hypothetical player to have made certain decisions, and still it is as canonical as another story based on a different set of decisions. It's just a different timeline. I think this outlook is very useful for the comparatively new type of story made possible by storytelling games, especially when it comes to sequels or writing books that pick up on certain decisions you may or may not make in the game. When making a sequel or a book, the writers have to select a subset of the multiverse to continue the story, since it usually requires that at least some of the decisions were made in a certain way, for instance when it comes to who died an who lived. Still, the alternative is not rendered invalid.
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Sept 7, 2016 17:52:28 GMT
With that understanding, here are my answers: - Yes it is canon, although it would need an asterisk, much in the way a dream sequence would (e.g, DAO Warden Taint-inspired dreams). It's not an experience a character would define as reality, but since it is something the player can experience in-game, I think it meets the minimum definition of canon.
- No, I don't believe there is a significant difference. When all possible playthroughs are considered, it's just another timeline.
- Yes, as a consequence of #2, like any branch in the narrative, the dark future one is just as legit as any other path not taken. Meaning there is a branch in the narrative where Leliana dies holding the line. Nothing is "undone", that timeline exists in some way.
You have chosen a rather exotic topic, OP. I agree with your scenario and with these answers, and I would like to extend it: And a much appreciated extension it is! I had not thought about how this impacts a writer. Which is the "true" lore? Or is it better to embrace the multitude of divergent paths as all true?
|
|
Kantr
N3
Playing a lot of Divinity Original Sin 2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Kantraah
Prime Posts: 8716
Prime Likes: 3503
Posts: 379 Likes: 370
inherit
927
0
Aug 28, 2020 15:38:07 GMT
370
Kantr
Playing a lot of Divinity Original Sin 2
379
Aug 12, 2016 12:56:34 GMT
August 2016
kantr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Kantraah
8716
3503
|
Post by Kantr on Sept 7, 2016 20:54:58 GMT
The True Lore to me is a playthrough where I made all the choices I wanted correctly
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,678
gervaise21
10,795
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Sept 10, 2016 11:11:04 GMT
Every time I think about the time magic plot it seems to require more and more convoluted mental gymnastics to even come close to making sense. It is part of the reason I prefer using CoJ as my canon playthrough because the whole time magic plot is just bonkers.
However, on a more constructive line, if you opt to execute Alexius at his trial, you can say "Now I get to kill you again" and Alexius looks shocked as the implications of your words dawn on him and he replies "You mean the spell worked?" So if you take the CoJ path he never attempts to use the amulet in that way and isn't even aware it can work like that. All he keeps on doing is trying to rewind time. This has to be in a localised area (which is how they explain the anomaly with Fiona) because otherwise he would keep on changing things and you would have an infinite number of paths, all constantly rewinding. However, Dorian does say later that it is as if Alexius and Felix "never existed". So I have concluded that rather than the Venatori killing Alexius and Felix, instead he tried to send them back in time together and instead removed them both from time (from that point onwards).
Dorian says that Alexius' intent was to remove you from time altogether, which is what I base the above explanation on. This doesn't make sense to me since the whole reason Corypheus wanted to go back in time was to recover the anchor. If you are removed from time whilst still in possession of the anchor, doesn't that mean the anchor would be removed too? We also have the problem that when you get to the future, his diary indicates that he continued to attempt to wind back time to before the Conclave after he sent you into the ether. If he had been doing this then he would constantly have been starting a new time line, again getting into a time loop, so there would be no future for you to arrive in.
So simple explanation. Whatever Alexius was doing with time was actually having only very limited affect. Fiona went to Val Royeaux and returned to find Alexius awaiting her. Various members of the Venatori had also infiltrated the mage rebels, pretending to be apostates on the run. It was blood magic used by the Venatori that muddled her brain and so made her susceptible to his persuasion to accept his offer of indentured servitude. In fact having visited Val Royeaux she would have seen that the Templars were being taken to Therinfall on mass, presumably to prepare an attack on Redcliffe, which is why she decided to agree to the proposal, having been convinced by the Venatori infiltrators that the other mages supported the move. When you arrive in Redcliffe Castle and Alexius uses the amulet, that is in fact the first time it has achieved anything more than very small (minutes rather than hours or days) alterations in time. Alexius knows he has done something but is not sure what and cannot replicate it. Even the Venatori aren't convinced that it was his actions that removed you from the scene, which accounts for why they continue to torture Leliana to find out what she knows about your whereabouts. Clearly whatever he did do moved you in space as well as time, since you reappear in the dungeon instead of the throne room. When Dorian sends you back in time, it is the same time line, so the dark future never exists.
Since you can still visit Redcliffe first on the CoJ run, everything concerning your encounter with Fiona still applies. When you go to Therinfall, Alexius keeps trying to make his magic work, eventually removing both himself and Felix from time, along with his amulet. Still the same timeline as before.
The pocket freezing in time that we encounter in the Still Ruins would appear to be the same time freeze magic that Ameridan uses to entrap himself and Hakkon. It is also probably similar to the entrapment field used by Corypheus on Erasthenes. Whilst he was not frozen in time, I can see how such a force field could be adapted to work as a localised time freeze field. This would appear to be an established part of the lore now. In both the Still Ruins and in JoH people can move around in the same area as the frozen subjects and not be affected.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 10, 2016 19:10:21 GMT
You have chosen a rather exotic topic, OP. I agree with your scenario and with these answers, and I would like to extend it: And a much appreciated extension it is! I had not thought about how this impacts a writer. Which is the "true" lore? Or is it better to embrace the multitude of divergent paths as all true? I guess it depends on your perspective. When I'm roleplaying, there is one path I've taken, and though my characters are usually of the kind who tend to think about these things, their path is one nonetheless. If I'm looking at things from a game writer's perspective, all paths must be taken as true, and if I'm writing a book, I have a set of things that must be fixd and others that may remain undefined. I tend to speak of "common lore" when referring to the things that all possible playthroughs have in common.
|
|